[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17602-17619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-8055]



[[Page 17601]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 761



Reclassification of PCB and PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2001 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 17602]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 761

[OPPTS-66015B; FRL-5790-7]
RIN 2070-AC39


Reclassification of PCB and PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  EPA is amending the requirements for reclassifying 
transformers, electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators that 
contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from PCB status 
(500 parts per million (ppm)) to PCB-Contaminated 
(50 but <500 ppm) or non-PCB (<50 ppm) status; or from PCB-
Contaminated to non-PCB status. This rule brings the reclassification 
requirements into conformance with data and Agency experience gained 
since EPA last revised this regulation in 1982. The rule reduces the 
regulatory and economic burden of reclassification, and reduces the 
risk from PCBs to health and the environment by encouraging the phase-
out and removal of PCBs from electrical equipment.

DATES:  This rule is effective May 2, 2001. This rule is promulgated 
for purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m April May 2, 2001 under 40 CFR 
23.5.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For general information contact: 
Barbara Cunningham, Acting Director, Environmental Assistance Division, 
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7408), Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; 
telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: [email protected].
    For technical information contact: Tom Simons, Project Manager, 
National Program Chemicals Division (7404), Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 
260-3991; fax number: (202) 260-1724; e-mail address: 
[email protected]; or Julie Simpson, Attorney, National Program 
Chemicals Division (7404), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 260-7873; fax number: 
(202) 260-1724; e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you process, 
distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of PCBs contained in 
transformers, electromagnets, switches, voltage regulators, circuit 
breakers, reclosers, or cable. Potentially affected categories and 
entities include, but are not limited to:

                 Table 1.--Potentially Affected Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
           Categories               NAICS codes     potentially affected
                                                          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas  211111...........  Facilities that own
 Extraction.                                         electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Electric Power Generation,       2211.............  Facilities that own
 Transmission, and Distribution.                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Food Manufacturing.............  311..............  Facilities that own
                                                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Paper Manufacturing............  322..............  Facilities that own
                                                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Paper Mills....................  322121...........  Facilities that own
                                                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Newsprint Mills................  322122...........  Facilities that own
                                                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Petroleum and Coal Products      324..............  Facilities that own
 Manufacturing.                                      electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Petroleum Refining.............  32411............  Facilities that own
                                                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
All Other Petroleum and Coal     324199...........  Facilities that own
 Products Manufacturing.                             electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Chemical Manufacturing.........  325..............  Facilities that own
                                                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Primary Metal Manufacturing....  331..............  Facilities that own
                                                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Iron and Steel Mills...........  331111...........  Facilities that own
                                                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Rolled Steel Shape               331221...........  Facilities that own
 Manufacturing.                                      electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Primary Aluminum Production....  331312...........  Facilities that own
                                                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Line Haul Railroads............  482111...........  Facilities that own
                                                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Lessors of Real Estate.........  5311.............  Owners of commercial
                                                     buildings with
                                                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs
Waste Treatment and Disposal...  5622.............  Facilities that own
                                                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Materials Recovery Facilities..  56292............  Facilities that own
                                                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
Public Administration..........  92...............  Agencies that own
                                                     electrical
                                                     equipment
                                                     containing PCBs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 a technical person listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this 
Document or Other Related Documents?

    1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this 
document, and certain other related documents that might be available 
electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. 
To access this document, on the Home Page select ``Laws and 
Regulations,'' ``Regulations and Proposed Rules,'' and then look up the 
entry for this document under ``Federal Register--Environmental 
Documents.'' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings 
at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    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.
    2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for 
this action under docket control number OPPTS-66015B. The official 
record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this 
action, any public comments received during an applicable

[[Page 17603]]

comment period, and other information related to this action, including 
any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). 
This official record includes the documents that are physically located 
in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those 
documents. The public version of the official record does not include 
any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official 
record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic 
comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available 
for inspection in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, North 
East Mall Rm. B-607, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. 
The Center is open from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Center is (202) 
260-7099.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This final rule amends the requirements for reclassifying 
transformers, electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators (40 CFR 
761.30(a)(2)(v) and 761.30(h)(2)(v)). Reclassification is a voluntary 
process you can use to lower the PCB concentration in electrical 
equipment. This rule:
     Eliminates the requirement to raise the temperature of a 
transformer's dielectric fluid to at least 50 deg.Centigrade (C) .
     Eliminates the 90-day in-service use requirement for all 
transformers, electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators with a 
pre-retrofill PCB concentration <1,000 ppm.
     Allows you to reclassify PCB-Contaminated transformers, 
electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators to non-PCB status by 
retrofilling with fluid <2 ppm PCBs. The rule does not require you to 
test the equipment after 90 days.
     Requires you to keep records showing that you followed the 
required reclassification procedures, and to make these records 
available to EPA or to any party holding or possessing the equipment.
    1. What are the advantages of reclassifying electrical equipment? 
Electrical equipment containing PCBs is regulated for use based on the 
PCB concentration of its dielectric fluid. The most stringent and 
costly use conditions apply to electrical equipment containing 
dielectric fluid at PCB concentrations 500 ppm. Less 
stringent and less costly use conditions apply to PCB-Contaminated 
electrical equipment (containing 50 but <500 ppm PCBs in the 
dielectric fluid), and non-PCB electrical equipment (containing <50 ppm 
PCBs in the dielectric fluid). Reclassification allows you to take 
advantage of the less stringent and less costly use conditions that 
apply to electrical equipment at lower PCB concentrations, helps you 
avoid or reduce liability and insurance costs, and benefits health and 
the environment.
    a. Use conditions--i. Transformers. EPA originally issued the 
reclassification rules to allow the owner of a PCB Transformer (a 
transformer containing dielectric fluid at 500 ppm PCBs) to 
rebuild the transformer rather than dispose of it. Rebuilding involves 
draining and opening the transformer to service the coil and other 
internal parts, and presents the risk of PCB exposure to workers and to 
the environment. Because of this risk, since 1979 EPA has banned 
rebuilding PCB Transformers unless they were first reclassified to at 
least PCB-Contaminated status (that is, the PCB concentration of the 
dielectric fluid was reduced to <500 ppm) (Ref. 1, p. 31532).
    There are many advantages to reclassifying a PCB Transformer 
besides allowing you to rebuild it. PCB Transformers are subject to the 
following stringent use conditions, and associated costs, that do not 
apply to either PCB-Contaminated or non-PCB transformers. You can avoid 
these use conditions and costs by reclassifying the equipment.
     Marking. If you own a PCB Transformer, you must make sure 
it is marked with a `ML' (40 CFR 761.40(a)(2) and 40 CFR 
761.40(c)(1)). For example, you must mark an unlabeled PCB Transformer 
that you sell to another entity; an unmarked PCB Transformer that you 
dispose of; a transformer that you assumed was PCB-Contaminated, but 
that you test and find is contaminated at 500 ppm; or a PCB 
Transformer whose mark is missing, damaged, or incorrect. Additionally, 
you must mark the location of a PCB Transformer, including vault doors, 
machinery room doors, fences, hallways or other means of access (other 
than grates and manhole covers) (40 CFR 761.40(j)(1)). There are no 
marking requirements for PCB-Contaminated or non-PCB transformers. EPA 
estimates that you save $32.09 each time you avoid having to mark a PCB 
Transformer or its location (Ref. 2, p. 8).
     Inspections. If you own a PCB Transformer, you must 
inspect it periodically to look for leaks and other potential problems 
(40 CFR 761.30(a)(ix), (x), and (xiii)) while the unit is in use and in 
storage for reuse. There are no inspection requirements for PCB-
Contaminated or non-PCB transformers. EPA estimates that you incur 
$43.80 in annual inspection costs for each PCB Transformer you own 
(Ref. 2, pp. 8-9).
     Recordkeeping. If you own a facility that uses or stores a 
PCB Transformer, you must keep an annual document log (40 CFR 
761.180(a)). You must include in the annual document log information on 
the location and disposal status of PCBs and PCB Items at your 
facility. EPA estimates that if your facility is large, your cost to 
keep an annual document log is $1,226. Large facilities are likely to 
have several PCB Items, including PCB Transformers. You do not have to 
include a reclassified in-service transformer in the annual document 
log. EPA expects that not having to include a reclassified transformer 
in the annual document log would result in cost savings, but is unable 
to quantify those savings for an individual transformer (Ref. 2, p. 9).
    In addition, the regulations restrict the use of PCB Transformers 
near food or feed and in commercial buildings (40 CFR 761.30(a)(1)(i) 
through (v), 40 CFR 761.30(a)(1)(vii), 40 CFR 761.30(a)(1)(xiv)). PCB 
Transformers are subject to registration with EPA (40 CFR 
761.30(a)(1)(vi)). You may not store combustible materials in a PCB 
Transformer enclosure or within 5 meters of an unenclosed PCB 
Transformer (40 CFR 761.30(a)(1)(viii)). If a PCB Transformer is 
involved in a fire-related incident, the owner of the transformer must 
immediately report the incident to the National Response Center (40 CFR 
761.30(a)(1)(xi)). If a PCB Transformer leaks, you must initiate clean-
up within 48 hours (40 CFR 761.30(x)). Finally, the owner of a PCB 
Transformer must keep records of inspection and maintenance for at 
least 3 years after disposing of a PCB Transformer (40 CFR 
761.30(a)(1)(xii)). The PCB Transformer owner may avoid these 
restrictions and requirements by reclassifying the transformer to PCB-
Contaminated or non-PCB status.
    ii. Electromagnets. You may not use or store for reuse 
electromagnets containing 500 ppm PCBs that pose a risk to 
food or feed (40 CFR 761.30(h)(1)(i)). This prohibition does not apply 
to electromagnets that contain <500 ppm PCBs.
    iii. Voltage regulators. Voltage regulators containing 1.36 
kilograms (3 lb.) or more of dielectric fluid 500 ppm PCBs 
are subject to essentially the same marking, inspection, recordkeeping, 
and fire-reporting requirements as PCB Transformers (40 CFR 
761.30(h)(1)(ii)). These requirements do not apply to

[[Page 17604]]

voltage regulators that contain <500 ppm PCBs.
    b. Liability and insurance costs. Reclassification can help you 
avoid or reduce liability and insurance costs. Liability may result 
from catastrophic events such as explosions or fires, leaks or spills, 
or from improper handling or disposal of PCB waste. In addition, the 
risk of such events may increase your insurance costs. Dielectric fluid 
released from electrical equipment under any of these scenarios is 
unregulated for disposal if its concentration is <50 ppm PCBs, which it 
is likely to be if you have reclassified the equipment to non-PCB 
status. Therefore, cleanup of spills or releases from electrical 
equipment reclassified to non-PCB status is likely to be less costly 
and subject to less liability than if you had not reclassified the 
equipment.
    c. Environmental benefits. Finally, reclassification of electrical 
equipment benefits health and the environment. Lower PCB concentrations 
in reclassified equipment reduce the risk to workers who may be exposed 
while using or servicing the equipment. Spills from reclassified 
equipment release less PCBs to the environment and present less of a 
risk during cleanup and disposal. PCBs removed from the equipment 
during reclassification are disposed of under existing requirements at 
40 CFR part 761, subpart D, and thus are not released to the 
environment.
    2. What do the current reclassification regulations require? Under 
the current rules for reclassifying electrical equipment containing 
PCBs:
     You may reclassify a transformer, electromagnet, switch, 
or voltage regulator with a PCB concentration 500 ppm to 
PCB-Contaminated status by reducing the PCB concentration in the 
equipment's dielectric fluid to <500 ppm.
     You may reclassify a transformer, electromagnet, switch, 
or voltage regulator with a PCB concentration 500 ppm, or a 
transformer, electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator classified as 
PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment, to non-PCB status by reducing 
the PCB concentration in the equipment's dielectric fluid to <50 ppm.
     You must operate the equipment under loaded conditions 
(i.e., place it in in-service use) for 90 days after the last servicing 
conducted to reduce the PCB concentration in the equipment. The 
equipment's dielectric fluid must contain the specified PCB 
concentration at the end of this period.
     For electromagnets, switches, or voltage regulators, ``in-
service use'' means the equipment is used electrically under loaded 
conditions. For transformers, ``in-service use'' means the transformer 
is used electrically under loaded conditions that raise the temperature 
of the dielectric fluid to at least 50 deg.C.
    Table 2 summarizes the current requirements for reclassifying 
electrical equipment.

                      Table 2.--Current Requirements for Reclassifying Electrical Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           and test results
   If the PCB concentration                             and, if your         show the PCB          then the
 (ppm) in the equipment prior     and you . . .        equipment is a    concentration (ppm)      equipment's
       to retrofill is                               transformer . . .    after retrofill is     reclassified
                                                                                . . .              status is
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500                 operate the          operation under      50 but    PCB-Contaminated
                                equipment under      loaded conditions    <500
                                loaded conditions    raises the
                                for at least 90      temperature of the
                                days after           dielectric fluid
                                retrofill            to at least 50
                                                     deg.C
------------------------------                                          ----------------------------------------
                                                                         <50                  non-PCB
 
50 but <500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current rules governing reclassification of transformers are at 40 
CFR 761.30(a)(2)(v); rules governing reclassification of 
electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators are at 40 CFR 
761.30(h)(2)(v). The rules governing reclassification of 
electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators also apply to circuit 
breakers, reclosers, and cable (40 CFR 761.30(m)(1)(ii)).
    The current rules also allow EPA to approve the use of alternate 
methods that simulate loaded conditions of in-service use. Requests for 
reclassifying transformers using an alternate method had typically 
involved simulating in-service use or requesting that the temperature 
requirement of 50 deg.C for 90 days be waived. It has been EPA's 
experience that these requests were typically necessary when a 
transformer had failed, is not on line because it is being serviced or 
is in storage for reuse as a back-up unit, or for some other reason 
could not be operated under normal loaded conditions.
    3. Why did EPA propose to change the requirements? After EPA 
promulgated the original reclassification rule in 1982, the Agency 
received information that raised questions about whether the 50 deg.C 
requirement, the in-service use requirement, and the 90-day period for 
testing after retrofill were necessary for an effective 
reclassification. This unit discusses the new information and EPA's 
assessment of whether it warrants a change in the current 
reclassification requirements at Sec. Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v) and 
761.30(h)(2)(v).
    a. New information--i. The 1986 study. An industry-sponsored study 
of 18 retrofilled PCB-Contaminated transformers was conducted in 1986 
to determine what effect, if any, electrical loading had on removing 
PCBs from the core and coil of a drained, flushed, and refilled 
distribution transformer (Ref. 3). The study concluded that electrical 
loading had no significant effect on PCB levels. The refilled fluid in 
all the sampled transformers remained <50 ppm.
    EPA's independent analyses also concluded that the study showed no 
discernable relationship between transformer temperature, transformer 
loading, and the rate of leaching (``leaching'' refers to the migration 
of PCBs from the transformer core and coils into the dielectric fluid) 
(Refs. 4 and 5). EPA also noted that the most important factor in the 
post-retrofill concentration of the transformer was the pre-retrofill 
concentration of the dielectric fluid. Another important factor was the 
length of time between retrofill and sampling--the results of the study 
generally confirmed EPA's belief that near asymptotic (eventual) PCB 
concentrations are achieved by 90 days after retrofill (Ref. 4). EPA 
also found that the study showed that within 7 days after retrofill the 
PCB concentration in the dielectric fluid had already achieved a 
relatively high

[[Page 17605]]

proportion of the level attained at 90 days. Increases in PCB 
concentrations after the first 7 days were gradual and fairly 
consistent from transformer to transformer (Refs. 4 and 5).
    ii. The 1989 study. A larger industry-sponsored report analyzed 
data on 387 retrofilled transformers with concentrations <1,000 ppm 
collected from several dozen utility companies (Ref. 6). The report 
concluded that the percent of PCB reduction in a retrofilled 
transformer was not significantly related to its size (KVA rating), 
whether the transformer was energized, whether it was loaded, or 
whether the internal temperature reached 50 deg.C. The report found 
that whether the transformer was flushed was a significant factor, but 
only for transformers with pre-retrofill concentrations 100 
ppm PCBs.
    EPA's analysis of the report focused on 263 transformers for which 
the data were complete (Ref. 4). Of these 263 transformers, 175 had 
pre-retrofill PCB concentrations of 50 but <500 ppm; the 
remaining 88 retrofilled transformers had pre-retrofill PCB 
concentrations 500 but <1,000 ppm. All the transformers were 
retrofilled with fluid containing <2 ppm PCBs, and were tested for PCB 
concentration shortly after retrofill. After 90 days of in-service use, 
during which the temperature of the dielectric fluid reached 50 deg.C 
in some, but not all, of the transformers, the PCB concentrations were 
tested again. All but one of the 175 PCB-Contaminated transformers 
contained <50 ppm PCBs, and the concentration of that one was 53 ppm. 
Of the 88 PCB Transformers, all but eight (9.0%) had post-retrofill 
concentrations <50 ppm after 90 days, and the mean post-retrofill 
concentration for these eight transformers was 64.4 ppm. The results of 
EPA's analysis were generally consistent with those of the report's 
author. The only variable which EPA found to be related to post-
retrofill PCB level was the number of days between pre-retrofill and 
post-retrofill testing. EPA's analysis concluded that these data showed 
that a properly conducted retrofill was very likely to reduce PCB 
dielectric oil concentrations to <50 ppm in transformers that had pre-
retrofill levels <500 ppm; and that over 90% of transformers with pre-
retrofill levels 500 but <1,000 ppm had 90-day test 
concentrations <50 ppm.
    iii. Other information. EPA evaluated two additional sets of data 
on transformers that had been retrofilled and tested more than 90 days 
after retrofill (Ref. 4). The data did not specify how the retrofill 
was conducted or the conditions under which the transformers were 
operated after retrofill, so their usefulness for establishing 
regulatory requirements is limited.
    In addition, information submitted to EPA orally and in writing 
indicated that many transformers, even under normal operating 
conditions, might never reach 50 deg.C because of the design 
limitations of the equipment, equipment failure, low ambient 
temperatures, or transformer loading restrictions. In addition, this 
information suggested that there are drawbacks associated with 
attempting to comply with the 50 deg.C temperature requirement by 
simulating in-service use of the transformers. These include safety 
risks to maintenance personnel, fire hazards associated with energizing 
or insulating equipment which is not designed to withstand heavy loads 
or increased temperatures, and the economic and resource commitment 
that must be borne by the transformer owners (Refs. 7, 8, 9, and 10).
    b. EPA's assessment of the new information. Review of this new 
information led EPA to believe that changes to the reclassification 
requirements might be warranted (Refs. 4 and 5).
    i. The 50 deg.C requirement. EPA originally based the 50 deg.C 
requirement on a 1981 study showing that this temperature was 
associated with light electrical loading and that it caused the release 
of PCBs from the internal components of transformers into the 
dielectric fluid (Refs. 8 and 11). EPA's independent analyses of the 
1986 and 1989 studies concluded that they showed no discernable 
relationship between transformer temperature and leachback rate. Other 
information discussed in Unit II.A.3.a.iii. raised questions about the 
practicability, safety, and necessity of this requirement. EPA believed 
that the data showed that the rate of migration of PCBs into the 
dielectric fluid appeared not to be greatly affected by the 
transformer's temperature, and that the difficulties and dangers 
associated with meeting this criterion supported eliminating the 
50 deg.C requirement.
    ii. The in-service use requirement. EPA's independent analyses of 
the 1986 and 1989 studies concluded that whether a transformer <1,000 
ppm PCBs was loaded or energized did not significantly affect its post-
retrofill concentration. The data showed that PCB levels in these 
transformers measured shortly after retrofill, but before being placed 
in service, had nearly reached their asymptotic PCB level. These 
studies therefore supported eliminating the in-service use requirement 
for transformers <1,000 ppm.
    iii. Properly conducted retrofill. The studies showed that, in PCB-
Contaminated transformers, a properly conducted retrofill substantially 
reduced the PCB concentration in the dielectric fluid. This is 
particularly well-demonstrated in the case of PCB-Contaminated 
transformers. During a properly conducted retrofill, the transformer 
was drained, flushed, and refilled with dielectric fluid <2 ppm PCBs. 
The studies supported requiring a properly conducted retrofill as part 
of the reclassification process.
    iv. Testing after 21 days. The 1986 study data showed that a high 
proportion of the asymptotic PCB concentration was attained very soon 
after retrofill. After the first week, continued increases in PCB 
concentrations occurred gradually and predictably. The increase in PCB 
concentration was generally consistent from transformer to transformer, 
and from one make or model to another. In general, the longer the 
period after retrofill when sampling was conducted, the more reliable 
the estimate of the eventual PCB level. Sampling at 3 weeks provided a 
more reliable estimate than at 1 week. These data supported allowing 
testing shortly after retrofill for transformers <1,000 ppm PCBs.
    4. What changes to the reclassification requirements did EPA 
propose? In the Federal Register of November 18, 1993 (Ref. 12), EPA 
proposed to amend the PCB rules governing the reclassification of 
transformers to:
     Eliminate the requirement to raise the temperature of a 
transformer's dielectric fluid to at least 50 deg.C.
     Eliminate the 90-day in-service use requirement for all 
transformers with a pre-retrofill PCB concentration <1,000 ppm.
     Require you to test a transformer to determine its PCB 
concentration prior to retrofill.
     Require a ``properly conducted retrofill''--draining the 
PCB dielectric fluid, flushing with dielectric fluid <2 ppm PCBs or 
with a solvent in which PCBs were at least 5% soluble by weight using 
no less than 10% of the volume of the transformer, and retrofilling 
with <2 ppm dielectric fluid.
     Allow you to initially test a transformer with a pre-
retrofill PCB concentration <1,000 ppm after 21 days, rather than 90 
days, after a properly conducted retrofill. If post-retrofill test 
results showed a PCB concentration 25 to <500 ppm, you could 
reclassify the transformer to PCB-Contaminated status. If the results 
were <25 ppm, you could reclassify the transformer to non-PCB status.

[[Page 17606]]

     Allow you to immediately reclassify, with no 90-day post-
retrofill test, a PCB- Contaminated transformer to non-PCB status, 
after a properly conducted retrofill.
    Table 3 summarizes the proposed changes to the requirements for 
reclassifying transformers.

                  Table 3.--Proposed Changes to the Requirements for Reclassifying Transformers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           and test results
 If test results show the PCB                                                show the PCB          then the
  concentration (ppm) in the      and you . . .        and you . . .     concentration (ppm)     transformer's
     transformer prior to                                                 after retrofill is     reclassified
      retrofill is . . .                                                        . . .           status is . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000               drain the PCB        operate the          50 but    PCB-Contaminated
                                dielectric fluid     transformer under    <500
                                from the             loaded conditions
                                transformer; flush   for at least 90
                                the transformer      days after
                                with dielectric      retrofill
                                fluid <2 ppm PCBs
                                or with a solvent
                                in which PCBs are
                                at least 5%
                                soluble by weight
                                using no less than
                                10% of the volume
                                of the
                                transformer; and
                                refill the
                                transformer with
                                <2 ppm dielectric
                                fluid.
------------------------------                                          ----------------------------------------
                                                                         <50                  non-PCB
                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------
500 but <1,000                           operate the          25 but    PCB-Contaminated
                                                     transformer under    <500
                                                     loaded conditions
                                                     for at least 21
                                                     days after
                                                     retrofill
                                                                        ----------------------------------------
                                                                         <25                  non-PCB
------------------------------                     ------------------------------------------
50 but <500                              (not applicable)     (no need to test)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also proposed to:
     Regulate a reclassified transformer based on its actual 
concentration if testing showed that the actual concentration had 
increased after reclassification, but allow the owner to repeat the 
reclassification process.
     Require you to keep records of the transformer's pre-
retrofill PCB concentration, the retrofill and reclassification 
schedule and procedure, and the transformer's post-retrofill PCB 
concentration.
     Require the PCB dielectric fluid drained from the 
equipment to be stored, manifested, and disposed of according to 
existing requirements for PCB waste.
    EPA did not propose to change the requirements for reclassifying 
electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators, but solicited 
comments on whether to treat this equipment like transformers for 
purposes of reclassification (Ref. 12, p. 60973). The current 
regulations at Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v) allow you to reclassify voltage 
regulators, switches and electromagnets that are 500 ppm 
PCBs to non-PCB or PCB-Contaminated status.
    EPA also requested comment on whether to consider a transformer's 
Kilovolt-ampere (KVA) rating in determining what kind of 
reclassification process would be required (Ref. 12, p. 60972). EPA had 
received information that distribution transformers with a KVA rating 
of 500 or less are not required to have sampling valves and are 
therefore difficult to sample after retrofill (Ref. 13).
    5. What comments did EPA receive on the proposed rule? EPA accepted 
written comments on the proposed rule for 45 days after its 
publication. On March 9, 1994, EPA held a public hearing on the 
proposed rule in Washington, DC, where the agency took oral comments 
(Ref. 20). An additional period for written reply comments followed the 
hearing. Copies of all written comments and a transcript of the hearing 
are in the official record for this rulemaking. These documents are 
available to you as part of the public version of the official record 
for this final rule. To learn how to get copies of these documents, see 
Unit I.B. The following discussion addresses significant issues raised 
by the commenters, EPA's reaction to those comments, and how these 
comments affected the outcome of this final rule. Comments raising each 
issue are identified in parentheses by the designation assigned each 
comment by the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center staff.
    a.  Drop the 50 deg.C requirement. The current reclassification 
rule requires you to operate a retrofilled transformer under conditions 
that would raise the temperature of the dielectric fluid to at least 
50 deg.C. Many commenters favored EPA's proposal to eliminate this 
requirement. Commenters agreed that the data discussed in Unit II.A.3. 
show that temperature has a minimal, if any, effect on the amount of 
PCBs recovered when a transformer is drained and refilled with non-PCB 
fluid. They also noted the practical difficulties and safety risks 
associated with attempting to comply with this requirement (C1-007, C1-
008, C1-009, C1-011, C1-012, C1-014, C1-024, C1-033, C1-034, C1-035, 
C1-036, C1-037, C1-038, C1-039, C1-041, C1-043, C1-045, C1-046, C1-048, 
C1-050, C1-052, and C1-054) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60). The final rule 
follows the proposal in eliminating the 50 deg.C requirement.
    b. Drop the in-service use requirement for equipment <1,000 ppm 
PCBs. Most commenters did not object to EPA's proposal to drop the in-
service use requirement for transformers <1,000 ppm PCBs. However, one 
commenter supported maintaining the in-service use requirement for all 
transformers (C1-047) (Ref. 20, pp. 29-43). The commenter also asked 
EPA to define ``in-service use'' and ``under loaded conditions.'' The 
commenter was concerned that retrofilled transformers might be put back 
into in-service use

[[Page 17607]]

under conditions where there was significant voltage in the equipment, 
but no measurable electric current to ensure the movement of fluid 
through the internal components of the equipment; and that, without 
this movement, the levels of PCBs in the fluid might rise after 
retrofilling due to the retention of PCBs in the fluid remaining in the 
coil.
    The commenter submitted results of experiments conducted to 
determine the effectiveness of triple rinsing in reducing the PCB 
concentration of fluids retained within the core and coils of mineral 
oil-filled electrical equipment. In one experiment, two transformers 
containing fluid at 128 and 282 ppm PCBs respectively were triple 
rinsed with <2 ppm PCB fluid. Then the transformers were disassembled 
and the fluid and core were tested. In one transformer, the PCB 
concentration of the fluid was 13 ppm and the concentration of the core 
was 58 ppm. In the other transformer, the concentration of the fluid 
was 6 ppm and the concentration of the core was 75 ppm. The second 
experiment used a hot oil flush a varied number of times in 3 
transformers with PCB concentrations >400 ppm. The concentrations of 
the rinse oil after the last flush ranged from 9 to 22 ppm PCBs, and 
the residual concentrations in the core and coil assemblies ranged from 
105 to 204 ppm PCBs. The commenter asserted that these experiments 
supported their concern that lack of loading could cause PCB 
concentrations to rise after retrofilling due to the retention of PCBs 
in the oil remaining in the coil. The commenter urged EPA to ensure 
that the PCB concentration of the oil in the coils was not still above 
regulated levels prior to reclassification of the equipment (C2-005).
    EPA has never formally defined the terms ``in-service use'' or 
``under loaded conditions,'' nor did it propose to. Placing equipment 
back into in-service use or operating it under loaded conditions means 
simply that, after retrofill, you must operate the equipment under its 
normal operating conditions, whatever they may be. As the commenter 
correctly pointed out, the purpose of putting the equipment back into 
in-service use was to circulate the oil in the equipment to remove PCBs 
from the inner workings of the equipment. Based on the data discussed 
in Unit II.A.3., this final rule does not require you to operate 
equipment containing <1,000 ppm PCBs under loaded conditions. At the 
same time, this rule does not allow you to reclassify equipment 
containing PCBs 50 ppm simply by rinsing, flushing, or 
retrofilling it (except for PCB-Contaminated equipment retrofilled with 
fluid <2 ppm). You must allow 90 days after retrofill for leaching to 
occur and then test the equipment to determine its post-retrofill 
concentration. The commenter's study, which tested only the 
effectiveness of flushing a transformer, does not demonstrate that the 
reclassification process required by the final rule for equipment 
<1,000 ppm PCBs (removing the free-flowing liquid from the equipment, 
refilling the equipment, and testing the fluid after 90 days) will not 
result in an effective reclassification.
    Another commenter believed the in-service use requirement was 
necessary so that PCBs would leach adequately from the transformer's 
porous insulation into the newly retrofilled liquid (C1-001) (Ref. 20, 
pp. 8-29). The commenter correctly noted that the studies referenced in 
EPA's proposed rule did not measure the PCB level in the porous inner 
parts of a reclassified transformer. The commenter was concerned that 
workers dismantling a ``non-PCB'' reclassified transformer could be 
exposed to PCBs 500 ppm. EPA has not adopted this suggestion 
because the data discussed in Unit II.A.3. support allowing 
reclassification without in-service use for equipment <1,000 ppm PCBs 
while the equipment is in use. The reclassification procedure is a form 
of servicing to reduce the risks from PCBs during continued use. It 
does not determine equipment's concentration at the time of disposal. 
You should verify the equipment's PCB concentration at the time of 
disposal to ensure that you manage and dispose of it properly. An added 
safeguard to proper disposal is the disposal industry's practice of 
testing waste at the disposal facility.
    Several commenters took issue with the statement in the preamble to 
the proposed rule that most substation transformers contain 
1,000 ppm PCBs (Ref. 12, p. 60972). The commenters asked EPA 
to correct this statement in the final rule (C1-007, C1-011, C1-020, 
C1-024, C1-035, C1-036, and C1-045). EPA made the statement based on 
data available at the time of the proposed rule, as part of its 
rationale for dropping the in-service use requirement for transformers 
<1,000 ppm PCBs, but not for transformers 1,000 ppm. EPA 
believed that small distribution transformers, which are difficult and 
dangerous to sample after having been reconnected, are likely to 
contain <1,000 ppm PCBs, while large substation transformers, which can 
be sampled more conveniently and safely, generally contain 
1,000 ppm PCBs. EPA is retaining the in-service use 
requirement for all equipment 1,000 ppm, but, in light of 
these comments, is not basing the requirement on assumptions about the 
concentration of substation transformers. EPA is relying on the data 
discussed in Unit II.A.3. in retaining the in-service use requirement 
for equipment 1,000 ppm, whether or not the equipment is a 
substation transformer. These data do not support dropping the 
requirement for this equipment, and commenters did not supply 
additional data to support such a change.
    A commenter asked EPA to clarify that the rule covers Askarel 
transformers as well as mineral oil-filled transformers (C1-040). You 
may reclassify equipment regardless of the type of dielectric fluid it 
contains. Virtually all Askarel transformers will have PCB 
concentrations 1,000 ppm prior to reclassification. For 
equipment 1,000 ppm PCBs, you must operate the equipment for 
at least 90 days after retrofill, under loaded conditions, and retest 
the dielectric fluid. The equipment is regulated based on this post-
reclassification PCB concentration.
    Finally, a commenter suggested eliminating the 90-day in-service 
use requirement for all oil-filled electrical equipment, regardless of 
concentration, that does not contain a core (C1-038). The commenter did 
not support this suggestion with data showing that it would be 
effective for equipment 1,000 ppm, so EPA is not adopting 
it.
    i.  Allow immediate reclassification of PCB-Contaminated equipment 
to non-PCB status. Under the proposed rule, if you removed all free-
flowing PCB dielectric fluid from a piece of PCB-Contaminated equipment 
and refilled the equipment with dielectric fluid containing <2 ppm 
PCBs, the equipment would be immediately reclassified to non-PCB status 
without being placed in in-service use (that is, operated under loaded 
conditions). The final rule retains this provision, which most comments 
on this issue supported (C1-009, C1-037, C1-045, C1-048, and C1-052) 
(Ref. 20, pp. 8-29). (See Unit II.A.5.b. for a discussion of a comment 
that supported maintaining the in-service use requirement for all 
transformers.)
    ii. Modify the 90-day in-service use requirement for equipment 
1,000 ppm PCBs. One commenter stated that they do not 
continuously use their 1,000 ppm PCB Transformers, and 
therefore would not be able to meet the continuous 90-day in-service 
use requirement included in the proposed rule. The commenter requested 
that EPA allow for cumulative time in service in the final rule (C1-
008). Another commenter stated that it had one-of-a-

[[Page 17608]]

