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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38673 

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 agencies. 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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, would 

provide 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 the 

Final 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38675 

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 identify 

an 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 fully 

analyzed 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 the 

continued 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38677 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38679 

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. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS