Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61591 

Water Act’’ published on April 21, 2014. 

The agencies are extending the 

comment period in response to 

stakeholder requests for an extension 

and to allow comments on new 

supporting materials. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 14, 2014. The 

comment period was scheduled to end 

on October 20, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket identification (ID) 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2011–0880, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: ow-docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Water Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Attention: 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2011– 

0880. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20004, Attention: Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OW–2011–0880. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Center’s normal hours of operation. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information by 

calling 202–566–2426. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2011– 

0880. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the 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 the 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, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disc you submit. 

If the EPA cannot read your comment 

due to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, the 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. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket visit the 

Docket Center homepage at http://www.

epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

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 

materials, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Water Docket Center, EPA/ 

DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744; 

the telephone number for the Office of 

Water Docket Center is (202) 566–2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Donna Downing, Office of Water (4502– 

T), Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number 202–566–2428; email address: 

CWAwaters@epa.gov. Ms. Stacey Jensen, 

Regulatory Community of Practice 

(CECW–CO–R), U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 441 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20314; telephone 

number 202–761–5856; email address: 

USACE_CWA_Rule@usace.army.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

21, 2014, EPA published the proposed 

rule ‘‘Definition of ‘Waters of the United 

States’ Under the Clean Water Act’’ in 

the Federal Register (79 FR 22188). The 

previous comment deadline was 

October 20, 2014. The EPA and Corps 

have received requests for an extension 

to the comment deadline for this 

proposed rule. 

This action extends the comment 

period until November 14, 2014. Note 

that additional information is available 

in the public docket, EPA–HQ–OW– 

2011–0880, since publication of the 

April 21, 2014 proposed rule and a 

subsequent notice extending the public 

comment period (June 24, 2014; 79 FR 

35712). The agencies also expect 

additional relevant materials from the 

Science Advisory Board before October 

20, 2014, and will immediately place 

those materials in the docket when they 

become available. The agencies will 

publish a notice of availability at that 

time. 

Dated: October 3, 2014. 

Kenneth J. Kopocis, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Dated: October 6, 2014. 

Jo-Ellen Darcy, 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 

Department of the Army. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24349 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[EPA–R02–OW–2014–0587, FRL–9917–51– 

Region–2] 

Modification of the Designations of the 

Caribbean Ocean Dredged Material 

Disposal Sites (San Juan Harbor, PR; 

Yabucoa Harbor, PR; Ponce Harbor, 

PR; Mayaguez Harbor, PR; Arecibo 

Harbor, PR) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to modify 

the designations for the five Ocean 

Dredged Material Disposal Sites 

(ODMDS) around Puerto Rico (San Juan 

Harbor, PR ODMDS; Yabucoa Harbor, 

PR ODMDS; Ponce Harbor, PR ODMDS; 

Mayaguez Harbor, PR ODMDS; Arecibo 

Harbor, PR ODMDS). Currently, each of 

the ODMDS is restricted to only allow 

disposal of dredged material from the 

specific harbor for which it is named. 

The proposed modification would 

remove the restriction that limits 

eligibility for disposal at each of the 

disposal sites based solely on the 

geographic origin of the dredged 

material. The proposed modifications to 

the site designations do not actually 

authorize the disposal of any particular 

dredged material at any site. All 

proposals to dispose of dredged material 

at any of the designated sites will 

continue to be subject to project— 

specific reviews and must still be 

demonstrated to satisfy the criteria for 

ocean dumping before any material is 

authorized for disposal. This action is 

necessary to provide long-term 

flexibility for management of any 

dredged material that may potentially be 

derived from maintenance, 

development, or emergency activities in 

areas outside those harbors currently 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

61592 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

provided for in the designations. The 

proposed modifications to the site 

designations are for an indefinite period 

of time. Each ODMDS will continue to 

be monitored to ensure that significant 

unacceptable, adverse environmental 

impacts do not occur as a result of 

dredged material disposal at the site. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 13, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R02– 

OW–2014–0587, by one of the following 

methods: 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov; follow the online 

instruction for submitting comments. 

• Email: Mr. Mark Reiss at 

reiss.mark@epa.gov. 

• Fax: Mr. Mark Reiss, Dredging 

Sediment and Oceans Section (CWD) at 

fax number 212–637–3887. 

• Mail: Mr. Mark Reiss, Dredging 

Sediment and Oceans Section (CWD), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York NY 

10007. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R02–OW–2014–0587. 

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 comments must be 

submitted as an ASCII or Microsoft 

Word file avoiding the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption, 

and that are free of any defects or 

viruses. Comments will also be accepted 

on disks in Microsoft Word or ASCII file 

format sent or delivered to the address 

above. All comments and data in 

electronic form must be identified by 

the name, date and Federal Register 

citation of this notice. No confidential 

business information should be sent via 

email. 

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 Dredging, Sediment and Oceans 

Section (CWD), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 

Broadway, New York NY 10007 or at the 

Caribbean Environmental Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 2 City View Plaza II— 

Suite 7000 #48 Rd. 165 km 1.2. 

Guaynabo, PR 00968–8069. The file will 

be made available by appointment for 

public inspection 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mark Reiss, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region, 290 

Broadway, 24th Floor (CWD), New 

York, NY 10007–1866, telephone (212) 

637–3799, electronic mail: reiss.mark@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Potentially Affected Persons 

II. Background 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. 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 Reform Act 

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 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

9. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low Income 

Populations 

11. National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 

12. The Endangered Species Act 

13. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

14. Plain Language Directive 

15. Executive Order 13158: Marine 

Protected Areas 

I. Potentially Affected Persons 

Entities potentially regulated by this action 

are persons, organizations, or government 

bodies seeking to dispose of dredged material 

into Caribbean ocean waters, under the 

Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries 

Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. (hereinafter 

referred to as the MPRSA) and its 

implementing regulations. This proposed 

rule is expected to be primarily of relevance 

to (a) parties seeking permits from the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers to transport 

dredged material for the purpose of disposal 

into Caribbean ocean waters and (b) to the 

Corps itself for its own dredged material 

disposal projects. Potentially regulated 

categories and entities that may seek to use 

the Caribbean ODMDS may include: 

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities 

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 the types of entities that could 

potentially be affected should the proposed 

rule become a final rule. To determine 

whether your organization is affected by this 

action, you should carefully consider 

whether your organization is subject to the 

requirement to obtain a MPRSA permit in 

accordance with the Purpose and Scope of 40 

CFR 220.1, and you wish to use the sites 

subject to today’s proposal. EPA notes that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61593 

nothing in this proposed rule alters the 

jurisdiction or authority of EPA or the types 

of entities regulated under the MPRSA. 

Questions regarding the applicability of this 

proposed rule to a particular entity should be 

directed to the contact person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

II. Background 

Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 

1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., 

gives the Administrator of EPA the authority 

to designate sites where ocean disposal may 

be permitted. On October 1, 1986, the 

Administrator delegated the authority to 

designate ocean disposal sites to the Regional 

Administrator of the Region in which the 

sites are located. These proposed 

modifications are being made pursuant to 

that authority. 

The ODMDS herein specified are located 

within Region 2; therefore, this action is 

being taken pursuant to the Regional 

Administrator’s delegated authority. EPA’s 

ocean dumping regulations (40 CFR 

228.4(e)(1)) promulgated under the MPRSA 

require, among other things, that EPA 

designate ocean dumping sites (ODMDS) by 

promulgation of a site designation in 40 CFR 

Part 228. Designated ocean dumping sites are 

codified at 40 CFR 228.15. This rule proposes 

to modify the site designations for the five 

open water dredged material disposal sites 

around the Caribbean. These sites are located 

in ocean waters off Puerto Rico. Arecibo 

Harbor, PR ODMDS and San Juan Harbor, PR 

ODMDS are closest to shore, lying 1.5 

nautical miles and 1.4 nautical miles north 

of the respective harbors for which they are 

named; all of the others are at least 4 nautical 

miles from the respective harbors for which 

they are named. 

