### 38672 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

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

Dated: June 12, 2013.
Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 2013–15147 Filed 6–26–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 228**

**[EPA–R06–OW–2011–0712; FRL–9826–5]**

**Ocean Dumping; Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW) Ocean Dredged**  **Material Disposal Site Designation**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The EPA is proposing to designate four new Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site(s) (ODMDS)
located offshore of Texas for the disposal of dredged material from the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW), pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA). The new sites are needed for the disposal of additional dredged material associated with the SNWW Channel Improvement Project,
which includes an extension of the Entrance Channel into the Gulf of Mexico. Final action by EPA on this proposal would authorize the disposal of the additional dredged materials at the additional ocean disposal sites.

**DATES :**  Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before August

12, 2013.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– OW–2011–0712, by one of the following
methods:

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov; follow the online instruction for submitting

comments.

• Email: Dr. Jessica Franks at franks.jessica@epa.gov.

• Fax: Dr. Jessica Franks, Marine and Coastal Section (6WQ–EC) at fax
number 214–665–6689.

• Mail: Dr. Jessica Franks, Marine and Coastal Section (6WQ–EC), Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: (6WQ–EC), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas

75202–2733.

Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket No. EPA–R06–OW–2011–0712. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be
made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or

viruses.

Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Marine and Coastal Section (6WQ– EC), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas,
Texas 75202–2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA
Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed
in the **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION**

**CONTACT** paragraph below. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Jessica Franks, Ph.D., Marine and Coastal Section (6WQ–EC), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone (214) 665–8335, fax number (214) 665– 6689; email address franks.jessica@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Table of Contents

A. Potentially Affected Entities B. Background C. Disposal Volume Limit D. Site Management and Monitoring Plan E. Ocean Dumping Site Designation Criteria

General Selection Criteria Specific Selection Criteria F. Regulatory Requirements

1. National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) 2. Endangered Species Act Consultation 3. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation

and Management Act of 1996 4. Coastal Zone Management Act 5. Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990
G. Administrative Review

1. Executive Order 12886 2. Paperwork Reduction Act 3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended

by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
4. Unfunded Mandates
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks


### 38673 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Compliance With
Administrative Procedure Act 9. National Technology Transfer

Advancement Act
10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions

To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations List of subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 Part 228—[Amended]

The supporting document for these site designations is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project:
Southeast Texas and Southwest Louisiana (SNWW CIP) dated March 2011 prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (also Corps or USACE). Appendix B of Volume III contains the Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites Final Environmental Impact Statement. Comments will only be considered on the proposed site designations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Final EIS for the SNWW CIP was published in the Federal Register (FR) March 4, 2011 (76 FR 12108). This document is available for public inspection at the following
locations:

1. Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas,

Texas 75202–2733

2. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov; follow the online instruction for submitting

comments. A. Potentially Affected Entities

Persons potentially affected by this
final action include those who seek or might seek permits or approval by EPA to dispose of dredged material into ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. The EPA’s action is relevant to persons, including organizations and government bodies, seeking to dispose of dredged material
in ocean waters offshore of Texas for the disposal of dredged material from the Sabine-Neches Waterway. Currently, the US Army Corps of Engineers will be most impacted by this final action. Potentially affected categories and persons include:

Category Examples of potentially regulated persons

Federal government ...................................... U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works projects, and other Federal ag encies. Industry and general public ........................... Port authorities, marinas and harbors, shipyards and marine repair facilities, berth owners. State, local and tribal governments .............. Governments owning and/or responsible for ports, harbors, and/or berths, Government agencies requiring disposal of dredged material associated with public works projects.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular person, please refer to the contact person listed in the preceding **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION**

**CONTACT** section.

B. Background

Ocean disposal of dredged materials is regulated under Title I of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. (MPRSA).
The EPA and the USACE share responsibility for the management of ocean disposal of dredged material. Under Section 102 of MPRSA, EPA is responsible for designating an acceptable location for the ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDS). With concurrence from EPA, the USACE issues permits under MPRSA Section 103 for ocean disposal of dredged material deemed suitable according to EPA criteria in MPRSA Section 102 and EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 227. In lieu of the permit procedure for a federal project involving dredged material, the USACE may issue and abide by regulations using the same criteria, other factors to be evaluated, same procedures and same requirements that apply to the issuance of permits.

Pursuant to its voluntary NEPA policy, published on October 29, 1998 (63 FR 58045), EPA typically relies on the EIS process to enhance public participation on the proposed designation of an ODMDS. A site designation EIS evaluates alternative sites and examines the potential environmental impacts associated with disposal of dredged material at various
locations. Such an EIS first demonstrates the need for the ODMDS designation action (40 CFR 6.203(a) and 40 CFR 1502.13) by describing available or potential aquatic and non-aquatic (i.e., land-based) alternatives and the consequences of not designating a site—
the No Action Alternative. Once the need for an ocean disposal site is established, potential sites are screened for feasibility through a Zone of Siting Feasibility (ZSF) process. Potential alternative sites are then evaluated using EPA’s ocean disposal criteria at 40 CFR part 228 and compared in the EIS. Of the sites that satisfy these criteria, the site that best complies is selected as the preferred alternative for designation through a rulemaking proposal published in the Federal Register , as here.

Formal designation of an ODMDS in
the Federal Register and codification in the Code of Federal Regulations does not constitute approval of dredged material for ocean disposal. Site designation merely identifies a suitable ocean location in the event that dredged material is later approved for ocean disposal. Designation of an ODMDS provides an ocean disposal alternative
for consideration in the review of each proposed dredging project. Before any ocean disposal may take place, the dredging project proponent must demonstrate a need for ocean disposal, including consideration of alternatives. Alternatives to ocean disposal,including the option for beneficial reuse of dredged material, are evaluated for each dredging project that may result in the ocean disposal of dredged materials from such project. Ocean disposal of dredged material is only
allowed after both EPA and USACE determine that the proposed activity is environmentally acceptable under criteria codified in 40 CFR part 227 and 33 CFR part 336, respectively. In addition, ongoing management of these ODMDS would be subject to Site Management and Monitoring Plan(s) (SMMP) required by MPRSA section 102(c)(3)(F) and (c)(4), which are discussed more fully below.

Decisions to allow ocean disposal are made on a case-by-case basis through the MPRSA Section 103 permitting process, resulting in a USACE permit or its equivalent process for USACE’s Civil Works projects. Material proposed for disposal at a designated ODMDS must conform to EPA’s permitting criteria for acceptable quality (40 CFR parts 225 and 227), as determined from physical, chemical, and bioassay/ bioaccumulation tests prescribed by national sediment testing protocols (EPA and USACE 1991). Only clean non-toxic dredged material is acceptable for ocean disposal. The newly designated sites will be subject to ongoing monitoring and management to ensure continued protection of the

marine environment.

Evaluation of the proposed ODMDS under EPA’s general and specific
criteria is described in the March 2011 ‘‘Final Environmental Impact Statement for Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project Southeast Texas and Southwest Louisiana, Appendix B.’’ As identified in that appendix, the


### 38674 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules

environmentally preferred sites that EPA now proposes to designate are SNWW–A, which is located 21 miles from shore, SNWW–B, which is located 24 miles from shore, SNWW–C, which is located 27 miles from shore, and SNWW–D, which is located 30 miles
from shore. Each of the ODMDS occupies an area of 5.3 square statute miles, with depths ranging from 44 to 46 feet. The bottom topography is flat. The proposed action, once final, wouldprovide adequate, environmentallyacceptable ocean disposal site capacity for suitable dredged material generated from new work (construction) and future maintenance dredging along the
SNWW Entrance Channel 13.2 mile extension by formally designating the SNWW A–D sites as acceptable ocean disposal locations for dredged material meeting applicable requirements.

C. Disposal Volume Limit

The action would formally designate
the SNWW A–D for a one-time placement of approximately 18,737,000 cubic yards (cy) of new work (construction) material plus approximately 37,725,000 cubic yards of maintenance material over a 50-year period. The need for ongoing ocean disposal capacity would be based on modeling in the USACE SNWW CIP Engineering Appendix.

D. Site Management and Monitoring
Plan

Continuing use of the sites requires verification that significant impacts do not occur outside of the disposal site boundaries through implementation of the SMMP developed as part of theFinal EIS developed for the SabineNeches Waterway Project. The main purpose of the SMMP is to provide a
structured framework to ensure that dredged material disposal activities will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, the marine environment, or economic potentialities (Section 103(a) of the MPRSA). Two main objectives for management of SNWW A–D are: (1) To ensure that only dredged material that satisfies the criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 227 subparts B, C, D, E, and G and part 228.4(e) and is suitable for unrestricted placement at the ODMDS is, in fact, disposed at the sites, and; (2) to avoid excessive mounding, either within the site boundaries or in areas adjacent to the sites, as a direct result of placement operations.

The EPA and USACE Galveston District personnel would achieve these SMMP objectives by jointly administering the following activities in
accordance with MPRSA section 102(c)(3): (1) A baseline assessment of conditions at the sites; (2) a program for monitoring the sites; (3) special management conditions or practices to be implemented at the sites that are necessary for protection of the environment; (4) consideration of the quantity of dredged material to be discharged at the sites, and the presence, nature, and bioavailability of the contaminants in the material; (5) consideration of the anticipated use of the sites over the long term, including the anticipated closure date for the sites, if applicable, and any need for management of the sites after the closure; and (6) a schedule for review
and revision of the SMMP.

The SMMP prepared for the sites requires periodic physical monitoring to confirm that disposal material is deposited within the seafloor disposal boundary, as well as bathymetric surveys to confirm that there is no excessive mounding or short-term transport of material beyond the limits of the ODMDS. Physical and chemical sediment and biological monitoring requirements are described in the SMMP and are required to be conducted based on the Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal Testing Manual, EPA 503/8–91/001 and the Joint EPA–USACE Regional Implementation Agreement (RIA) procedures. Results will be used to confirm that dredged material actually disposed at the site satisfies the criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 227 subparts B, C, D, E, and G and part 228.4(e) and is suitable for unrestricted ocean disposal. Other activities implemented through the SMMP to achieve these objectives include: (1) Regulating quantities and types of material to be disposed, including the time, rates, and methods of disposal; and (2) recommending changes to site use requirements, including disposal amounts or timing, based on periodic evaluation of site monitoring results.

E. Ocean Dumping Site Designation
Criteria

In proposing to designate these Sites, the EPA assessed the proposed Sites according to the criteria of the MPRSA, with particular emphasis on the general and specific regulatory criteria of 40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6(a), to determine whether the proposed site designations satisfy those criteria.

General Selection Criteria

1. The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only at sites or
in areas selected to minimize the interference of disposal activities with
other activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial or recreational navigation.

The EPA selected SNWW A–D, including appropriate buffer zones, to avoid sport and commercial fishing activities, as well as other areas of biological sensitivity. The preferred ODMDS are outside the channel, including the navigation channel buffer zone, and safety fairways, and avoid known navigational obstructions, although they do infringe on two Fairway Anchorage areas.

2. Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen that temporary perturbations in water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal operations anywhere within the site can be expected to be reduced
to normal ambient seawater levels or to
undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery.

The proposed sizes for the buffer
zones and for the SNWW A–D sites are based on sediment transport modeling and the physical oceanographic
characterization of the Sabine Pass area. Modeling and characterization,
combined with the information on the expected quality of the material to be dredged, ensures that perturbations caused by placement are reduced to
ambient conditions at the boundaries of the site. Reports of the modeling and
characterization are included in the
administrative record for this action.

3. If at any time during or after disposal site evaluation studies, it is determined that existing disposal sites presently approved on an interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet the criteria for site selection set forth in Sections 228.5 through 228.6, the use of
such sites will be terminated as soon as suitable alternate disposal sites can be designated.

This criterion would not apply to the proposed site designations because they are not existing sites that had previously been approved on an interim basis.

4. The sizes of the ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to localize for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts and permit the implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-range impacts. The size, configuration, and location of any disposal site will be determined as a part of the disposal site evaluation or designation study.

The sizes of the proposed sites are as small as possible to reasonably meet the


### 38675 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules

criteria stated in 40 CFR 228.5 and 40 CFR 228.6(a). The size for each proposed ODMDS is 5.32 square statute miles (4.02 square nautical miles). The SMMPs have been designed to provide adequate surveillance to prevent adverse long-range impacts.

5. The EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf and
other such sites that have been historically used.

Cost, safety, and time factors plus difficulties with monitoring and surveillance preclude the designation of any ODMDS beyond the edge of the Continental Shelf off Sabine Pass (and the Gulf of Mexico generally). Additionally, uncertainty about the resilience of the deep-ocean benthic community indicates that an off-shelf disposal site could threaten severe adverse impacts to that off-shelf benthic community. The EPA did not identifyan environmental advantage to an offshelf site designation, whereas possible adverse impacts to the human environment could be more easily

monitored at a nearshore site. The existing ODMDS that have been used historically, while large enough to

accommodate future maintenance material, are cost prohibitive with regard to disposal of dredged material

from the channel extension. Without designation of the four new ODMDS,

this material would need to be transported to the existing maintenance ODMDS. The end of the existing channel is roughly 13 miles from the end of the proposed extension, resulting
in an increased travel distance of 26 miles for each load of dredged material
from the extension work. Construction costs are expected to double under this scenario, making it impossible to economically justify the SNWW CIP.

Specific Selection Criteria

1. Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography, and distance from the coast.
The proposed sites are bounded by the following coordinates (Location North American Datum from 1983):

A ODMDS ................................................. 29 ° 24 ′47 ′′ N, 93 ° 43 ′ 29′′ W; 29 ° 24 ′47 ′′ N, 93 ° 41 ′08 ′′ W

29 ° 22 ′48 ′′ N, 93 ° 41 ′09′′ W; 29 ° 22 ′49′′ N, 93 ° 43 ′ 29′′ W

B ODMDS ................................................. 29 ° 21 ′ 59′′ N, 93 ° 43 ′ 29′′ W; 29 ° 21 ′ 59′′ N, 93 ° 41 ′08 ′′ W

29 ° 20 ′00′′ N, 93 ° 41 ′09′′ W; 29 ° 20 ′00′′ N, 93 ° 43 ′ 29′′ W

C ODMDS ................................................. 29 ° 19 ′ 11 ′′ N, 93 ° 43 ′ 29′′ W; 29 ° 19 ′ 11 ′′ N, 93 ° 41 ′09′′ W

29 ° 17 ′ 12 ′′ N, 93 ° 41 ′09′′ W; 29 ° 17 ′ 12 ′′ N, 93 ° 43 ′ 29′′ W

D ODMDS ................................................. 29 ° 16 ′ 22 ′′ N, 93 ° 43 ′ 29′′ W; 29 ° 16 ′ 22 ′′ N, 93 ° 41 ′ 10′′ W

29 ° 14 ′ 24 ′′ N, 93 ° 44 ′ 10′′ W; 29 ° 14 ′ 24 ′′ N, 93 ° 43 ′ 29′′ W

The water depth at the proposed SNWW A–D sites ranges from 44 to 46 feet and the bottom topography is flat.
SNWW–A would be located 21 miles from shore, SNWW–B would be located 24 miles from shore, SNWW–C would
be located 27 miles from shore and
SNWW–D would be located 30 miles
from shore.

2. Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage areas of living resources in adult or juvenile phases.

Due to the marine open water locale of these sites, the presence of aerial, pelagic, or benthic living resources is likely within the area of the proposed sites. The location of the proposed ODMDS can be described as being between the principal spawning areas and the estuarine nursery areas. The
water column and benthic effects associated with ocean disposal of dredged material at the proposed ODMDS would not adversely affect the passage of organisms to and from the spawning-nursery areas through the waters above the disposal sites. Localized and intermittent dredged material disposal operations are unlikely to adversely affect migration, feeding, or nesting of marine mammals
and sea turtles.

3. Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas.

The preferred sites are over 21 miles from any beach and Sabine Bank is at
least 1.7 miles from the nearest of the proposed ODMDS. According to the dredged material transport model (available in the administrative record),
the maximum distance for the mounded dredged material to reach ambient depth was 1,081 feet. Doubling this distance would provide a buffer of 0.4 mile, only
a fraction of the 1.7 miles to Sabine
Bank.

4. Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of, and proposed methods of release, including methods of packaging the waste, if any.

Only suitable dredged material from
the SNWW Entrance Channel 13.2 mile extension may be disposed at the sites. Dredged material proposed for ocean disposal is subject to strict testing requirements established by the EPA and USACE, and only clean (non-toxic) dredged materials from the SNWW
Entrance Channel 13.2 mile extension would be allowed to be disposed of at the SNWW A–D sites. Approximately 18.7 mcy of new work material will be dredged during the construction of 13.2-
mile extension of the Entrance Channel. Maintenance material per dredging cycle is estimated at three mcy for a total of 37.7 mcy over a period of 50 years. Dredged material is expected to be released from hopper dredges.

5. Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.

The proposed sites are amenable to surveillance and monitoring. The SMMP prepared for the sites consists of (1) A method for recording the location of each discharge; (2) bathymetric surveys; and, (3) grain-size analysis, sediment chemistry characterization, and benthic infaunal analysis at selected

stations.

6. Dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing characteristics of the area, including prevailing current direction and velocity, if any.

These three physical oceanographic parameters were used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop the necessary buffer zones for the exclusion analysis and to determine the adequacy of size of the proposed sites. Predominant long shore currents, and thus predominant long shore transport, are to the west. Long-term mounding has not historically occurred in the existing nearby ODMDS. Therefore, steady longshore transport and occasional storms, including hurricanes, are expected to remove the disposed material from the sites through dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing.

7. Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and dumping in the area (including cumulative effects).

The Final Environmental Impact
Statement discusses the results of chemical and bioassay testing of samples collected to support the proposed Waterway Extension and surrounds, and concluded that there
were no indications of water or sediment quality problems in the ZSF, including the proposed disposal sites. Testing of dredged material collected and tested from past maintenance dredging indicates that the material dredged from the channel was acceptable for ocean disposal according


### 38676 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules

to the evaluation criteria published at 40 CFR part 227. Based on current direction and modeling of the new work and maintenance material, the proposed disposal sites would be situated to prevent discharged material from reentering the channel and to ensure that any mounding poses no obstruction to navigation. No cumulative mounding has been detected at the existing ODMDS and there is no reason to expect any at the proposed ODMDS.

8. Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral extraction, desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas of special scientific importance, and other legitimate uses of the ocean.

The interference considerations that are pertinent to the present situation are shipping, mineral extraction, commercial and recreational fishing, and recreational areas. The preferred
sites would not interfere with these or other legitimate uses of the ocean because the exclusion processes used to identify the proposed sites was designed to prevent the selection of sites that would cause any such interference. Ocean disposal of dredged material in the past has not interfered with other

uses.

9. Existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined by available data or by trend assessment or baseline

surveys.

The FEIS to support the proposed Waterway Extension project cited a baseline study, which used sediment samples from the area of the proposed
Extension and the ZSF. No adverse water or sediment quality concerns were
indicated. Benthos of the area was sampled and characterized, is dominated by polychaetes (57.7%) and included abundant populations of malacostracans (18.3%) and bivalves (7.7%). Density ranged from 4,055 organisms/square foot at Station 3 (north of ODMDS A) up to 30,265 organisms/square foot at Station 26 (center of ODMDS B). Areas of moderately high sand content (68 to 91%) supported the highest densities, located near ODMDS B and ODMDS C, near the center of the ZSF. In general, the water and sediment quality is good throughout the ZSF and in the existing (historically used) ODMDS. There have been no long-term adverse impacts on water and sediment quality or benthos at the existing ODMDS, and none are expected with use of the proposed sites.

10. Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance species in the disposal site.

With disturbances to any benthic community, opportunistic species would initially recolonize the area. At this location, however, these species would not be nuisance species, i.e., they
would not interfere with other legitimate uses of the ocean, that they would not be human pathogens, and would not be non-indigenous species. The placement of dredged material in the past has not attracted nor promoted development or recruitment of nuisance species, and the placement of the dredged material from new work and future maintenance dredged material should not attract or promote the development or recruitment of nuisance species.

11. Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any significant natural or cultural features of historical importance.

Historic records generated by the former Minerals Management Service (MMS) indicate that no historic shipwrecks are mapped within the limits of the proposed ODMDS, but remote-sensing surveys have not been conducted. Ocean disposal of dredged material is not expected to adversely affect any unrecorded wrecks given the depth of water through which the material would settle and the expected depth of burial at the time of disposal, particularly given the dispersive nature
of the seabed environment in this portion of the Gulf. The distribution, depth, and dispersion of dredged
material within these ODMDS have been evaluated by numerical modeling (PBS&J, 2006). Hopper dredges would drop dredged material onto the proposed ODMDS, forming mound fields with individual mounds totaling no more than five feet in height. The effects of the deposition of material on any undiscovered resource would be cushioned by settling through water depths ranging from 30 to 45 feet. Previous monitoring of existing placement areas and studies of bottom
ocean currents has shown that the material would disperse between channel maintenance cycles and not accumulate. The proposed ODMDS would be located in Federal waters (i.e., outside of adjacent State jurisdiction).

F. Regulatory Requirements

1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), federal agencies are generally required to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. Under the doctrine of functional equivalency, EPA designations of ODMDS under MPRSA are not subject to NEPA requirements. The EPA believes the NEPA process enhances public participation on such designations and the potential effects of these proposed designations were fullyanalyzed in an EIS on the SabineNeches Waterway Channel Improvement Project: Southeast Texas and Southwest Louisiana (SNWW CIP). The Corps of Engineers was the lead agency on that EIS and EPA a cooperating agency.

Notice of the draft EIS was published
in the Federal Register on December 24, 2009, and the document was available for review and comment through March 10, 2010. In addition, public meetings on the EIS were held in Beaumont, Texas and Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Comments included concerns on pipeline relocation, marsh ecology, beneficial use of dredged material, and increased danger from storms. Few comments were received on designation of the ODMDS. Detailed responses to comments were published in Appendix A of the final EIS, notice of which was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2012. The EPA has relied on
information from the EIS and its technical appendices in its consideration and application of ocean dumping criteria to the four ODMDS it proposes to designate today.

2. Endangered Species Act Consultation

During development of the SNWW CIP project EIS referenced above,
USACE and EPA consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), regarding the potential for designation and use of the ocean disposal sites to jeopardize thecontinued existence of any Federallylisted species. The consultation process
is documented in that EIS.

Of the Threatened or Endangered Species noted in the biological assessment for the SNWW CIP, only sea
turtles and whales are found as far offshore as the proposed ODMDS. The NMFS issued a biological opinion on August 13, 2007, that the proposed action (including proposed site designations) is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any Federally-listed species.

3. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of

1996

The designation of the proposed ODMDS will not adversely affect essential fish habitat. By letter dated March 8, 2010, the National Marine
Fisheries Service concurred with the USACE findings that beneficial features


### 38677 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules

associated with the project would offset any adverse impacts of the Waterway Expansion project.

4. Coastal Zone Management Act

Pursuant to section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, federal
activities that affect a state’s coastal
zone must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the state’s approved Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program. To implement that requirement, federal agencies prepare coastal consistency determinations and submit them to the appropriate state agencies, which may concur in or object to a consistency determination.

In connection with its preparation of the EIS on the Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project, the Corps prepared a coastal consistency determination on its proposed navigation projects and the ODMDS designation, which it submitted to the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) and the Texas General Land Office (TGLO), the agencies implementing approved coastal zone management plans for their respective states. On March 30, 2010, TGLO concurred in the Corps consistency determination. By letter of March 31, 2010, LDNR concurred on condition that the Corps submit a supplemental consistency determination to LDNR after the project planning and design process, resulting in a more detailed description of project features. LDNR’s letter also generally opposed EPA’s ODMDS designation, claiming it would provide the Corps an option other than beneficial use for disposal of dredged material.

More detailed plans and descriptions of the proposed navigation projects may be needed for LDNR and the Corps to resolve potential issues on the practicability of beneficial use of dredged materials in Louisiana’s coastal zone. Such issues are independent of EPA’s proposed ODMDS designations, however, which only make an offshore disposal option available when the Corps deems beneficial use that might otherwise be required by a state CZM program impracticable. EPA supports beneficial use of dredged material, but ODMDS designations do not in any way require that the Corps forego beneficial use in favor of ocean disposal.

Moreover, the closest of any of the four proposed ODMDS is approximately
20 miles off the Texas coast at its nearest point. Predominant longshore currents in the proposed ODMDS
locations flow from east to west and dredged material transport modeling shows that any dredged materials discharged to them will not thus enter
or otherwise affect Louisiana’s coastal zone. Because the proposed ODMDS designations will not affect any land or
water use or natural resource of Louisiana’s coastal zone, no coastal consistency determination need be prepared for today’s proposal.

5. Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of

1990

The disposal of dredged materials
related to maintenance and construction is an exception to Federal expenditure
restrictions related to Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982; therefore, project activities related to disposal are exempt from the prohibitions set forth in this

act.

G. Administrative Review

This rulemaking proposes the designation of ocean dredged material disposal sites pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA. This proposed action complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as
follows:

1. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’, and therefore subject to office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and other requirements of
the Executive Order. The Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to lead to a rule that may:

(a) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities;

(b) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(c) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof: or

(d) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.

This Proposed Rule should have minimal impact on State, local or Tribal governments or communities. Therefore, EPA has determined that this Proposed Rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under the terms of Executive
Order 12866.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to minimize the reporting and recordkeeping burden on the regulated community, as well as to minimize the
cost of Federal information collection and dissemination. In general, the Act requires that information requests and record-keeping requirements affecting ten or more non-Federal respondents be approved by OMB. The EPA anticipates that few, if any, non-federal entities will use the sites as none have in the past.

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) provides that whenever an agency promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless the head of the agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 604 and 605). The site designation and management actions would only have the effect of setting maximum annual disposal volume and providing a continuing disposal option for dredged material. Consequently, EPA’s action will not impose any additional
economic burden on small entities. For this reason, the Regional Administrator certifies, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, that the Proposed Rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.

4. Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. This Proposed Rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more in any year. It imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector nor does it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA do not apply to this Proposed Rule.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of


### 38678 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules

regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ‘‘ Policies that have federalism implications’’ are defined in
the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’

This Proposed Rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132.

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.’’ This Proposed Rule does not have Tribal implications, as defined
in Executive Order 13175.

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

This Executive Order (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically significant’’ as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) 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,
EPA must evaluate the environmental health or 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 EPA. This Proposed Rule is not subject to the
Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because
EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Compliance With
Administrative Procedure Act

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The Proposed Rule would only have the effect of setting maximum annual disposal volumes and providing a continuing disposal option for dredged material. Thus, EPA concluded that this proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

9. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal agencies to determine whether the proposed rule would have a disproportionate adverse impact on minority or low-income population groups within the project area. The proposed rule would not significantly affect any low-income or minority population.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

Dated: June 12, 2013.
Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.

In consideration of the foregoing, EPA is proposing to amend part 228, chapter
I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

**PART 228—CRITERIA FOR THE**
**MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES**
**FOR OCEAN DUMPING**

■ 1. The authority citation for part 228
continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

■ 2. Section 228.15 is amended by adding paragraphs (j) (23 through 26) to
read as follows:

**§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a**
**final basis.**

* * * * *

(j) * * * (23) Sabine-Neches, TX Dredged
Material Site A.

(i) Location: 29 ° 24 ′47 ′′ N., 93 ° 43 ′ 29′′
W.; 29 ° 24 ′47 ′′ N., 93 ° 41 ′08 ′′ W.;

29 ° 22 ′48 ′′ N., 93 ° 41 ′09′′ W.; 29 ° 22 ′49 ′′
N., 93 ° 43 ′ 29′′ W.; thence to point of beginning.

(ii) Size: approximately 5.3 square
miles.

(iii) Depth: Ranges from 44 to 46 feet. (iv) Primary Use: Dredged material. (v) Period of Use: Continuing use. (vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material from the
Sabine-Neches 13.2 mile Extension Channel that complies with EPA’s Ocean Dumping Regulations. Dredged
material that does not meet the criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 227 shall not be placed at the site. Disposal operations
shall be conducted in accordance with requirements specified in a Site Management and Monitoring Plan developed by EPA and USACE, to be reviewed periodically, at least every 10

years.

(24) Sabine-Neches, TX Dredged
Material Site B.

(i) Location: 29 ° 21 ′ 59′′ N., 93 ° 43 ′ 29 ′′
W.; 29 ° 21 ′ 59′′ N., 93 ° 41 ′08 ′′ W.;

29 ° 20 ′00′′ N., 93 ° 41 ′09′′ W.; 29 ° 20 ′00′′
N., 93 ° 43 ′ 29′′ W.; thence to point of beginning.

(ii) Size: approximately 5.3 square
miles.

(iii) Depth: Ranges from 44 to 46 feet. (iv) Primary Use: Dredged material. (v) Period of Use: Continuing use. (vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material from the
Sabine-Neches 13.2 mile Extension Channel that complies with EPA’s Ocean Dumping Regulations. Dredged
material that does not meet the criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 227 shall not be placed at the site. Disposal operations
shall be conducted in accordance with requirements specified in a Site Management and Monitoring Plan developed by EPA and USACE, to be reviewed periodically, at least every 10

years.

(25) Sabine-Neches, TX Dredged
Material Site C.

(i) Location: 29 ° 19 ′ 11 ′′ N., 93 ° 43 ′ 29 ′′
W.; 29 ° 19 ′ 11 ′′ N, 93 ° 41 ′09′′ W.;

29 ° 17 ′ 12 ′′ N., 93 ° 41 ′09′′ W.; 29 ° 17 ′ 12 ′′
N., 93 ° 43 ′ 29′′ W.; thence to point of beginning.

(ii) Size: approximately 5.3 square
miles.

(iii) Depth: Ranges from 44 to 46 feet. (iv) Primary Use: Dredged material. (v) Period of Use: Continuing use. (vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material from the
Sabine-Neches 13.2 mile Extension Channel that complies with EPA’s Ocean Dumping Regulations. Dredged


### 38679 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules

material that does not meet the criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 227 shall not be placed at the site. Disposal operations
shall be conducted in accordance with requirements specified in a Site Management and Monitoring Plan developed by EPA and USACE, to be reviewed periodically, at least every 10

years.

(26) Sabine-Neches, TX Dredged
Material Site D.

(i) Location: 29 ° 16 ′ 22 ′′ N., 93 ° 43 ′ 29′′
W.; 29 ° 16 ′ 22 ′′ N., 93 ° 41 ′ 10′′ W.;

29 ° 14 ′ 24 ′′ N., 93 ° 44 ′ 10′′ W.; 29 ° 14 ′ 24 ′′
N., 93 ° 43 ′ 29′′ W.; thence to point of beginning.

(ii) Size: approximately 5.3 square
miles.

(iii) Depth: Ranges from 44 to 46 feet. (iv) Primary Use: Dredged material. (v) Period of Use: Continuing use. (vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material from the
Sabine-Neches 13.2 mile Extension Channel that complies with EPA’s Ocean Dumping Regulations. Dredged
material that does not meet the criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 227 shall not be placed at the site. Disposal operations
shall be conducted in accordance with requirements specified in a Site Management and Monitoring Plan developed by EPA and USACE, to be reviewed periodically, at least every 10

years.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2013–14911 Filed 6–26–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND**
**HUMAN SERVICES**

**Centers for Medicare & Medicaid**
**Services**

**42 CFR Parts 412, 482, 485, and 489**

**[CMS–1599–CN]**

**RIN 0938–AR53**

**Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for**  **Acute Care Hospitals and the Long Term Care Hospital Prospective**  **Payment System and Proposed Fiscal Year 2014 Rates; Quality Reporting**  **Requirements for Specific Providers; Hospital Conditions of Participation;** 
**Corrections**

**AGENCY :**  Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule; correction.

**SUMMARY :**  This document corrects technical and typographical errors in the proposed rule that appeared in the May 10, 2013 Federal Register titled ‘‘Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Proposed Fiscal Year 2014 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Hospital Conditions of Participation.’’

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Tzvi Hefter (410) 786–4487, for corrections regarding MS–DRG classifications and new technology add-on payments.

Eva Fung (410) 786–7539, for corrections regarding the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program Hospital and Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program.

William Lehrman (410) 786–1037, for corrections regarding the Hospital
Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) requirements.

Charles Padgett (410) 786–2811 for corrections regarding the Long-Term Care Quality Reporting Program.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
I. Background

In FR Doc. 2013–10234 of May 10, 2013 (78 FR 27486), there were a
number of technical errors that are
identified and corrected in the
Correction of Errors section of this correcting document.

II. Summary of Errors

A. Errors in the Preamble

On page 27514, in our discussion of the proposed changes to specific Medicare severity diagnosis-related group (MS–DRG) classifications, we made a typographical error in a section heading.

On page 27545, in our discussion of the fiscal year (FY) 2014 applications for new technology add-on payments, we
made inadvertent technical and formatting errors in the table regarding differences between the Responsive Neurostimulator (RNS ® ) System and Deep Brain Stimulator (DBS) and Vagus Nerve Stimulator (VNS) Systems (the
table is titled ‘‘KEY DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN THE RNS SYSTEM AND DBS AND VNS SYSTEMS.’’)

On pages 27595 and 27596, in our discussion of the FY 2014 proposals regarding the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program, we inadvertently provided the incorrect hyperlink to a readmissions report.

On page 27622, in our discussion of the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program for FY 2015, we made a typographical error in the text of
a footnote.

On pages 27625 and 27630, in our
discussion of standardized infection ratio (SIR) and healthcare-association infections (HAI), we made several typographical and technical errors in describing the predicted number and how the predicted number of events is
calculated.

On page 27634, in our discussion of Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program, we made errors regarding the
clinical measures set and stratum.

On page 27699, in our discussion of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) requirements, we made an error in the timeframe specified for obtaining and submitting completed

surveys.

On page 27700, in our discussion of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) requirements, we made a typographical error in referencing the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN).

On page 27704, in our discussion of
the HAI measures included in the current Hospital IQR validation process, we made errors in referencing the timeframe for updating the list of the
common commensals and in the hyperlink for the CLABSI Validation Template.

On page 27710, in our discussion of the PPS-Exempt Cancer Hospital Quality Reporting Program (PCHQR), we made a typographical error in referencing CDC’s NHSN.

On page 27714, we inadvertently made technical errors in describing where the HCHAPS survey, methodology, and results can be found.

On pages 27721, 27722, 27723, 27725, 27726, 27729, 27730, 27731, 27752, and 27755, in our discussion regarding the LTCHQR Program, we made typographical and technical errors in a hyperlink and several measure names and NQF measure identification numbers. We also made errors outlining the proposed timeline for submission of the LTCHQR quality data for the application of NQF #0674 and referencing CDC’s NHSN.

B. Errors in the Addendum

On page 27810, in our discussion of the effects of the proposed implementation of the HAC Reduction Program, we made inadvertent errors in the total number of hospitals that had submitted complete data.

On page 27819, in our discussion of the effects of the FY 2014 LTCHQR Program, we made several typographical

errors.