kind transformers that are in storage for reuse as backups to the 
equipment on line. These backups might never get on line and, 
therefore, might never be able to meet the 90-day in-service use 
requirement for equipment 1,000 ppm (C1-030). The commenter 
suggested that EPA allow equipment that has been properly retrofilled 
to be tested at an interval to be determined by EPA.
    EPA is not adopting these suggestions. The effectiveness of these 
alternate reclassification methods could depend on factors such as the 
equipment's pre-retrofill PCB concentration, the amount of fluid 
replaced, and the length of the intervals the equipment was in service 
and out of service. EPA would need to look at each case individually. 
If you wish to use a method of reclassification that differs from the 
method in the final rule, you may request an approval from the Director 
of the National Program Chemicals Division under 
Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v)(C) or Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v)(C).
    iii.  Do not require all retrofilled transformers to be installed. 
A commenter asked EPA to clarify Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B) (formerly 
Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(C)(2)(iii)). That provision refers to 
transformers that are ``installed'' for reclassification. The commenter 
noted that under the proposal, not all transformers would have to be 
installed as part of reclassification, only those 1,000 ppm 
PCBs (C1-017).
    The purpose of Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B) is to authorize the 
installation of retrofilled transformers where installation is required 
for reclassification. Without this authorization, installation would be 
prohibited under Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(iii). You need not install a 
transformer as part of reclassification unless required to do so under 
Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v), notwithstanding Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B).
    The proposed rule would have deleted all but the first sentence of 
Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B). The purpose of this change was to remove 
language that would have conflicted with EPA's proposal to allow 
reclassification after 21 days for transformers 500 but 
<1,000 ppm PCBs. Since EPA is not finalizing this provision of the 
proposal (see Unit II.A.5.c.iii.), the final rule leaves the current 
language of Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B) intact.
    c. Drop the post-retrofill 90 day testing requirement--i. Allow 
immediate reclassification of equipment < 500 ppm PCBs. Under the 
proposed rule, if you removed all free-flowing PCB dielectric fluid 
from a piece of PCB-Contaminated equipment and refilled the equipment 
with dielectric fluid containing <2 ppm PCBs, the equipment would be 
immediately reclassified to non-PCB status without further testing. The 
final rule retains this provision, which most comments on this issue 
supported (C1-007, C1-008, C1-014, C1-015, C1-036, C1-037, C1-039, C1-
041, C1-043, C1-045, C1-046, C1-048, C1-050, and C1-052) (Ref. 20, pp. 
8-29, 44-60). (See Unit II.A.5.c.v. for a comment recommending 
retesting until there is no increase in PCB concentration in at least 
two consecutive tests.)
    ii. Allow retrofill with fluid <50 ppm PCBs. Commenters also wanted 
the option of retrofilling equipment with fluid <50 ppm PCBs (C1-037 
and C1-054). Allowing retrofilling with fluid at this slightly higher 
PCB concentration would save costs and would not add to 
reclassification risks where testing was required after retrofill. 
Therefore, the final rule allows you to reclassify equipment using 
retrofill fluid <50 ppm PCBs, however testing is also required to 
ensure that the PCB concentration has been sufficiently reduced and the 
reclassification has been successful. If it has not, you may either 
repeat the reclassification process or treat the equipment as regulated 
at its actual concentration as reflected in the test.
    iii. Do not allow reclassification based on 25 ppm after 21 days 
for equipment 500 but <1,000 ppm. Under the proposed rule, 
you could have tested transformers with a PCB concentration 
500 but <1,000 ppm after 21 days rather than after 90 days 
following a properly conducted retrofill. Then, if the results of the 
post-retrofill test were <25 ppm PCBs, you could have reclassified the 
transformer to non-PCB status. If the results were 25 but 
<500 ppm PCBs, you could have reclassified it to PCB-Contaminated 
status.
    Commenters were generally opposed to this provision. Most saw it as 
creating a new category of PCB-Contaminated transformer (25 
but <500 ppm), and pointed out that this new category would create 
confusion, particularly in the application of the Spill Cleanup Policy 
(where a spill of 25 but <50 ppm would have to be 
categorized for purposes of cleanup as 50 but <500 ppm) (C1-
002, C1-006, C1-011, C1-027, C1-032, C1-036, C1-038, and C1-041). 
Another commenter stated that this provision would allow high 
concentrations of PCBs to remain in the porous inner parts of the 
transformer (C1-001). Others believed the 25 ppm level was arbitrary, 
or might be unreasonably low based on the available data (C1-024, C1-
039, and C1-048). A commenter asked EPA to clarify how these 
transformers should be labeled and stored during the 21-day period (C1-
017). Other commenters favored the provision, but thought the 25 ppm 
threshold was overly conservative (C1-023, C1-024, and C1-051).
    After re-examining the data discussed in Unit II.A.3. and these 
comments, EPA has not included this provision in the final rule. In the 
1989 study, PCB concentrations in a significant percentage (9%) of 
transformers with pre-retrofill concentrations 500 but 
<1,000 ppm tested <50 ppm at 21 days, but continued to rise, and when 
retested after 90 days showed PCB concentrations 50 ppm. 
Therefore, in this final rule, EPA is requiring that transformers with 
a pre-retrofill concentration of 500 but <1,000 ppm PCBs be 
tested to determine PCB concentration 90 days after retrofill.
    iv. Allow reclassification based on testing after 21 days for 
transformers with PCB concentrations 1,000 ppm. Commenters 
suggested that the reclassification procedures proposed for equipment 
500 but <1,000 ppm be applied to at least some equipment at 
concentrations 1,000 ppm. This would allow equipment at 
higher concentrations to be tested after 21 days of in-service use as 
opposed to 90 days (C1-023 and C1-030). One commenter suggested that 
these classification procedures apply to equipment containing up to 
5,000 ppm PCBs. The commenter theorized that since the data EPA relied 
on in the proposed rule indicated that most equipment retains less than 
8% of the original PCB concentration after retrofill, EPA could raise 
the upper limit as high as 6,200 ppm (6,200 ppm x 0.08 = 496 ppm). For 
the reasons discussed in Unit II.A.5.c.iii., EPA is not including the 
21-day provision in the final rule. EPA therefore is not adopting this 
suggestion.
    Likewise, EPA is not adopting commenters' suggestion to eliminate 
the 90-day test after retrofill for transformers 1,000 ppm 
PCBs, especially for mineral oil transformers less than 500 KVA (C1-035 
and C1-036). The data discussed in Unit II.A.3. support amending the 
reclassification requirements for electrical equipment <1,000 ppm PCBs, 
not for equipment at higher concentrations. The commenter did not 
support this suggestion with data, so EPA is not adopting it.
    v. Require testing to be repeated until there is no increase in 
concentration. One commenter stated that, since leachback occurs, 
retesting should be conducted at regular intervals until there is no 
increase in PCB concentration in at least two consecutive tests. The 
commenter also argued that reliance on a single test taken at 21 days, 
or even at 90 days, can

[[Page 17609]]

lead to improper disposal based on the assumption that the equipment 
has maintained that concentration over time (C1-047) (Ref. 20, pp. 29-
43).
    EPA recognizes that even after a properly conducted 
reclassification procedure, the concentration of reclassified equipment 
may rise. The final rule at Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v)(B) and 
Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v)(B) clarifies that if the PCB concentration in the 
fluid of reclassified equipment changes, causing the equipment's 
reclassified status to change, the equipment is regulated based on the 
actual concentration of the fluid. The final rule allows you time to 
come into compliance with requirements for a transformer or voltage 
regulator you discover contains 500 ppm PCBs. The rule also 
allows you to repeat the reclassification procedure.
    Finally, the reclassification procedure is a form of servicing to 
reduce the risks of continued use. It does not determine equipment's 
concentration for disposal. You should verify the equipment's PCB 
concentration at the time of disposal to ensure that you dispose of it 
properly. An added safeguard to proper disposal is the disposal 
industry's practice of testing waste at the disposal facility. EPA does 
not believe that continuous testing of reclassified equipment while in 
use is necessary to ensure proper disposal.
    d. Define ``properly conducted retrofill.'' A commenter requested 
that EPA define the term ``properly conducted retrofill'' or provide 
further clarification on the process (C1-036). EPA is not using this 
term in the final rule. Instead, the reclassification process described 
at Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v) and Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v) includes all the 
required steps for reclassifying electrical equipment, including the 
requirements for retrofilling.
    i.  Clarify how to drain equipment prior to retrofill. A comment 
suggested that EPA prescribe what draining means procedurally, i.e., 
whether there is a certain amount of time that should elapse when 
draining the free-flowing liquid from a piece of equipment, and whether 
there are other methods one could use to remove the fluid (C1-014).
    The purpose of draining is to remove as much as possible of the 
original dielectric fluid from the equipment prior to retrofill. 
Removing this free-flowing liquid increases the likelihood of a 
successful reclassification. EPA is not requiring that a specific 
amount of time elapse or that a specific method be used to remove the 
fluid from the equipment. You may use any method that removes the 
fluid, such as draining or pumping. An extended or second draining or 
pumping may be prudent to remove as much of the free-flowing fluid as 
possible. To reduce confusion, the final rule requires you to 
``remove'' rather than ``drain'' the fluid from the equipment prior to 
retrofill.
    You must either test the fluid prior to initiating a 
reclassification procedure or assume that it is 1,000 ppm 
PCBs. You may not use the ``assumption rule'' at Sec. 761.2 to classify 
mineral oil filled equipment as PCB-Contaminated (50 but 
<500 ppm PCBs) for purposes of reclassification under this rule. Nor 
may you batch test the fluid from several pieces of equipment and use 
those test results to classify all of the equipment.
    ii. Do not require flushing as part of a ``properly conducted 
retrofill.'' Several commenters were strongly opposed to including 
flushing as part of the reclassification procedure. They stated that 
flushing provided no significant benefit because it only removed 
superficial surface residues, and that flushing generated additional 
waste, which is counter to the Agency's waste minimization efforts (C1-
007, C1-008, C1-045, C1-046, and C2-001) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60).
    Other commenters recommended that if the provision were maintained, 
the process should be revised. Some suggested reducing the flush volume 
from 10% to 5% of the volume of the transformer, or limiting the flush 
volume to a maximum of 500 gallons (C1-007, C1-036, and C1-046). Some 
commenters pointed out that the proposal to estimate flush volume based 
on the transformer's height, width, and depth would not account for 
volume displaced by the core and coils. They recommended estimating 10% 
of the volume of the equipment based on the volume of fluid removed or 
80% of total volume (C1-007, C1-020, and C1-050).
    Other comments suggested that EPA allow the use of flush material 
at PCB concentrations up to 50 ppm, rather than <2 ppm. One commenter 
wanted to know whether the flush material could be disposed of based on 
its ``as is'' PCB concentration as opposed to the original 
concentration of the equipment it was used to flush. Lastly, commenters 
felt that flushing should be optional for PCB Transformers 
1,000 ppm where post-retrofill testing is required (C1-007 
and C1-008).
    Based on the data discussed in Unit II.A.3. and the comments, this 
final rule does not require flushing as part of the reclassification 
procedure. The data show that flushing provided only about a 7% 
difference in PCB reduction compared to equipment that was not flushed 
(Refs. 4 and 6). In addition, as commenters pointed out, flushing 
creates additional waste, which is counter to the Agency's waste 
minimization efforts. Nonetheless, you may flush equipment prior to 
retrofill, and the final rule prescribes neither the concentration nor 
the volume of flush material you must use. You may dispose of the flush 
material ``as is'', i.e., based on its concentration after the flushing 
procedure has been completed, not based on the concentration of the 
equipment prior to the flush. (See 40 CFR 761.79(g).)
    e. Do not make KVA a factor in the reclassification procedure. In 
the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA asked for comment on whether KVA 
rating, in addition to or separately from pre-retrofill concentration, 
should be taken into account in determining transformer 
reclassification requirements. EPA had requested comment on this issue 
based on information provided by a utility that distribution 
transformers with a KVA rating of 500 or less are not required to have 
sampling valves, and that sampling these units outside of the shop 
environment is precarious. The utility therefore suggested that EPA not 
require post-retrofill testing of distribution transformers 500 KVA and 
below (Ref. 12, p. 60972, and Ref. 13).
    There was little consensus among the commenters on this question. 
Some commenters noted that there were no data indicating a relationship 
between PCB concentration and KVA rating, or demonstrating a 
relationship between KVA rating and the effectiveness of a retrofill 
(C1-007, C1-008, C1-014, C1-024, C1-041, and C1-045) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-
60). One commenter stated that the current post-retrofill testing 
requirements have not placed an undue burden on industry (C1-040). 
Other commenters favored taking KVA into consideration, stating that 
transformers larger than 500 KVA are generally designed to allow in-
service sampling of their oil, while transformers 500 KVA and smaller 
are not. Sampling the latter transformers would be unfeasible and 
potentially dangerous to service personnel (C1-017, C1-035, and C1-
036). One commenter suggested that, if KVA were taken into account, a 
100 KVA rating level would be more favorable to the environment (C1-
040). Another suggested that distribution transformers be defined as 
less than 69 KV, 500 KVA equipment (C1-020). Since most of the comments 
did not support the utility's suggestion, EPA has not added a KVA 
criterion to the final rule.
    f. Allow reclassification of all oil-filled equipment as well as 
transformers. In the proposed rule, EPA invited comments on allowing 
the proposed

[[Page 17610]]

reclassification rules to be used for electromagnets, switches, and 
voltage regulators (Ref. 12, p. 60973). Commenters addressing the issue 
unanimously agreed that EPA should include these types of electrical 
equipment, but some also wanted EPA to expand the rules to include all 
oil-filled electrical equipment 50 ppm (C1-014, C1-036, C1-
038, C1-041, C1-045, and C1-052). Information supplied by commenters 
supported amending Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v) so that the new 
reclassification procedures apply to electromagnets, switches, and 
voltage regulators. Under Sec. 761.30(m)(1)(ii), these reclassification 
provisions also apply to circuit breakers and reclosers. The 
information shows that, compared to a transformer, this equipment 
contains the same amount or less porous inner materials that could 
absorb PCBs. Therefore, the reclassification requirements that apply to 
transformers would be as effective or more effective for this 
equipment.
      Electromagnets. A commenter stated that electromagnets do 
not contain significant core and coil components that can trap PCBs 
(C1-011).
      Switches (including sectionalizers). Commenters stated 
that switches and sectionalizers are used throughout all utility 
systems. Switches and sectionalizers contain dielectric fluid, but, 
unlike transformers, do not contain an iron core or paper insulated 
coils of wire. Therefore, there is very little material into which oil 
(and thus PCBs) could be absorbed (C1-007, C1-011, C1-012, C1-023, and 
C1-037) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60).
     Voltage regulators. Voltage regulators control voltage as 
it moves through the electric utility system from generation to 
ultimate consumption. Commenters stated that voltage regulators are 
like transformers in that they require the same type of insulating oil 
to retain dielectric integrity, and they contain an iron core or paper 
insulated coils of wire. Therefore, the anatomy of a voltage regulator 
and a transformer can be considered the same and the procedures to 
reclassify the two forms of equipment should be the same. Thus, enough 
oil and PCBs would be removed by a drain and refill process to 
reclassify a contaminated voltage regulator without placing it in 
service (C1-007, C1-011, C1-012, C1-017, C1-020, C1-037, and C1-039) 
(Ref. 20, pp. 44-60). One commenter provided data on retrofilled 
voltage regulators, but the data did not specify how the retrofill was 
conducted or the conditions under which the voltage regulators were 
operated after retrofill, so the data's usefulness for establishing 
regulatory requirements is limited (C1-007).
     Circuit breakers. Circuit breakers may be used throughout 
a utility system, but are especially common in transmission substations 
where they are used to protect transformers. According to commenters, 
circuit breakers require the same type of insulating oil as 
transformers for dielectric integrity. However, unlike transformers, 
they do not contain an iron core or paper insulated coils of wire into 
which oil (and thus PCBs) could be absorbed (C1-007, C1-023, and C1-
041) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60).
     Reclosers. Reclosers are relatively small pieces of 
equipment that are often mounted on utility poles to protect 
distribution system equipment. Reclosers contain dielectric fluid, but 
have no inner iron core or paper insulate coils of wire into which oil 
(and thus PCBs) could be absorbed (C1-007) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60).
Under Sec. 761.30(m)(1)(ii), you may also reclassify oil-filled cable. 
It is EPA's experience that oil-filled cable rarely contains PCBs 
50 ppm (Ref. 14, p. 37352). Therefore, most oil-filled cable 
is considered non-PCB, and would not be reclassified. In the unlikely 
event that you discover oil-filled cable containing PCBs at 
50 ppm, you may reclassify it by following the procedures at 
40 CFR 761.30(h)(2)(v).
    One commenter asked that the reclassification procedures also apply 
to bushings (C1-038). EPA has not adopted this suggestion because 
bushings are not regulated separately from the equipment on which they 
are installed, that is, there is no separate use authorization for 
bushings and therefore no reclassification provision for bushings in 
Sec. 761.30. The PCB regulations assume that intact electrical 
equipment contains the component parts necessary for the equipment to 
operate. A bushing that is in service on authorized electrical 
equipment is treated as having the same PCB concentration as the 
equipment of which it is a part. Therefore, if you reclassify equipment 
under Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v), Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v), or Sec. 761.30(m)(1), 
you need not reclassify the bushing separately for the equipment as a 
whole to be considered reclassified.
    If, however, you wish to reduce the concentration of the bushing 
while it is installed on the equipment, you may do so by draining the 
existing fluid and disposing of it as PCB waste, flushing the bushing 
with fluid containing <2 ppm PCBs, and refilling it with fluid 
containing <2 ppm PCBs. Once you remove a bushing from the equipment, 
it is regulated as a separate PCB Article and you may not reclassify it 
under the provisions of this rule. At the time of disposal, you must 
dispose of a bushing containing fluid 50 ppm PCBs as a 
separate PCB Article under 40 CFR 761.60(b)(5) (Refs. 15, 16, and 17).
    Commenters pointed out that many voltage regulators contain an 
internal small capacitor that has the potential to rupture or leak. 
They felt that it was important to remove this small capacitor during 
reclassification to prevent it from leaking and contaminating the 
replacement fluid in the voltage regulator (C1-017 and C1-024). Intact 
and non-leaking small capacitors containing PCBs are authorized for use 
without restriction (see 40 CFR 761.3 and 761.30(l)), and are subject 
to existing disposal requirements (see 40 CFR 761.60(b)(2)). If your 
voltage regulator's fluid were contaminated by a leak from an internal 
small capacitor, you could reclassify the voltage regulator if 
necessary, or you could manage it at its post-leak PCB concentration. 
EPA recognizes this potential problem and suggests that if you find a 
small capacitor in a voltage regulator, you remove it after draining 
and replace it with one that contains no PCBs.
    g. Do not regulate disposal as part of reclassification. The 
proposed rule would have required you to properly store and dispose of 
PCB-containing waste materials as part of a properly conducted 
retrofill. Commenters felt that the ultimate disposal of these 
materials (such as drained fluid, rags, and personal protective 
equipment) was not necessary to complete a properly conducted retrofill 
(C1-007, C1-008, and C1-024) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60). EPA agrees that the 
reclassification process can be regulated separately from the disposal 
of waste from reclassification. This final rule does not specifically 
refer to disposal of PCB-containing waste materials as part of the 
reclassification procedure, although you must dispose of these 
materials based on their PCB concentration at the time of disposal by 
following existing rules at 40 CFR part 761, subpart D.
    h. Allow time to come into compliance when equipment's 
concentration changes after reclassification. Commenters were concerned 
that they would be subject to enforcement action if, after properly 
reclassifying a piece of equipment, the concentration of the equipment 
rose above the concentration limit for its class. Commenters strongly 
urged that the rules allow the opportunity to come into compliance if 
equipment originally reclassified as non-PCB were later discovered to 
be 50 ppm, or if

[[Page 17611]]

equipment originally reclassified as PCB- Contaminated were later 
discovered to be 500 ppm. Commenters suggested using a 
schedule similar to that at Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(xv) for assumed mineral-
oil transformers that are later discovered to be 500 ppm. 
Commenters also wanted to have the opportunity to repeat the 
reclassification process if the transformer's concentration increased 
(C1-007, C1-012, C1-016, C1-035, C1-050, C1-051, C1-052, and C2-001).
    Under the final rule, a piece of equipment is regulated for use 
based on its reclassified concentration until the equipment is 
retested. If the retest shows that the equipment is above the upper 
concentration limit for its reclassified status, the equipment is 
regulated based on the actual concentration of the fluid. EPA agrees 
with the commenters that if you discover that the concentration of 
equipment reclassified to PCB-Contaminated status has risen to 
500 ppm PCBs, you should have time to come into compliance 
with requirements that apply to equipment containing 500 ppm 
PCBs. The final rule directs you to follow the schedules in 
Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(xv)(A) through (J) for transformers and 
Sec. 761.30(h)(1)(iii) for voltage regulators. If you documented that 
you conducted the original reclassification procedure properly (see the 
recordkeeping requirement at Sec. 761.180(g)) and you complied with 
these schedules, you would not be in violation of the reclassification 
requirements.
    If you discover that the concentration of equipment reclassified to 
non-PCB status has risen to 50 but <500 ppm, the only 
regulatory concern (other than cleanup of spills during use) is the 
eventual disposition of the equipment and its fluid. During use, you do 
not need to mark, inspect, or keep records on the equipment.
    The final rule also allows you to repeat the reclassification 
process to reduce the concentration in any reclassified equipment to 
the desired level.
    i. Allow reclassification based on the procedures in the proposed 
rule. Several commenters requested that EPA allow owners to consider 
their equipment to be reclassified if they followed the procedures in 
the proposed rule before the effective date of this final rule. These 
commenters asked to be ``grandfathered in'' to the requirements of the 
final rule, rather than having to request a formal approval of an 
alternate method of reclassification from EPA or having to repeat the 
procedure after the effective date of this final rule (C1-007, C1-008, 
C1-023, C1-050, C1-052, and C1-053).
    EPA is not adopting this suggestion. Prior to promulgation of this 
final rule, owners who wanted to reclassify their equipment based on 
the provisions of the proposed rule could do so based on a written 
approval from EPA. Those who have requested and received an approval 
need not follow the reclassification process in the final rule for the 
equipment that was subject to the approval. Those who have followed the 
requirements of the proposed rule without requesting and receiving an 
approval have not complied with the reclassification rules and must 
either request an approval or comply with the provisions of this final 
rule. Equipment reclassified under the rules currently in effect does 
not need to be reclassified again once this final rule goes into 
effect.
    j. Allow alternate reclassification methods. A commenter suggested 
that EPA amend the rule to allow on-line processing (C1-021). The 
commenter stated that on-line processing is conducted while the 
transformer is energized and under load, thereby achieving sustained 
elevated temperatures which should promote effective PCB extraction 
from the transformer. The commenter did not submit enough data to allow 
EPA to include this process in the final rule. If you wish to use on-
line processing for reclassification, you may request an approval under 
Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v)(C) or Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v)(C).
    k. Do not require recordkeeping. The proposed rule would have 
required you to maintain the following records on your reclassified 
equipment for at least three years after you disposed of the equipment:
     The pre-retrofill concentration of the equipment.
     The retrofill and reclassification schedule and procedure.
     A copy of the analysis indicating the equipment's 
reclassified status (i.e., final PCB concentration).
Commenters questioned the need for this requirement (C1-022, C1-039, 
and C1-041). First, as discussed in Unit II.A.5.l., if reclassified 
equipment is sold or transferred to another company for use, service, 
or salvage, those records will provide useful information to the buyer, 
servicer or disposer. In addition, for equipment that has been 
reclassified from 500 to <500 ppm PCBs, the records of 
reclassification will provide documentation of why the equipment is no 
longer being recorded on the annual report or the annual document log 
and why the equipment is no longer being marked or inspected. Finally, 
the records will allow EPA inspectors to determine whether the 
equipment was reclassified according to the regulatory requirements. 
EPA is generally retaining the proposed recordkeeping provisions in 
this final rule for equipment reclassified on or after the effective 
date of this rule. This final rule requires you to maintain records of 
the pre-reclassification concentration of the equipment, the 
reclassification procedure conducted, and the final PCB concentration 
after the completion of the reclassification procedure (see 
Sec. 761.180(g)).
    In the preamble to the proposed rule (Ref. 12, p. 60971), EPA 
erroneously cited ASTM methods D923-86 and D923-89 as recognized 
methods for determining the concentration and nature of PCBs in 
dielectric fluid. These are sampling methods, not testing methods. You 
may analyze for PCBs using any method of gas chromatography that is 
appropriate for the material being analyzed (see 40 CFR 
761.60(g)(iii)). Methods include ASTM Method D4059-96, ``Standard Test 
Method for Analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Insulating Liquids 
by Gas Chromatography'' (Ref.18) and ``The Determination of 
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Transformer Fluid and Waste Oils,'' issued 
by EPA's Office of Research and Development (Ref.19). Other methods are 
listed in 40 CFR 761.60(g)(iii).
    l. Require that reclassified equipment be labeled to protect 
workers from higher PCB concentrations in porous inner parts. A 
commenter submitted data to show that 21 days after a PCB-Contaminated 
transformer has been properly reclassified, the fluid in the equipment 
may test at <50 ppm, but the porous inner parts may be 50 
ppm. The commenter expressed concern that workers who dismantle these 
transformers for servicing or disposal could unknowingly be exposed to 
PCBs at 50 ppm when they remove the internal components of 
the equipment. The commenter asked EPA to require notification and 
labeling to show that the equipment had been reclassified (C1-001 and 
B1-001) (Ref. 20, pp. 8-29, 62-67). Another commenter opposed such a 
requirement as misleading (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60).
    EPA has not adopted this suggestion. Such a change would not by 
itself guarantee that workers dismantling transformers were protected 
from PCBs that might remain in the internal workings of reclassified 
equipment. The PCB regulations at 40 CFR 761.30(a)(2)(v) and (h)(2)(v) 
have allowed the reclassification of electrical equipment since 1982 
and have never

[[Page 17612]]

required labeling of units <500 ppm. If EPA required labeling of all 
equipment reclassified after the effective date of this rule, disposal 
facilities would still receive equipment that had been reclassified 
before the effective date of this rule, but that was not labeled. If 
the facility needed to make sure of the PCB concentration of the 
internal components of this unlabeled equipment, it would still have to 
test these components--it could not rely on the fact that the equipment 
was not labeled to assume that the equipment had not been reclassified. 
EPA believes that imposing a labeling requirement for equipment 
reclassified after the effective date of this rule could therefore give 
disposers of electrical equipment a false sense of security in handling 
equipment that was not labeled. A labeling requirement would create 
costs and burdens for owners of reclassified equipment, but would be of 
limited usefulness to servicing and disposal facilities.
    This final rule requires anyone conducting a reclassification after 
the effective date of this rule to keep records of the reclassification 
(see 40 CFR 761.180(g)). These records must contain the pre-
reclassification concentration of the equipment, the reclassification 
procedure conducted, and the final PCB concentration after the 
completion of the reclassification procedure. Any potential buyer, 
servicer, or disposer may request these records. Obtaining these 
records would serve as notification of the potential for the inner 
workings of the equipment to contain higher PCB concentrations than the 
fluid itself, and would allow servicers and disposers to take proper 
precautions if the equipment were to be dismantled. In addition, the 
existing rules at Sec. 761.60(b)(8) protect workers by requiring that 
persons disposing of PCB Articles wear or use protective clothing or 
equipment to protect against dermal contact with or inhalation of PCBs 
or materials containing PCBs.
    Finally, nothing in this final rule limits the servicer's or 
disposer's flexibility to include provisions in its contracts with its 
suppliers requiring additional information on the servicing history of 
the equipment it receives.
    m. Do not encourage dilution of PCBs during reclassification. One 
commenter objected to the proposal on the basis that it encouraged the 
deliberate dilution of PCBs as an acceptable means of avoiding more 
stringent disposal requirements. The commenter stated that 
reclassification in general, and the proposed amendments to an even 
greater extent, allow transformer owners to decrease the PCB 
concentration in the residual oils in the internal components of the 
transformer through dilution with the retrofill liquid. The commenter 
believed the proposal would cause huge volumes of PCBs to be diluted to 
unregulated levels rather than permanently destroyed. The commenter 
suggested that EPA instead create incentives for the use of methods 
which actually remove the PCBs from the transformer and decrease the 
risk of release of PCBs into the environment (C1-047 and C2-005) (Ref. 
20, pp. 29-44).
     As discussed in Unit II.A.1.a., EPA originally developed the 
reclassification process to allow the owner of a PCB Transformer to 
rebuild the transformer rather than dispose of it. Rebuilding involves 
draining and opening the transformer to service the coil and other 
internal parts, and presents the risk of PCB exposure to workers and to 
the environment. Because of this risk, in 1979 EPA banned the 
rebuilding of PCB Transformers unless they were reclassified to PCB-
Contaminated status. Since 1979, EPA has regulated rebuilding and 
reclassification as a form of servicing, and has allowed dilution of 
PCBs during these activities. While EPA generally prohibits dilution of 
PCBs to avoid disposal requirements, the agency recognized that for 
certain activities, including servicing, dilution is essential to the 
intended performance of the activities and is not performed with the 
intent of evading the disposal requirements for PCBs. Therefore, 
reclassification is an exception to the general ban on dilution to 
avoid regulation at Sec. 761.1(b)(5).
    The process of retrofilling equipment during reclassification 
removes substantially all the original fluid (90% according to this 
commenter, 95% according to another commenter who testified at the 
informal hearing (Ref. 20, p. 51)), and since this fluid is subject to 
the disposal requirements, the PCBs it contains are not released to the 
environment. The reclassified equipment remains in use, but the lower-
concentration fluid poses a reduced risk to health and the environment 
from spills or other exposures. In addition, disposal of the equipment 
at the end of its useful life, and the fluid it contains, are regulated 
to protect health and the environment. For all these reasons, EPA 
believes the benefits of allowing reclassification outweigh the risks 
to health and the environment of allowing a relatively small amount of 
the fluid in the equipment to be diluted.
    6. What does this final rule require? Based on comments and data 
submitted in response to the proposed rule, and further review of the 
data the Agency had at the time of the proposed rule, EPA is modifying 
the current rule to:
     Eliminate the requirement to raise the temperature of a 
transformer's dielectric fluid to at least 50 deg.C.
     Eliminate the requirement to operate the equipment under 
loaded conditions for all transformers, electromagnets, switches, and 
voltage regulators with a pre-retrofill PCB concentration <1,000 ppm.
     Allow you to reclassify equipment using retrofill fluid 
<50 ppm, as long as you test the equipment 90 days after retrofill to 
ensure that reclassification has been successful.
     Allow you to reclassify PCB-Contaminated transformers, 
electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators to non-PCB status by 
retrofilling with fluid <2 ppm PCBs. You are not required to test the 
equipment after 90 days.
     Allow you time to come into compliance if you determine 
that the concentration of equipment reclassified to PCB-Contaminated 
status has risen to 500 ppm PCBs.
     Allow you to repeat the reclassification process to 
further reduce the PCB concentration in your equipment, for example, if 
your prior attempt at reclassification fails. If your attempt to 
reclassify your equipment does not lower its PCB concentration 
sufficiently, the equipment is not considered reclassified under the 
PCB regulations. This would be the case if your equipment had a PCB 
concentration 1,000 ppm prior to reclassification, and after 
following the reclassification procedures the concentration was not 
reduced to <500 ppm; if your equipment had a PCB concentration 
500 ppm prior to reclassification, and after following the 
reclassification rocedures the PCB concentration was not reduced to 
<500 ppm; and if your equipment had a PCB concentration 50 
but <500 ppm prior to reclassification, and after following the 
reclassification procedures the PCB concentration was not reduced to 
<50 ppm.
     Require you to keep records showing that you followed the 
required reclassification procedures. The records must include copies 
of pre- and post-reclassification PCB concentration measurements from a 
laboratory using quality control and quality assurance procedures. You 
must make these records available to EPA or to another party holding or 
possessing the equipment (for example, through sale, loan, lease, or 
for servicing). You must retain the records for at least 3 years

[[Page 17613]]

after you sell, transfer, or dispose of the equipment.
     Change the EPA official authorized to approve alternate 
methods for reclassifying equipment from the Assistant Administrator to 
the Director of the National Program Chemicals Division.
    Table 4 summarizes the reclassification requirements for 
transformers from which you have removed free-flowing liquids (see 
Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v)); and for electromagnets, switches, and voltage 
regulators from which you have removed free-flowing liquids (see 
Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v))). Under Sec. 761.30(m)(1)(ii), these 
reclassification provisions also apply to circuit breakers, reclosers, 
and cable.

                            Table 4.--Classification Requirements of this Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           and test results
  If test results show the PCB     and you retrofill                         show the PCB          then the
   concentration (ppm) in the     the equipment with     and you . . .       concentration        equipment's
 equipment prior to retrofill is   dielectric fluid                           (ppm) after        reclassified
              . . .                containing . . .                       retrofill is . . .    status is . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 (or untested)    <50 ppm PCBs        operate the         50 but   PCB-Contaminated
                                                       equipment           <500
                                                       electrically
                                                       under loaded
                                                       conditions for at
                                                       least 90
                                                       continuous days
                                                       after retrofill,
                                                       then test the
                                                       fluid for PCBs
                                                                         ---------------------------------------
                                                                          <50                 non-PCB
---------------------------------                    -----------------------------------------------------------
500 but <1,000                             test the fluid for  50 but   PCB-Contaminated
                                                       PCBs at least 90    <500
                                                       days after
                                                       retrofill
                                                                         ---------------------------------------
                                                                          <50                 non-PCB
-----------------------------------------------------
50 but <500            2 but
                                   <50 ppm PCBs
                                 ------------------------------------------------------------
                                  <2 ppm PCBs         (no need to test)   (not applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This final rule is issued pursuant to TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B). 
Section 6(e)(2)(B) of TSCA gives EPA the authority to authorize the use 
of PCBs in other than a totally enclosed manner based on a finding of 
no unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment (15 U.S.C. 
2605(e)(2)(B)).
    EPA finds that this rule's amendments to the reclassification 
requirements will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health 
or the environment. PCBs have significant ecological and human health 
effects, including cancer, neurotoxicity, reproductive and 
developmental toxicity, immune system suppression, liver damage, skin 
irritation, and endocrine disruption (Ref. 21). EPA has found 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 (see 40 CFR 761.20). Nonetheless, EPA has 
recognized the economic benefits of continued use of PCBs in electrical 
equipment, and has authorized those uses under conditions designed to 
minimize the risk of exposure to PCBs during use and servicing, or 
through leaks or other releases (Ref. 14).
    EPA finds that the amendments in this final rule will reduce the 
risk to health and the environment from exposure to PCBs. The process 
of retrofilling electrical equipment during reclassification removes 
substantially all the original fluid (90% to 95%), and because this 
fluid is subject to the disposal requirements of 40 CFR part 761, 
subpart D, the PCBs it contains are not released to the environment. 
The reclassified equipment remains in use, but the lower-concentration 
fluid poses a reduced risk to health and the environment from spills or 
other exposures. In addition, disposal of the equipment at the end of 
its useful life, and the fluid it contains, are regulated to protect 
health and the environment.
    Because the final rule will relax a number of the requirements for 
reclassifying PCB-containing electrical equipment (while adding one new 
requirement), the rule will result in a net cost savings for owners who 
choose to reclassify their equipment. EPA estimates that the owner of a 
PCB Transformer, or the owner of a PCB-Contaminated transformer who 
reclassifies the transformer using fluid 2 but <50 ppm PCBs, 
will save $35.15 compared to the costs of the current requirements. EPA 
estimates that the owner of a PCB-Contaminated transformer who 
reclassifies the transformer using fluid <2 ppm PCBs (and who need not 
test the concentration of the transformer after retrofill) will save 
$80.15 compared to the costs of the current requirements. In addition 
to reducing the costs of reclassifying electrical equipment, the rule 
will allow owners of reclassified equipment to experience incremental 
savings from the less stringent regulatory requirements that apply to 
reclassified equipment. EPA estimates that the owner of a reclassified 
transformer will save $32.09 each time the owner avoids the requirement 
to mark a PCB Transformer and $43.80 annually for not having to inspect 
PCB Transformers that are reclassified (Ref. 2, p. 21). 
Reclassification can also help avoid or reduce recordkeeping, 
liability, and insurance costs.
    Therefore, having considered the effects on health and the 
environment of PCBs, the economic benefits of continued use of PCBs in 
electrical equipment, and the expected cost savings of these 
amendments, EPA finds that this rule's amendments to the 
reclassification requirements will not present an unreasonable risk of 
injury to health or the environment.

III. References

    1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Toxic 
Substances (OTS). Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Manufacturing,

[[Page 17614]]

Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions; Final Rule. 
Federal Register (44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979).
    2. USEPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), 
Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, Economic and Policy 
Analysis Branch. Reclassification of PCB and PCB-Contaminated 
Electrical Equipment Rule: Supporting Analysis for Small Entity, 
Environmental Justice, and Unfunded Mandates Certifications, September 
28, 2000.
    3. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Electric Test Department, 
Paul J. Frey. PCB-Contaminated Distribution Transformer 
Reclassification Study, July 16, 1987.
    4. USEPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS). 
Memorandum from Dan Reinhart to Tony Baney; Background Report on 
Empirical Basis for Proposed Changes to Reclassification Criteria for 
PCB and PCB-Contaminated Transformers (undated).
    5. USEPA, OPTS. Memorandum from Dan Reinhart to Joe Davia; 
Examination of the Relationship Between PCB Leaching and Load Level in 
Transmission Transformers by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, May 
20, 1988.
    6. Resource Planning Corporation. Letter from Richard E. Bell to 
Carl Manger, April 24, 1989.
    7. Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI). PCB Seminar 
Notebook; ``Reclassification: Simulating In-service Use,'' October 
1989.
    8. USEPA, OPTS, OTS. Letter from Don R. Clay, Director, OTS, to 
Timothy S. Hardy, Kirkland and Ellis, June 13, 1984.
    9. USEPA, OPTS. Letter from Joseph J. Merenda, Director, Exposure 
Evaluation Division, to Edward Karapetian, Department of Water and 
Power the City of Los Angeles, November 29, 1990.
    10. S.D. Myers Transformer Consultants. Letter from Dana S. Myers, 
President, to Jan Canterbury, USEPA, OPTS, Exposure Effects Division 
(EED), Chemical Regulation Branch (CRB), August 16, 1991.
    11. EPRI, Dr. Gilbert Addis. Equilibrium Study of PCBs Between 
Transformer Oil and Transformer Solid Materials, December 3, 1981.
    12. USEPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reclassification 
of PCB and PCB-Contaminated Transformers; Proposed Rule. Federal 
Register (58 FR 60970, November 18, 1993).
    13. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Electric Test Department. 
Letter from H. C. Manger, General Supervisor, to Jan Canterbury, USEPA, 
OPTS, EED, CRB, July 24, 1991.
    14. USEPA, OTS. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Manufacturing, 
Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions; Use in 
Electrical Equipment; Final Rule. Federal Register (47 FR 37342, August 
25, 1982).
    15. USEPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances 
(OPPTS). Letter from Tony Baney, Chief, Operations Branch, to Jim 
Ridder, PCB Coordinator, Elkhorn Rural Public Power District, June 8, 
1994.
    16. USEPA, OPPTS. Letter from Tony Baney, Chief, Operations Branch, 
to Ron D. Johnson, Sr. Environmental Scientist, Public Service Co. of 
New Mexico, August 29, 1995.
    17. USEPA, OPPTS. Letter from John W. Melone, Director, National 
Program Chemicals Division, to John T. Graves, Environmental Manager, 
Minnetonka Power Cooperative, Inc., April 29, 1999.
    18. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test 
Method for Analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Insulating Liquids 
by Gas Chromatography (D 4059-96), 1996.
    19. USEPA, Office of Research and Development (ORD), Environmental 
Monitoring & Support Laboratory. Test Method: The Determination of 
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Transformer Fluid and Waste Oils (EPA-600/
4-81-045), September 1982.
    20. USEPA. Transcript of Proceedings: PCB Transformer 
Reclassification Proposed Rule, March 9, 1994.
    21. USEPA, ORD, National Center for Environmental Assessment. PCBs: 
Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental 
Mixtures (EPA/600/P-96/001F), September 1996.
    22. USEPA, OPPT. Consolidated ICR Supporting Statement for the PCB 
Regulations at 40 CFR part 761, September 28, 1999.

IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and 
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 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.
    EPA's analysis of the potential impact of this action is contained 
in a document entitled ``Reclassification of PCB and PCB-Contaminated 
Electrical Equipment Rule: Supporting Analysis for Small Entity, 
Environmental Justice, and Unfunded Mandates Certifications'' 
(Supporting Analysis) (Ref. 2). This document is available to you as a 
part of the public version of the official record for this final rule. 
To learn how to get a copy of this document, see Unit I.B.
    This final rule will affect owners of electrical transformers, 
voltage regulators, electromagnets, switches, circuit breakers, 
reclosers and cable that contain PCBs. Because of data limitations and 
the assumed small numbers of units of electrical equipment other than 
transformers, the analysis addresses only transformers. This analysis 
concludes that, because the final rule will relax a number of the 
requirements for reclassifying PCB-containing transformers, the rule 
will result in a net cost savings for transformer owners who choose to 
reclassify their equipment (Ref. 2, p. 4). The effect of including data 
on other electrical equipment affected by the rule, were these data 
available, would be only to further increase the overall cost savings 
attributable to the rule (Ref. 2, p. 1).
    EPA estimates that the owner of a PCB Transformer, or the owner of 
a PCB-Contaminated transformer who reclassifies the transformer using 
fluid 2 but <50 ppm PCBs, will save $35.15 compared to the 
costs of the current requirements. EPA estimates that the owner of a 
PCB-Contaminated transformer who reclassifies the transformer using 
fluid <2 ppm PCBs (and who need not test the concentration of the 
transformer after retrofill) will save $80.15 compared to the costs of 
the current requirements (Ref. 2, pp. 3-5). In addition to reducing the 
costs of reclassifying electrical equipment, the rule will allow owners 
of reclassified equipment to experience incremental savings from the 
less stringent regulatory requirements that apply to reclassified 
equipment. EPA estimates that the owner of a reclassified transformer 
will save $32.09 each time the owner avoids the requirement to mark a 
PCB Transformer and $43.80 annually for not having to inspect PCB 
Transformers that are reclassified (Ref. 2, p. 8-9).
    Moreover, neither the current reclassification requirements nor the 
amendments in this final rule require you to reclassify your electrical 
equipment. Whether to reclassify is a private business decision. Any 
firm, large or small, will reclassify their equipment only if the 
savings to the firm exceed the firm's costs of performing the 
reclassification. The changes to the reclassification rules

[[Page 17615]]

impose no positive net costs on small entities because firms that 
choose to reclassify their equipment are basing their decision on a 
comparison of private costs and benefits.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Agency hereby certifies that this final 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The factual basis for the Agency's 
determination is presented in the Supporting Analysis (Ref. 2), and is 
briefly summarized here.
    For the purpose of analyzing potential impacts on small entities, 
EPA used the definition for small entities in section 601 of the RFA. 
Under section 601, ``small entity'' is defined as:
     A small business that meets Small Business Administration 
size standards codified at 13 CFR 121.201.
     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.
     A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise 
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 
field.
    This rule will result in a net cost savings for transformer owners 
who reclassify their equipment. Information on transformer ownership 
and reclassification decisions among small entities is needed to 
accurately assess the small entity impacts. Following a review of 
available data sources, EPA concluded that complete data are not 
available for any of the affected sectors. Nevertheless, several 
observations can be drawn (Ref. 2, pp. 20-22).
     The rule is expected to generate cost savings for 
reclassifying PCB and PCB-Contaminated transformers. On a per 
reclassification basis, the estimated cost savings are $35.15 for PCB 
Transformers and for PCB-Contaminated transformers retrofilled with 
fluid 2 but <50 ppm, and $80.15 for PCB-Contaminated 
transformers retrofilled with fluid <2 ppm (EPA has eliminated the 
requirement to test the concentration of these transformers after 
retrofill). Thus, the rule will benefit both small and large entities 
by making reclassifications more affordable, and will increase the 
number of reclassifications that occur.
     These ``induced'' reclassifications will be able to 
capture cost savings associated with complying with reduced regulatory 
requirements. PCB Transformer owners who reclassify will save $32.09 
each time they avoid having to mark a PCB Transformer and $43.80 
annually for not having to inspect each reclassified transformer. Small 
entities that are induced to reclassify a PCB Transformer will benefit 
from these cost savings.
     Because reclassification is voluntary, it is a private 
business decision on the part of transformer owners in which the 
private benefits are compared to the private costs of reclassifying. 
Thus, each reclassification project should be assumed to generate net 
private benefits for transformer owners, both prior to and after 
implementation of the rule.
     Smaller entities are less likely to own transformers, and 
therefore less likely to need to perform reclassification. Thus, larger 
businesses may be more likely to take advantage of the reduced 
requirements of reclassification. However, even if smaller entities did 
own a disproportionate number of transformers (which is unlikely), this 
should not create an adverse impact because reclassification is 
performed only when it is in the interest of the transformer owner to 
do so, and the final rule is expected to only reduce the costs of 
reclassification.
    Having reviewed all of the available relevant data and after taking 
the data limitations into account, EPA believes that this rule will not 
impose any adverse impact on small entities, and should actually 
provide a potential source of cost savings to many transformer owners 
who choose to reclassify their equipment. The final rule will make 
reclassification more affordable for both small and large entities, and 
should result in an increased rate of reclassification and an 
accelerated rate of removal of PCBs from use. Furthermore, 
reclassification is a business decision made by transformer owners 
based on a comparison of private benefits and costs. Assuming that 
transformers owners pursue their own best interest, no reclassification 
will take place that does not have a positive net benefit for 
transformer owners.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements contained in this rule are 
reflected in the Consolidated Information Collection Request (ICR) 
Supporting Statement for the PCB Regulations at 40 CFR part 761, 
September 28, 1999 (Consolidated ICR) (Ref. 22). The Consolidated ICR 
was prepared in response to a request from OMB to combine the various 
PCB information collections into a single ICR. These information 
collection requirements (including minor amendments to address the 
requirements of this final rule) have been submitted to OMB for review 
and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., and in accordance with the procedures at 5 CFR 1320.11. The 
burden and costs related to the information collection requirements 
contained in this rule are described in an ICR identified as EPA ICR 
No. 1446.07, which has been included in the public version of the 
official record described in Unit I.B.2., and is available 
electronically as described in Unit I.B.1., at http://www.epa.gov/opperid1/icr.htm, or by e-mailing a request to [email protected]. 
You may also request a copy by mail from Sandy Farmer, Collection 
Strategies Division, Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-
2740.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information that is subject to approval 
under the PRA, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after appearing in the 
preamble of the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and 
included on any related collection instrument.
    As defined by the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.3(b), ``burden'' means the 
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to 
generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for 
a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; 
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the 
purpose 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.
    The information collection for this rule is a recordkeeping 
requirement placed on owners of electrical equipment containing PCBs 
who choose to reclassify that equipment to lower its PCB concentration. 
The recordkeeping requirement is being implemented so that if 
reclassified equipment is sold or transferred to another company for 
use, service or salvage, the buyer, servicer or disposer will be able 
to learn the servicing history of the equipment. In

[[Page 17616]]

addition, for equipment that has been reclassified from 500 
ppm to <500 ppm PCBs, the records of reclassification will provide 
documentation of why the equipment is no longer being recorded on the 
annual report or the annual document log and why the equipment is no 
longer being marked or inspected. Finally, the records will allow EPA 
inspectors to determine whether the equipment was reclassified 
according to the regulatory requirements. The burden to respondents for 
complying with this information collection is estimated to total 15,050 
hours per year, with an annual cost of $573,322. The totals are based 
on an average burden of 15 minutes per response for an estimated 60,200 
respondents to maintain required records.

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 rule 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. Rather than impose net 
costs of $100 million or more in any 1 year, this final PCB 
Reclassification rule will result in a net cost savings to transformer 
owners who decide to reclassify their equipment (Ref. 2, p. 23).

E. Executive Order 13132

    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 government officials 
in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is 
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 power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under section 6 of the Executive order, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local government officials early in the process 
of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State 
law, unless the Agency consults with State and local government 
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    Section 4 of the Executive order contains additional requirements 
for rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not 
have federalism implications (i.e., the rules 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). Those 
requirements include providing State and local government officials 
notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the 
development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on 
express or implied statutory authority, EPA also must consult, to the 
extent practicable, with appropriate State and local government 
officials regarding the conflict between State law and federally 
protected interests within the agency's area of regulatory 
responsibility.
    The Agency has determined that this rule does not have federalism 
implications. It amends a voluntary process by which owners of 
transformers and other electrical equipment can reclassify that 
equipment to a less stringent regulatory status. The changes are not 
expected to result in a significant intergovernmental mandate under the 
UMRA, and thus, EPA concludes that the rule will not impose substantial 
direct compliance costs. Nor would the rule substantially affect the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Those relationships have already been established under the 
existing PCB regulations, and these amendments would not alter them. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to this final rule.
    This final rule would preempt State and local law in accordance 
with TSCA section 18(a)(2)(B). By publishing and inviting comment on 
the proposed rule (Ref. 12), EPA provided State and local government 
officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation. 
Thus, EPA has complied with the requirements of section 4 of the 
Executive Order.

F. Executive Orders 13084 and 13175

    Under Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19, 1998) EPA may not 
issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly 
or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and 
that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, 
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the 
direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the 
mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to OMB, in a separately 
identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the 
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected 
tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a 
statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, 
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process 
permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
their communities.''
    This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities 
of Indian tribal governments, nor does it impose substantial direct 
compliance costs on such communities. It amends a voluntary process by 
which owners of transformers and other electrical equipment can 
reclassify that equipment to a less stringent regulatory status. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to this rule.
    On November 6, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13175, 
entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 
(65 FR 67249). Executive Order 13175 took effect on January 6, 2001, 
and revokes Executive Order 13084 as of that date. EPA developed this 
rule, however, during the period when Executive Order 13084 was in 
effect; thus, EPA addressed tribal considerations under Executive Order 
13084.

G. Executive Order 12898

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), the Agency has considered 
environmental justice related issues with regard to the potential 
impacts of this action on the environmental and health conditions in 
low-income and minority communities. EPA finds that the amendments in 
this final rule will reduce the risk to health and the environment from 
exposure to PCBs. The process of retrofilling electrical

[[Page 17617]]

equipment during reclassification removes substantially all the 
original PCB-containing fluid, and since this fluid is subject to the 
disposal requirements of 40 CFR part 761, subpart D, the PCBs it 
contains are not released to the environment. The reclassified 
equipment remains in use, but the lower PCB concentration in the fluid 
poses a reduced risk to health and the environment from spills or other 
exposures. In addition, at the end of its useful life, the equipment 
and the fluid it contains must be disposed of based on existing 
requirements to protect health and the environment. EPA's research did 
not reveal any data to suggest that the effects of this rule, even 
beneficial effects, would disproportionately affect minority or low-
income populations (Ref. 2, pp. 22-23).

H. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) applies to any rule that is both determined to be ``economically 
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12966, and concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
and safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. However, it 
has been EPA's policy since November 1, 1995, to consistently and 
explicitly consider risks to infants and children in all risk 
assessments generated during its decision-making process, including the 
setting of standards to protect public health and the environment.
    This regulation is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it 
is not economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12966 
(i.e., it does not generate annual costs of $100 million), and the 
Agency does not have reason to believe that the environmental health or 
safety risks addressed by the regulation present a disproportionate 
risk to children (Ref. 2, pp. 23-24). This regulation changes the 
requirements for reclassifying PCB Transformers, voltage regulators and 
other PCB-containing electrical equipment to a lower PCB status. The 
activities addressed by the regulation include draining PCB liquids 
from the equipment, refilling it with a non-PCB mixture, and then in 
some cases, testing the equipment after a period of use. Most 
transformers and voltage regulators are located in facilities such as 
electric utilities, manufacturing facilities, and prisons where 
children are not present. In facilities such as schools and hospitals 
that have equipment containing PCBs and where children are present, the 
equipment is located in areas that are strictly off-limits to children, 
and for that matter, any unauthorized personnel. Therefore, the 
reclassification will occur where children are either not present or 
not permitted, and the process will pose no special risks to children.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This regulatory action does not involve any technical standards 
that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus 
standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer 
and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note). Section 12(d) of NTTAA 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, business practices, 
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 
bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rule requires you to test dielectric fluids from electrical 
equipment for PCB concentration. Existing regulations at 
Sec. 761.60(g)(iii) set out requirements for testing the fluids, and 
allow you to use any method of gas chromatography that is appropriate 
for the material being analyzed, including voluntary consensus methods 
established by organizations such as the American Society for Testing 
and Materials.

J. Executive Order 12630

    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.

K. Executive Order 12988

    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).

V. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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 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. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761

    Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Labeling, 
Polychlorinated biphenyls, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.


    Dated: January 16, 2001.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    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 761.30 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(v) and 
(h)(2)(v) to read as follows:


Sec. 761.30  Authorizations.

* * * * *
    (a)***
    (2)***
    (v) You may reclassify a PCB Transformer that has been tested and 
determined to have a concentration of 500 ppm PCBs to a PCB-
Contaminated transformer (50 but <500 ppm) or to a non-PCB 
transformer (<50 ppm), and you may reclassify a PCB-Contaminated 
transformer that has been tested and determined to have a concentration 
of 50 ppm but <500 ppm to a non-PCB transformer, as follows:

[[Page 17618]]

    (A) Remove the free-flowing PCB dielectric fluid from the 
transformer. Flushing is not required. Either test the fluid or assume 
it contains 1,000 ppm PCBs. Retrofill the transformer with 
fluid containing known PCB levels according to the following table. 
Determine the transformer's reclassified status according to the 
following table (if following this process does not result in the 
reclassified status you desire, you may repeat the process):

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   and you retrofill                       and test results
  If test results show the PCB      the transformer                          show the PCB          then the
   concentration (ppm) in the       with dielectric      and you . . .       concentration       transformer's
 transformer prior to retrofill   fluid containing .                          (ppm) after        reclassified
            is . . .                      . .                             retrofill is . . .    status is . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 (or untested)    <50 ppm PCBs        operate the         50 but   PCB-contaminated
                                                       transformer         <500
                                                       electrically
                                                       under loaded
                                                       conditions for at
                                                       least 90-
                                                       continuous days
                                                       after retrofill,
                                                       then test the
                                                       fluid for PCBs
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  <50 ppm PCBs        operate the         <50                 non-PCB
                                                       transformer
                                                       electrically
                                                       under loaded
                                                       conditions for at
                                                       least 90-
                                                       continuous days
                                                       after retrofill,
                                                       then test the
                                                       fluid for PCBs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 but <1,000         <50 ppm PCBs        test the fluid for  50 but   PCB-contaminated
                                                       PCBs at least 90    <500
                                                       days after
                                                       retrofill
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  <50 ppm PCBs        test the fluid for  <50                 non-PCB
                                                       PCBs at least 90
                                                       days after
                                                       retrofill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 but <500            2 but    test the fluid for  <50                 non-PCB
                                   <50 ppm PCBs        PCBs at least 90
                                                       days after
                                                       retrofill
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  <2 ppm PCBs         (no need to test)   (not applicable)    non-PCB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) If you discover that the PCB concentration of the fluid in a 
reclassified transformer has changed, causing the reclassified status 
to change, the transformer is regulated based on the actual 
concentration of the fluid. For example, a transformer that was 
reclassified to non-PCB status is regulated as a PCB-Contaminated 
transformer if you discover that the concentration of the fluid has 
increased to 50 but <500 ppm PCBs. If you discover that the 
PCB concentration of the fluid has risen to 500 ppm, the 
transformer is regulated as a PCB Transformer. Follow paragraphs 
(a)(1)(xv)(A) through (J) of this section to come into compliance with 
the regulations applicable to PCB Transformers. You also have the 
option of repeating the reclassification process.
    (C) The Director, National Program Chemicals Division, may, without 
further rulemaking, grant approval on a case-by-case basis for the use 
of alternative methods to reclassify transformers. You may request an 
approval by writing to the Director, National Program Chemicals 
Division (7404), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington DC 20460. Describe the equipment you plan to 
reclassify, the alternative reclassification method you plan to use, 
and test data or other evidence on the effectiveness of the method.
    (D) You must keep records of the reclassification required by 
Sec. 761.180(g).
* * * * *
    (h)***
    (2)***
    (v) You may reclassify an electromagnet, switch, or voltage 
regulator that has been tested and determined to have a concentration 
of 500 ppm PCBs to PCB-Contaminated status (50 
but <500 ppm) or to non-PCB status (<50 ppm), and you may reclassify a 
PCB-Contaminated electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator that has 
been tested and determined to have a concentration of 50 ppm 
but <500 ppm to a non-PCB status, as follows:
    (A) Remove the free-flowing PCB dielectric fluid from the 
electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator. Flushing is not required. 
Either test the fluid or assume it contains 1,000 ppm PCBs. 
Retrofill the electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator with fluid 
containing known PCB levels according to the following table. Determine 
the electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator's reclassified status 
according to the following table (if following this process does not 
result in the reclassified status you desire, you may repeat the 
process):

[[Page 17619]]



 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   then the
  If test results show the PCB     and you retrofill                       and test results     electromagnet,
   concentration (ppm) in the     the equipment with                         show the PCB     switch, or voltage
 equipment prior to retrofill is   dielectric fluid      and you . . .       concentration        regulator's
              . . .                containing . . .                           (ppm) after        reclassified
                                                                          retrofill is . . .    status is . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 (or untested)    <50 ppm PCBs        operate the         50 but   PCB-contaminated
                                                       equipment           <500
                                                       electrically
                                                       under loaded
                                                       conditions for at
                                                       least 90-
                                                       continuous days
                                                       after retrofill,
                                                       then test the
                                                       fluid for PCBs
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  <50 ppm PCBs        operate the         <50                 non-PCB
                                                       equipment
                                                       electrically
                                                       under loaded
                                                       conditions for at
                                                       least 90-
                                                       continuous days
                                                       after retrofill,
                                                       then test the
                                                       fluid for PCBs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 but <1,000         <50 ppm PCBs        test the fluid for  50 but   PCB-contaminated
                                                       PCBs at least 90    <500
                                                       days after
                                                       retrofill
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  <50 ppm PCBs        test the fluid for  <50                 non-PCB
                                                       PCBs at least 90
                                                       days after
                                                       retrofill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 but <500            2 but    test the fluid for  <50                 non-PCB
                                   <50 ppm PCBs        PCBs at least 90
                                                       days after
                                                       retrofill
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  <2 ppm PCBs         (no need to test)   (not applicable)    non-PCB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) If you discover that the PCB concentration of the fluid in a 
reclassified electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator has changed, 
causing the reclassified status to change, the electromagnet, switch, 
or voltage regulator is regulated based on the actual concentration of 
the fluid. For example, an electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator 
that was reclassified to non-PCB status is regulated as a PCB-
Contaminated electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator if you 
discover that the concentration of the fluid has increased to 
50 but <500 ppm PCBs. If you discover that the PCB 
concentration of the fluid in a voltage regulator has risen to 
500 ppm, follow paragraph (h)(1)(iii) of this section to 
come into compliance with the regulations applicable to voltage 
regulators containing 500 ppm PCBs. You also have the option 
of repeating the reclassification process.
    (C) The Director, National Program Chemicals Division may, without 
further rulemaking, grant approval on a case-by-case basis for the use 
of alternative methods to reclassify electromagnets, switches or 
voltage regulators. You may request an approval by writing to the 
Director, National Program Chemicals Division (7404), Environmental 
Protection Agency,1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington DC 20460. 
Describe the equipment you plan to reclassify, the alternative 
reclassification method you plan to use, and test data or other 
evidence on the effectiveness of the method.
    (D) You must keep records of the reclassification required by 
Sec. 761.180(g).
* * * * *

    3. In Sec. 761.180 by adding a new paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 761.180  Records and monitoring.

* * * * *
    (g) Reclassification records. If you reclassify electrical 
equipment using the procedures in Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v) or 
Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v), you must keep records showing that you followed 
the required reclassification procedures. Where these procedures 
require testing, the records must include copies of pre- and post-
reclassification PCB concentration measurements from a laboratory using 
quality control and quality assurance procedures. You must make these 
records available promptly to EPA or to any party possessing the 
equipment through sale, loan, lease, or for servicing. You must retain 
the records for at least 3 years after you sell or dispose of the 
equipment.

[FR Doc. 01-8055 Filed 3-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S