The site modifications are being proposed 

in this action to provide the Corps, 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, municipal, 

and private entities with greater long term 

flexibility in managing dredged materials 

outside the specific harbors currently 

provided for in the designations. The 

modifications would also allow for 

management of dredged materials associated 

with any eventual development, redevelopment or emergency (i.e., posthurricane) needs in those areas. Each 

ODMDS will be subject to continuing site 

management and monitoring to ensure that 

unacceptable, adverse environmental impacts 

do not occur. The management of each 

ODMDS is further described in the Site 

Monitoring and Management Plans (SMMPs) 

for the sites (to date, SMMPs have been 

prepared for the Arecibo Harbor, PR, 

Yabucoa Harbor, PR, Ponce Harbor, PR, and 

San Juan Harbor, PR ODMDS; a SMMP will 

be prepared for the Mayaguez Harbor, PR 

ODMDS before it is used for dredged material 

disposal). This proposed rule is the only 

document being made available for public 

comment by EPA at this time. The 

modification of the designations is being 

proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 228.3(b) 

of the Ocean Dumping Regulations, which 

allows EPA to modify the use and 

designation of ocean dredged material 

disposal sites. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is publishing this Proposed Rule to 

propose the removal of the geographic 

restrictions on the origin of the dredged 

material that can be disposed from the 

designations of the San Juan Harbor, PR 

Ponce Harbor, PR, Yabucoa Harbor, PR, 

Mayaguez Harbor, PR and Arecibo Harbor, 

PR ODMDSs. The monitoring and 

management of requirements that will apply 

to each site are to be described in the SMMP 

prepared for the site before its use. 

Management and monitoring will be carried 

out by EPA Region 2 in conjunction with the 

Corps’ Jacksonville District. 

Modification of the designation of ocean 

disposal sites under 40 CFR part 228 is 

essentially a preliminary, planning measure. 

The practical effect of such a designation is 

only to require that if future ocean disposal 

activity is permitted and/or authorized (in 

the case of Corps projects) under 40 CFR Part 

227, then such disposal should normally be 

consolidated at the designated sites (See 33 

U.S.C. 1413(b).) Designation of an ocean 

disposal site does not authorize any actual 

disposal and does not preclude EPA or the 

Corps from finding available and 

environmentally preferable alternative means 

of managing dredged materials, or from 

finding that certain dredged material is not 

suitable for ocean disposal under the 

applicable regulatory criteria. 

This modification will provide flexibility 

for management of dredged material from 

areas outside the harbors currently provided 

for in the designations. However, it should be 

emphasized that modification of the 

designations of the ODMDS does not 

constitute or imply Corps’ or EPA’s approval 

of open water disposal of dredged material 

from any specific project. Before disposal of 

dredged material at any site may commence, 

Essential Fish Habitat and Endangered 

Species Act consultations must be 

completed, and EPA and the Corps must 

evaluate the proposal and authorize disposal 

according to the ocean dumping regulatory 

criteria (40 CFR Part 227). All projects 

proposed for disposal at the ODMDS will be 

subject to review and comment by the 

relevant resource agencies and the public to 

ensure that any concerns regarding potential 

impacts associated with transport of material 

from the project area to the ODMDS are 

addressed before they are authorized for 

disposal. 

EPA has the right to disapprove the actual 

disposal, if it determines that environmental 

requirements under the MPRSA (including 

required Essential Fish Habitat and 

Endangered Species Act consultations) have 

not been met. 

IV. Administrative Review 

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must 

determine whether the regulatory action is 

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to OMB 

review and the requirements of the Executive 

Order. The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to 

result in 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 

entitlement, 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. 

It has been determined that this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under E.O. 12866 and is therefore not subject 

to OMB review. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule would not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) because it 

would not require persons to obtain, 

maintain, retain, report, or publicly disclose 

information to or for a Federal agency. 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

The RFA generally requires an agency to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of 

any rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other 

statute unless the agency certifies that the 

rule will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. For the purposes of assessing the 

impacts of today’s rule on small entities, a 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business based on the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) size standards; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, school 

district or special district with a population 

of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently owned 

and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

EPA has determined that this action will not 

have a significant adverse economic impact 

on small entities because the proposed ocean 

disposal site designation does not regulate 

small entities. The site designation will only 

have the effect of providing a long term 

environmentally acceptable disposal option 

for dredged materials in areas outside the 

harbors currently provided for in the 

designations. This action will help to 

facilitate the maintenance of safe navigation 

on a continuing basis. After considering the 

economic impacts of today’s proposed rule 

on small entities, it has been determined that 

this action will not have a significant adverse 

economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. 

4. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title II of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

61594 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 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 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. This 

proposed rule addresses the modification of 

the existing site designations of ocean 

disposal sites in the Caribbean for the 

potential disposal of dredged materials. This 

proposed action neither creates new 

obligations nor alters existing authorizations 

of any state, local or governmental entities. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. Although Section 6 of the 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 

proposed rule, EPA did consult with 

representatives of State and local 

governments in developing this rule. 

In addition, and consistent with Executive 

Order 13132 and EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State and 

local governments, EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed rule from State 

and local officials. 

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 6, 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.’’ 

‘‘Policies that have Tribal implications’’ are 

defined in the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal government 

and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution 

of power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian Tribes.’’ 

The proposed action does not have Tribal 

implications. If finalized, the proposed action 

would not have substantial direct effects on 

Tribal governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and Indian 

Tribes, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule 

designates an ocean dredged material 

disposal site and does not establish any 

regulatory policy with tribal implications. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (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 

might have a disproportionate effect on 

children. If the regulatory action meets both 

criteria, the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health and safety effects of the 

planned rule on children, and explain why 

the planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives considered by the Agency. This 

proposed rule is not an economically 

significant rule as defined under Executive 

Order 12866 and does not concern an 

environmental health or safety risk that EPA 

has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. 

Therefore, it is not subject to Executive Order 

13045. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

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. 

9. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 

(‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 104–113, Section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards in its 

regulatory activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 

are technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide to Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides not to 

use available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. This proposed rule 

does not involve technical standards. 

Therefore, EPA did not consider 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 requires that, to the 

greatest extent practicable and permitted by 

law, each Federal agency must make 

achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission. E.O. 12898 provides that each 

Federal agency must conduct its programs, 

policies, and activities that substantially 

affect human health or the environment in a 

manner that ensures that such programs, 

policies, and activities do not have the effect 

of excluding persons (including populations) 

from participation in, denying persons 

(including populations) the benefits of, or 

subjecting persons (including populations) to 

discrimination under such programs, 

policies, and activities because of their race, 

color, or national origin. 

No action from this proposed rule would 

have a disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effect on 

any particular segment of the population. In 

addition, this rule does not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on those 

communities. Accordingly, the requirements 

of Executive Order 12898 do not apply. 

11. National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 

Section 102(2)(c) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4332, requires that Federal agencies 

prepare an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) on proposals for major Federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. The objective of NEPA 

is to build into the agency decision-making 

process careful consideration of all 

environmental aspects of proposed actions, 

including evaluation of reasonable 

alternatives to the proposed action. Although 

EPA ocean dumping program activities have 

been determined to be ‘‘functionally 

equivalent’’ to NEPA, EPA has a voluntarily 

policy to follow NEPA procedures when 

designating ocean dumping sites. See, 63 FR 

58045 (Oct. 29, 1998). The final EISs for the 

San Juan Harbor, PR ODMDS and the other 

Caribbean ODMDS were published before the 

above policy; the modification proposed in 

this rule is consistent with the NEPA 

evaluations performed at that time as it will 

not cause the volumes projected to be 

disposed to be exceeded at the sites. 

In addition, the Corps will submit Coastal 

Zone Consistency determinations to the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for individual 

projects proposing to dispose at the ODMDS. 

Coordination efforts with NMFS and USFWS 

for ESA and EFH consultation were 

completed on April 22, 2005 and May 16, 

2005. 

12. The Endangered Species Act 

Under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), federal 

agencies are required to ‘‘insure that any 

action authorized, funded, or carried on by 

such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of habitat 

of such species. . . .’’ Under regulations 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61595 

implementing the Endangered Species Act, a 

federal agency is required to consult with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(depending on the species involved) if the 

agency’s action ‘‘may affect’’ endangered or 

threatened species or their critical habitat. 

See, 50 CFR 402.14(a). 

On April 22, 2005 and May 9, 2005, EPA 

sent coordination letters to USFWS and 

NMFS in which the modification was 

described and which requested the 

concurrence of those two Services with 

EPA’s determination that threatened and 

endangered species and their critical habitat 

would not be adversely affected by the 

proposed action. NMFS concurred by 

undated letter in June 2005 and USFWS 

concurred on May 16, 2005. 

13. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act 

The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act 

amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MSFCMA) require the designation of 

essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally 

managed species of fish and shellfish. 

Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the 

MSFCMA, federal agencies are required to 

consult with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) regarding any action they 

authorize, fund, or undertake that may 

adversely affect EFH. An adverse effect has 

been defined by the Act as follows: ‘‘Any 

impact which reduces the quality and/or 

quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include 

direct (e.g., contamination or physical 

disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey, 

reduction in species’ fecundity), site-specific 

or habitat-wide impacts, including 

individual, cumulative, or synergistic 

consequences of actions.’’ On April 22, 2005, 

EPA requested NMFS concurrence with its 

determination that the proposed modification 

was not likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of categories of 

essential fish habitat designated by the 

Caribbean Fishery Management Council. 

NMFS concurred with this determination in 

a letter dated May 13, 2005 and 

recommended mapping of potential shelf 

edge reef habitat to select transit routes for 

laden barges as part of the permitting process 

for individual projects located in areas 

outside the currently authorized harbors. 

EPA agreed to require these studies for 

specific projects, as necessary, as part of the 

permitting process. 

14. Plain Language Directive 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain language. 

EPA has written this proposed rule in plain 

language in order to make it easier to 

understand. 

15. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected 

Areas 

Executive Order 13158 (65 FR 34909, May 

31, 2000) requires EPA to ‘‘expeditiously 

propose new science-based regulations, as 

necessary, to ensure appropriate levels of 

protection for the marine environment.’’ EPA 

may take action to enhance or expand 

protection of existing marine protected areas 

and to establish or recommend, as 

appropriate, new marine protected areas. The 

purpose of the Executive Order is to protect 

the significant natural and cultural resources 

within the marine environment, which 

means ‘‘those areas of coastal and ocean 

waters, the Great Lakes and their connecting 

waters, and submerged lands thereunder, 

over which the United States exercises 

jurisdiction, consistent with international 

law.’’ 

Today’s proposed rule implements Section 

103 of the MPRSA, which requires that 

permits for dredged material be subject to 

EPA review and concurrence. The proposed 

rule would amend 40 CFR 228.15 by 

removing the geographic restrictions on use 

of the ODMDS. Enabling management of the 

additional dredged materials at monitored 

designated sites restricts impacts to those 

areas and minimizes the potential for using 

other near shore discharge strategies with 

potentially greater impacts to the marine 

environment. As such, this proposed rule 

would afford additional protection of aquatic 

organisms at individual, population, 

community, or ecosystem levels of ecological 

structures. Therefore, EPA expects today’s 

proposed rule would advance the objective of 

the Executive Order to protect marine areas. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 

Environmental protection, Water 

pollution control. 

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

Dated: September 3, 2014. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 2. 

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 

revising paragraphs (d)(10)(vi), 

(d)(11)(vi), (d)(12)(vi), (d)(13)(vi), and 

(d)(14)(vi) to read as follows: 

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a 

final basis. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(10) * * * 

(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be 

limited to dredged material. 

(11) * * * 

(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be 

limited to dredged material. 

(12) * * * 

(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be 

limited to dredged material. 

(13) * * * 

(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be 

limited to dredged material. 

(14) * * * 

(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be 

limited to dredged material. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–24348 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS