5708 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Mexico Administrative Code Title 20, 

Chapter 11, Part 49, Excess Emissions 

(20.11.49 NMAC—Excess Emissions) 

occurring during startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction related activities. We are 

proposing to approve the September 23, 

2009 SIP submittal in accordance with 

the requirements of section 110 of the 

Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning 

Section (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the Rules 

Section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Alan Shar, Air Planning Section (6PD– 

L), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

(214) 665–6691, fax (214) 665–7263, 

e-mail address shar.alan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives adverse comments, the 

direct final rule will be withdrawn and 

all public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule, which is located in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: January 25, 2010. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2394 Filed 2–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[EPA–R10–OW–2010–0086; FRL–9109–4] 

Ocean Dumping; Designation of Ocean 

Dredged Material Disposal Sites 

Offshore of the Siuslaw River, OR 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to designate 

two new ocean dredged material 

disposal sites near the mouth of the 

Siuslaw River, Oregon, pursuant to the 

Marine Protection, Research and 

Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA). 

The new sites are needed primarily to 

serve the long-term need for a location 

to dispose of material dredged from the 

Siuslaw River navigation channel, and 

to provide a location for the disposal of 

dredged material for persons who have 

received a permit for such disposal. The 

newly designated sites will be subject to 

ongoing monitoring and management to 

ensure continued protection of the 

marine environment. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received no later than March 8, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: For more information on 

this proposed rule, Docket ID No. EPA– 

R10–OW–2010–0086 use one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for accessing the 

docket and materials related to this 

proposed rule. 

• E-mail: Winkler.Jessica@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Jessica Winkler, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal 

and Public Affairs (ETPA–088), 

Environmental Review and Sediment 

Management Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101. 

Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy during normal business hours for 

the regional library at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, Library, 10th Floor, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

Washington 98101. For access to the 

documents at the Region 10 Library, 

contact the Region 10 Library Reference 

Desk at (206) 553–1289, between the 

hours of 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., and between 

the hours of 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays, for an appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jessica Winkler, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of 

Ecosystems, Tribal and Public Affairs 

(ETPA–083), Environmental Review and 

Sediment Management Unit, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 

98101, phone number: (206) 553–7369, 

e-mail: winkler.jessica@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Potentially Affected Persons 

Persons potentially affected by this 

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, as amended (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. 

1401 to 1445. EPA’s proposed action 

would be relevant to persons, including 

organizations and government bodies 

seeking to dispose of dredged material 

in ocean waters offshore of the Siuslaw 

River, Oregon. Currently, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) would be 

most affected by this 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5709 

2. Background 

a. History of Disposal Sites Offshore of 

the Siuslaw River, Oregon 

Historically, three ocean dredged 

material disposal sites, an Interim Site 

and two selected sites were used by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

for the disposal of sediments dredged 

from the Siuslaw River navigation 

project. The ‘‘Interim Site,’’ former Site 

A, was included in the list of approved 

interim ocean disposal sites for dredged 

material in the Federal Register in 1977 

(42 FR 2461), a status superseded by 

later statutory changes to the MPRSA. 

Mounding at Site A and concern over 

the potential for ocean currents to move 

sediments from Site A back into the 

dredged channel resulted in a selection 

of disposal Sites B and C by the Corps 

pursuant to Section 103 of the MPRSA. 

That authority allows the Corps to select 

a site or sites for disposal when a site 

has not been designated by EPA. The 

selection of Sites B and C was intended 

to reduce potential hazards associated 

with mounding at Site A. The selection 

of Sites B and C was also intended to 

increase long-term disposal site capacity 

near the mouth of the Siuslaw River. 

EPA concurred on the selection and 

approved the Corps’ request to continue 

to use Sites B and C through the end of 

the 2009 dredging season. Sites B and C, 

as selected, are not suitable for 

designation by EPA pursuant to Section 

102 of the MPRSA because of mounding 

taking place in both sites. To provide for 

sufficient disposal capacity over the 

long term, EPA proposes to designate 

two sites, a North Site and a South Site, 

for the ocean disposal of dredged 

material near the Siuslaw River in the 

vicinity of former Sites A, B and C. 

The proposed designation of the two 

ocean disposal sites for dredged 

material does not mean the Corps or 

EPA has approved of the use of the sites 

for open water disposal of dredged 

material from any specific project. 

Before disposal of dredged material at 

either of the proposed Siuslaw River 

Sites can commence by any person, EPA 

and the Corps must evaluate the project 

according to the ocean dumping 

regulatory criteria (40 CFR part 227) and 

authorize disposal. EPA independently 

evaluates proposed dumping and has 

the right to restrict and/or disapprove of 

the actual disposal of dredged material 

if EPA determines that environmental 

requirements under the MPRSA have 

not been met. 

b. Location and Configuration of 

Siuslaw River Ocean Dredged Material 

Disposal Sites 

This action proposes the designation 

of two Siuslaw River ocean dredged 

material sites to the north and south, 

respectively, of the mouth of the 

Siuslaw River. The coordinates, listed 

below, and Figure 1, below, show the 

location of the two proposed Siuslaw 

River ocean dredged material disposal 

sites (Siuslaw River ODMD Sites, North 

and South Sites, or Sites). The 

configuration of the North Site is 

expected to allow dredged material 

disposed in shallower portions of the 

Site to naturally disperse into the 

littoral zone and augment shoreline 

building processes. The proposed 

designation of two Sites will allow EPA 

to adaptively manage the Sites to avoid 

creating mounding conditions that 

could contribute to adverse impacts to 

navigation. 

The coordinates for the two Siuslaw 

River ODMD Sites are, in North 

American Datum 83 (NAD 83): 

North Siuslaw ODMD site South Siuslaw ODMD site 

44°01′31.03′′ N, 124°10′12.92′′ W ............................................................ 44°00′46.72′′ N, 124°10′26.55′′ W. 

44°01′49.39′′ N, 124°10′02.85′′ W ............................................................ 44°01′06.41′′ N, 124°10′24.45′′ W. 

44°01′31.97′′ N, 124°09′01.86′′ W ............................................................ 44°01′04.12′′ N, 124°09′43.52′′ W. 

44°01′13.45′′ N, 124°09′11.41′′ W ............................................................ 44°00′44.45′′ N, 124°09′45.63′′ W. 

The two Sites would be situated in 

approximately 30 to 125 feet of water 

located to the north and south of the 

entrance to the Siuslaw River on the 

southern Oregon Coast (see Figure 1). 

The dimensions of the proposed Sites 

are 4,800 by 2,000 feet and 3,000 by 

2,000 feet, respectively. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
5710 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

c. Management and Monitoring of the 

Sites 

The proposed Siuslaw Sites are 

expected to receive sediments dredged 

by the Corps to maintain the federally 

authorized navigation project at the 

Siuslaw River, Oregon and dredged 

material from other persons who have 

obtained a permit for the disposal of 

dredged material at the Sites. All 

persons using the Sites are required to 

follow a Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Sites. 

The SMMP includes management and 

monitoring requirements to ensure that 

dredged materials disposed at the Sites 

are suitable for disposal in the ocean 

and that adverse impacts of disposal, if 

any, are addressed to the maximum 

extent practicable. The SMMP for the 

Siuslaw River Sites, in addition to the 

aforementioned, also addresses 

management of the Sites to ensure 

adverse mounding does not occur and to 

ensure that disposal events are timed to 

minimize interference with other uses of 

ocean waters in the vicinity of the 

proposed Sites. The SMMP is available 

as a draft document for review and 

comment at this time. The public is 

encouraged to take advantage of this 

opportunity to read and submit 

comments on the draft SMMP. 

d. MPRSA Criteria 

In proposing to designate these Sites, 

EPA assessed the proposed Sites against 

the criteria of the MPRSA, with 

particular emphasis on the general and 

specific regulatory criteria of 40 CFR 

part 228, to determine whether the 

proposed site designations satisfy those 

criteria. EPA’s draft Siuslaw River, 

Oregon Ocean Dredged Material 

Disposal Sites Evaluation Study and 

Environmental Assessment (EA), 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP04FE10.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5711 

provides an extensive evaluation of the 

criteria and other related factors for the 

designation of these Sites. The EA is 

available as a draft document for review 

and comment at this time. The public is 

encouraged to take advantage of this 

opportunity to read and submit 

comments on the draft EA. 

General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5) 

(1) Sites must be selected to minimize 

interference with other activities in the 

marine environment, particularly 

avoiding areas of existing fisheries or 

shellfisheries, and regions of heavy 

commercial or recreational navigation 

(40 CFR 228.5(a)). 

EPA reviewed the potential for the 

Sites to interfere with navigation, 

recreation, shellfisheries, aquatic 

resources, commercial fisheries, 

protected geologic features, and cultural 

and/or historically significant areas and 

found low potential for conflicts. The 

proposed Sites would be located close 

to the approach to the Siuslaw River 

entrance channel but are unlikely to 

cause interference with navigation or 

other uses near the mouth of the 

Siuslaw River provided close 

communication and coordination is 

maintained with other users, vessel 

traffic control and the U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG). Based on the past history of 

fishing and disposal operations near the 

mouth of the Siuslaw River use conflicts 

are not expected to occur. There is the 

potential for other recreational users, for 

example, surfers, boaters, boarders, and 

divers, to use the near-shore area in the 

vicinity of the Sites, but EPA does not 

expect disposal operations at the Sites 

to conflict with recreationists. The draft 

SMMP outlines site management 

objectives, including minimizing 

interference with other uses of the 

ocean. Should a site use conflict be 

identified, site use could be modified 

according to the SMMP to minimize that 

conflict. 

(2) Sites must be situated such that 

temporary perturbations to water quality 

or other environmental conditions 

during initial mixing caused by disposal 

operations would be reduced to normal 

ambient levels or undetectable 

contaminant concentrations or effects 

before reaching any beach, shoreline, 

marine sanctuary, or known 

geographically limited fishery or 

shellfishery (40 CFR 228.5(b)). 

Based on EPA’s review of modeling, 

monitoring data, analysis of sediment 

quality, and history of use, no detectable 

contaminant concentrations or water 

quality effects, e.g., suspended solids, 

would be expected to reach any beach 

or shoreline from disposal activities at 

the Sites. The primary impact of 

disposal activities on water quality is 

expected to be temporary turbidity 

caused by the physical movement of 

sediment through the water column. All 

dredged material proposed for disposal 

will be evaluated according to the ocean 

dumping regulations at 40 CFR 227.13 

and guidance developed by EPA and the 

Corps. In general, dredged material 

which meets the criteria under 40 CFR 

227.13(b) is deemed environmentally 

acceptable for ocean dumping without 

further testing. Dredged material which 

does not meet the criteria of 40 CFR 

227.13(b) must be further tested as 

required by 40 CFR 227.13(c). 

Disposal of suitable material meeting 

the regulatory criteria and deemed 

environmentally acceptable for ocean 

dumping will be allowed at the 

proposed Sites. Most of the dredged 

material (approximately 97%) to be 

disposed of at the Sites is expected to 

be sandy material, while a small amount 

of material (up to 3% of the material) 

would be classified as fine-grained. 

Occasionally, naturally occurring debris 

may be present in the dredged material. 

Hopper dredges, which are used for the 

Corps’ annual navigational dredging, are 

not capable of removing debris from the 

dredge site. However, specific projects 

may utilize a clamshell dredge, in 

which case there is the potential for the 

occasional placement of naturally 

occurring debris at the disposal Sites. 

Sediment movement in the littoral 

zone consists of two mechanisms 

depending upon the size of the 

sediment. Material that is finer than 

sand size is carried in suspension in the 

water and moves offshore relatively 

quickly. Sediments sand size or coarser 

may be occasionally suspended by wave 

action near the bottom, and are moved 

by bottom currents or directly as 

bedload. Tidal, wind and wave forces 

contribute to generating bottom 

currents, which act in relation to the 

sediment grain size and water depth to 

transport sediment. 

(3) The sizes of disposal sites will be 

limited in order to localize for 

identification and control any 

immediate adverse impacts, and to 

permit the implementation of effective 

monitoring and surveillance to prevent 

adverse long-range impacts. Size, 

configuration, and location are to be 

determined as part of the disposal site 

evaluation (40 CFR 228.5(d)). 

To ensure site managers can be 

responsive to the specifics of each 

dredging season based on dredge 

schedules and recorded seasonal 

sediment transport patterns north and 

south along the Oregon coast, EPA 

proposes to designate two Sites which 

nearly double the footprints of former 

Section 103 sites B and C. The larger 

Site footprints are needed to include 

nearshore areas where material can 

disperse into the active littoral zone, 

limit wave effects due to mounding, and 

keep material from reentering the 

navigation channel. Use of the 

shallower portion of the North Site will 

facilitate increased sediment transport 

thereby increasing long-term site 

capacity. Preferential utilization of the 

shallow portions of the North Site also 

meets the management goal of keeping 

material in the littoral system. However, 

as seen in the 1977 Interim Site, 

mounding could occur if too much 

material is placed too quickly in 

shallow water. The designation of 

multiple sites with deeper areas within 

the sites, allows site managers to be 

responsive to annual and long-term 

sediment transport patterns. Effective 

monitoring of the Sites is necessary and 

required. EPA will require annual 

bathymetric surveys for each Site to 

monitor each Site for site capacity and 

potential mounding concerns. These 

surveys will inform the active 

management of the proposed Sites. 

(4) EPA will, wherever feasible, 

designate ocean dumping sites beyond 

the edge of the continental shelf and 

other such sites where historical 

disposal has occurred (40 CFR 228.5(e)). 

Locations off the continental shelf in 

the Pacific Ocean are generally 

inhabited by stable benthic and pelagic 

ecosystems on steeper gradients that are 

not well adapted to the type of frequent 

disturbance events that are typical of 

dredged material disposal in ocean 

waters. The proposed Sites will 

incorporate historic disposal locations 

within the footprint of each Site and 

will not be located off the continental 

shelf. Disposal off the continental shelf 

would remove natural sediments from 

the nearshore littoral transport system, a 

system that functions with largely nonrenewable quantities of sand in Oregon. 

Some of the material disposed at the 

proposed Sites is expected to be 

available to the littoral system. The loss 

of the present volumes of Siuslaw River 

dredged material if disposed off of the 

continental shelf would be unlikely to 

result in disruption of the mass balance 

of the existing littoral system but 

keeping this material in the littoral 

system with the potential to sustain a 

dynamic equilibrium along the Oregon 

coast is considered a benefit. 

Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6) 

(1) Geographical Position, Depth of 

Water, Bottom Topography and 

Distance from Coast (40 CFR 

228.6(a)(1)). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
5712 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

EPA does not anticipate that the 

geographical position, including the 

depth, bottom topography and distance 

from the coastline in the vicinity of the 

proposed Sites will cause adverse 

effects to the marine environment. As 

EPA understands the currents at the 

proposed Sites and the influence of 

those currents on the movement of 

material in the area, there is a high 

likelihood that some of the material 

disposed at the Sites, especially within 

the shallower portion of the North site, 

will be transported to the littoral 

sediment circulation system. 

To help avoid adverse mounding at 

the Sites, site management may include 

establishing ‘‘cells’’ along the nearshore 

portions of each Site and assigning 

numbers of ‘‘dumps’’ to each cell to 

minimize material accumulation and 

avoid excessive or persistent mounding. 

Disposal may also alternate as necessary 

between the two Sites to allow for 

maximum dispersal of material and 

minimal impact to each Site. 

(2) Location in Relation to Breeding, 

Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or Passage 

Areas of Living Resources in Adult or 

Juvenile Phases (40 CFR 228.6(a)(2)). 

The proposed Sites are not located in 

exclusive breeding, spawning, nursery, 

feeding or passage areas for adult or 

juvenile phases of living resources. Near 

the Sites, a variety of pelagic and 

demersal fish species, including salmon, 

as well as shellfish, are found. The 

benthic fauna at the sites is common to 

nearshore, sandy, wave-influenced 

regions of the Pacific Coast in Oregon 

and Washington. 

(3) Location in Relation to Beaches 

and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR 

228.6(a)(3)). 

The Sites, although located in close 

proximity to the Siuslaw River 

navigation channel, and near the 

northern boundary of the Oregon Dunes 

National Recreation Area, are located a 

sufficient distance offshore to avoid 

adverse impacts to beaches and other 

amenity areas. Two public recreation 

areas located to the north of the Siuslaw 

River, Heceta Beach Park and Harbor 

Vista Park, are not expected to be 

impacted by the designation of the Sites. 

Transportation of dredges or barges to 

and from the Sites to dispose of dredged 

material will be coordinated to avoid 

disturbance of other activities near the 

Siuslaw River entrance channel. There 

are no rocks or pinnacles in the vicinity 

of either Site. The Sites are sized and 

located to provide long-term capacity 

for the disposal of dredged material 

without causing any impacts to the 

wave environment at, or near, the Sites. 

Site monitoring and adaptive 

management are components of the 

proposed SMMP. 

(4) Types and Quantities of Wastes 

Proposed to be Disposed of, and 

Proposed Methods of Release, including 

Methods of Packing the Waste, if any (40 

CFR 228.6(a)(4)). 

Dredged material found suitable for 

ocean disposal pursuant to the 

regulatory criteria for dredged material 

or characterized by chemical and 

biological testing and found suitable for 

disposal into ocean waters will be the 

only material allowed to be disposed of 

at the Sites. No material defined as 

‘‘waste’’ under the MPRSA will be 

allowed to be disposed of at the Sites. 

The dredged material to be disposed of 

at the Sites will be predominantly 

marine sand, far removed from known 

sources of contamination. Generally, 

disposal is expected to occur from a 

hopper dredge, in which case, material 

will be released just below the surface 

and the disposal vessel will be required 

to be under power and to slowly transit 

the disposal location during disposal. 

This method of release is expected to 

spread material at the Sites to minimize 

mounding and to minimize impacts to 

the benthic community and to species at 

the Sites at the time of a disposal event. 

(5) Feasibility of Surveillance and 

Monitoring (40 CFR 228.6(a)(5)). 

EPA expects monitoring and 

surveillance at the Sites to be feasible 

and readily performed from small 

surface research vessels. The Sites are 

accessible for bathymetric and side-scan 

sonar surveys. At a minimum, annual 

bathymetric surveys will be conducted 

at each of the Sites to confirm that no 

unacceptable mounding is taking place 

within the Sites or in their immediate 

vicinity. 

(6) Dispersal, Horizontal Transport 

and Vertical Mixing Characteristics of 

the Area, Including Prevailing Current 

Direction and Velocity, if any (40 CFR 

228.6(a)(6)). 

Dispersal, horizontal transport and 

vertical mixing characteristics of the 

area at and in the vicinity of the Sites 

indicate that the marine sands and 

fluvial gravels from the Siuslaw River 

distribute away from the river mouth 

rapidly. The beaches do not show 

significant accretion or loss. The bottom 

current records suggest a bias in 

transport to the north. Fine grained 

material tends to remain in suspension 

and to experience rapid offshore 

transport compared to other sediment 

sizes. Sediment transport of sand-sized 

or coarser material tends to move 

directly as bedload, but is occasionally 

suspended by wave action near the 

seafloor. The proposed Sites are not 

expected to change these characteristics. 

(7) Existence and Effects of Current 

and Previous Discharges and Dumping 

in the Area (including Cumulative 

Effects) (40 CFR 228.6(a)(7)). 

Portions of the two proposed Sites 

have been historically used for disposal 

activity. Disposal of dredged material is 

not expected to result in unacceptable 

environmental degradation at the Sites 

or in the vicinity of the Sites, however 

mounding will be closely monitored in 

those previously used portions and 

preferential use of the shallower 

portions of the North Site is expected. 

The proposed SMMP includes 

monitoring and adaptive management 

measures to address potential mounding 

issues. 

(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 (40 CFR 228.6(a)(8)). 

The proposed Sites are not expected 

to interfere with shipping, fishing, 

recreation or other legitimate uses of the 

ocean. Disposals at the Sites will be 

managed according to the SMMP to 

minimize interference with other 

legitimate uses of the ocean through 

careful timing and staggering of 

disposals in the Sites. Commercial and 

recreational fishing and commercial 

navigation are the primary concerns for 

which such timing will be needed. EPA 

is not aware of any plans for mineral 

extraction offshore of the Siuslaw River 

at this time. EPA would expect to revise 

the SMMP if necessary in the event 

wave energy projects or other renewable 

or traditional energy projects were 

proposed and potential conflicts seemed 

likely. Fish and shellfish culture 

operations are not under consideration 

for the area. There are no known areas 

of scientific importance in the vicinity 

of the Sites. 

(9) The Existing Water Quality and 

Ecology of the Sites as Determined by 

Available Data or Trend Assessment of 

Baseline Surveys (40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)). 

EPA has not identified any potential 

adverse water quality impacts from the 

proposed ocean disposal of dredged 

material at the Sites based on water and 

sediment quality analyses conducted in 

the study area of the Sites and based on 

experience with past disposals near the 

mouth of the Siuslaw River. Fisheries 

and benthic data show the ecology of 

the area to be that of a mobile sand 

community typical of the Oregon Coast. 

(10) Potentiality for the Development 

or Recruitment of Nuisance Species in 

the Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)). 

Nuisance species, considered as any 

undesirable organism not previously 

existing at a location, have not been 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5713 

observed at, or in the vicinity of, the 

Sites. Material expected to be disposed 

at the Sites will be uncontaminated 

marine sands similar to the sediment 

present at the Sites. Some fine-grained 

material, finer than natural background, 

may also be disposed. While this finergrained material could have the 

potential to attract nuisance species to 

the Sites, no such recruitment is known 

to have taken place in the former 

Interim Site A or in the 103-selected 

sites B and C. The proposed SMMP 

includes biological monitoring 

requirements, which will act to identify 

any nuisance species and allow EPA to 

direct special studies and/or operational 

changes to address the issue if it arises. 

(11) Existence at or in Close Proximity 

to the Site of any Significant Natural or 

Cultural Feature of Historical 

Importance (40 CFR 228.6(a)(11)). 

No significant cultural features have 

been identified at, or in the vicinity of, 

the proposed Sites at this time. EPA is 

coordinating with Oregon’s State 

Historic Preservation Officer and with 

Tribes in the vicinity of the Sites to 

identify any cultural features. EPA 

expects to complete that coordination 

effort before making a final decision on 

the proposed Sites. No shipwrecks have 

been observed or documented within 

the proposed Sites or their immediate 

vicinity. 

3. Environmental Statutory Review— 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA); Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA); 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA); Coastal Zone Management 

Act (CZMA); Endangered Species Act 

(ESA); National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) 

a. NEPA 

Section 102 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 

4370f, requires Federal agencies to 

prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for major federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. NEPA does not 

apply to EPA designations of ocean 

disposal sites under the MPRSA because 

the courts have exempted EPA’s actions 

under the MPRSA from the procedural 

requirements of NEPA through the 

functional equivalence doctrine. EPA 

has, by policy, determined that the 

preparation of non-EIS NEPA 

documents for certain EPA regulatory 

actions, including actions under the 

MPRSA, is appropriate. EPA’s ‘‘Notice of 

Policy and Procedures for Voluntary 

Preparation of NEPA Documents,’’ 

(Voluntary NEPA Policy), 63 FR 58045, 

(October 29, 1998), sets out both the 

policy and procedures EPA uses when 

preparing such environmental review 

documents. EPA’s primary voluntary 

NEPA document for designating the 

Sites is the draft Siuslaw River, Oregon 

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites 

Evaluation Study and Environmental 

Assessment, December 2009 (EA), 

jointly prepared by EPA and the Corps. 

The draft EA and its Technical 

Appendices, which are part of the 

docket for this action, provide the 

threshold environmental review for 

designation of the two Sites. The 

information from the proposed EA is 

used extensively, above, in the 

discussion of the ocean dumping 

criteria. 

b. MSA and MMPA 

EPA prepared an essential fish habitat 

(EFH) assessment pursuant to Section 

305(b), 16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2), of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended 

(MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 to 1891d, and 

submitted that assessment to the 

National Marine Fisheries Service in 

July, 2009. NMFS is reviewing EPA’s 

EFH assessment and an Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) Biological 

Assessment and addendum thereto for 

purposes of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended 

(MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 to 1389. EPA 

will not take final action on the 

proposed Sites until the NMFS review 

is complete. 

c. CZMA 

The Coastal Zone Management Act, as 

amended (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 to 

1465, requires Federal agencies to 

determine whether their actions will be 

consistent with the enforceable policies 

of approved state programs. EPA 

prepared a consistency determination 

for the Oregon Ocean and Coastal 

Management Program (OCMP), the 

approved state program in Oregon, to 

meet the requirements of the CZMA and 

submitted that determination to the 

Oregon Department of Land 

Conservation and Development (DLCD) 

for review on January 19, 2010. EPA 

will not take final action on the 

proposed Sites until the DLCD review of 

EPA’s consistency determination is 

complete. 

d. ESA 

The Endangered Species Act, as 

amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1544, 

requires Federal agencies to consult 

with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure that 

any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by the Federal agency is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered species or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

any critical habitat. EPA prepared a 

Biological Assessment (BA) to assess the 

potential effects of designating the two 

Siuslaw River Sites on aquatic and 

wildlife species and submitted that BA 

to the NMFS and USFWS in July, 2009. 

Subsequent to preparation of the BA, 

EPA prepared an addendum to the BA, 

which was submitted in December, 

2009. EPA found that site designation 

does not have a direct impact on any of 

the identified ESA species but also 

found that indirect impacts associated 

with reasonably foreseeable future 

disposal activities had to be considered. 

These indirect impacts included a shortterm increase in suspended solids and 

turbidity in the water column when 

dredged material was disposed at the 

new Sites and an accumulation of 

material on the ocean floor when 

material was disposed at the Sites. EPA 

concluded that while its action may 

affect ESA-listed species, the action 

would not be likely to adversely affect 

ESA-listed species or critical habitat. 

EPA will not take final action on the 

proposed Sites until consultation under 

the ESA is complete. 

e. NHPA 

EPA initiated consultation with the 

State of Oregon’s Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) on November 24, 2009, 

to address the National Historic 

Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), 

16 U.S.C. 470 to 470a–2, which requires 

Federal agencies to take into account the 

effect of their actions on districts, sites, 

buildings, structures, or objects, 

included in, or eligible for inclusion in 

the National Register. EPA determined 

that no historic properties were affected, 

or would be affected, by designation of 

the Sites. EPA did not find any historic 

properties within the geographic area of 

the Sites. This determination was based 

on an extensive review of the National 

Register of Historic Districts in Oregon, 

the Oregon National Register list and an 

assessment of cultural resources near 

the Sites. EPA will not take final action 

on the proposed Sites until the 

coordination with the SHPO is 

complete. 

4. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This rule proposes the designation of 

two 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: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
5714 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

a. Executive Order 12866 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the 

terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the 

Executive Order. We welcome 

comments on the assessment of this EO. 

b. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., 

because this rule does not establish or 

modify any information or 

recordkeeping requirements for the 

regulated community. 

c. Regulatory Flexibility 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires Federal agencies 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. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

rule on small entities, small entity is 

defined as: (1) A small business defined 

by the Small Business Administration’s 

size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; 

(2) a small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district, or special district 

with a population of less than 50,000; 

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 

determined that this proposed action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on small entities because the 

proposed rule will only have the effect 

of regulating the location of sites to be 

used for the disposal of dredged 

material in ocean waters. After 

considering the economic impacts of 

this proposed rule, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed action contains no 

Federal mandates under the provisions 

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 

1531 to 1538, for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action imposes no new enforceable duty 

on any State, local or tribal governments 

or the private sector. Therefore, this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small government 

entities. Those entities are already 

subject to existing permitting 

requirements for the disposal of dredged 

material in ocean waters. 

e. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It does not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government, as specified in Executive 

Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. In 

the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed 

action from State and local officials. 

f. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 because the 

designation of the two ocean dredged 

material disposal Sites will not have a 

direct effect on Indian Tribes, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and Indian Tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. Although Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this proposed 

action EPA consulted with tribal 

officials in the development of this 

action, particularly as the action relates 

to potential impacts to historic or 

cultural resources. EPA specifically 

solicits additional comment on this 

proposed action from tribal officials. 

g. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885) as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern health or 

safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under Section 5–501 of the 

Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This proposed 

action is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 because it does not establish an 

environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. The 

proposed action concerns the 

designation of two ocean dredged 

material disposal Sites and only has the 

effect of providing designated locations 

to use for ocean disposal of dredged 

material pursuant to Section 102(c) of 

the MPRSA. We welcome comments on 

this proposed action related to this 

Executive Order. 

h. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355) 

because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866. We welcome comments on 

this proposed action related to this 

Executive Order. 

i. National Technology Transfer and 

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), 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 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. This proposed 

action includes environmental 

monitoring and measurement as 

described in EPA’s proposed SMMP. 

EPA will not require the use of specific, 

prescribed analytic methods for 

monitoring and managing the 

designated Sites. The Agency plans to 

allow the use of any method, whether it 

constitutes a voluntary consensus 

standard or not, that meets the 

monitoring and measurement criteria 

discussed in the proposed SMMP. EPA 

welcomes comments on this aspect of 

the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this proposed action. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5715 

j. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) 

establishes federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. EPA 

determined that this proposed rule will 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. EPA 

has assessed the overall protectiveness 

of designating the disposal Sites against 

the criteria established pursuant to the 

MPRSA to ensure that any adverse 

impact to the environment will be 

mitigated to the greatest extent 

practicable. We welcome comments on 

this proposed action related to this 

Executive Order. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 

Environmental protection, Water 

pollution control. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of Section 102 of the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as 

amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412. 

Dated: January 25, 2010. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 

chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Register as follows: 

PART 228—[AMENDED] 

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 paragraph (n)(14) to read as 

follows: 

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a 

final basis. 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(14) Siuslaw River, OR—North and 

South Dredged Material Disposal Sites. 

(i) North Siuslaw River Site. 

(A) Location: 44°01′31.03′′ N, 

124°10′12.92′′ W 

44°01′49.39′′ N, 124°10′02.85′′ W 

44°01′31.97′′ N, 124°09′01.86′′ W 

44°01′13.45′′ N, 124°09′11.41′′ W 

(B) Size: Approximately 1.5 

kilometers long and 0.6 kilometers 

wide. 

(C) Depth: Ranges from approximately 

9 to 35 meters. 

(D) Primary Use: Dredged material. 

(E) Period of Use: Continuing Use. 

(F) Restrictions: (1) Disposal shall be 

limited to dredged material determined 

to be suitable for ocean disposal 

according to 40 CFR 227.13 from the 

Siuslaw River navigation channel and 

adjacent areas; 

(2) Disposal shall be managed by the 

restrictions and requirements contained 

in the currently-approved Site 

Management and Monitoring Plan 

(SMMP); 

(3) Monitoring, as specified in the 

SMMP, is required. 

(ii) South Siuslaw River Site. 

(A) Location: 44°00′46.72′′ N, 

124°10′26.55′′ W 

44°01′06.41′′ N, 124°10′24.45′′ W 

44°01′04.12′′ N, 124°09′43.52′′ W 

44°00′44.45′′ N, 124°09′45.63′′ W 

(B) Size: Approximately 0.9 

kilometers long and 0.6 kilometers 

wide. 

(C) Depth: Ranges from approximately 

24 to 38 meters. 

(D) Primary Use: Dredged material. 

(E) Period of Use: Continuing Use. 

(F) Restrictions: (1) Disposal shall be 

limited to dredged material determined 

to be suitable for ocean disposal 

according to 40 CFR 227.13, from the 

Siuslaw River navigation channel and 

adjacent areas; 

(2) Disposal shall be managed by the 

restrictions and requirements contained 

in the currently-approved Site 

Management and Monitoring Plan 

(SMMP); 

(3) Monitoring, as specified in the 

SMMP, is required. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–2395 Filed 2–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 320 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0834; FRL–9109–5] 

RIN 2050–AG56 

Identification of Additional Classes of 

Facilities for Development of Financial 

Responsibility Requirements Under 

CERCLA Section 108(b) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM); extension of 

comment period and correction of 

docket identification number. 

SUMMARY: EPA is extending, until April 

6, 2010, the comment period for the 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) published in the 

Federal Register on January 6, 2010. In 

the ANPRM, the Agency identified the 

classes of facilities within three 

industries—the Chemical 

Manufacturing industry (NAICS 325), 

the Petroleum and Coal Products 

Manufacturing industry (NAICS 324), 

and the Electric Power Generation, 

Transmission, and Distribution industry 

(NAICS 2211)—as those for which the 

Agency plans to develop, as necessary, 

proposed regulations identifying 

appropriate financial responsibility 

requirements under section 108(b) of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA). In addition, the Agency 

identified the Waste Management and 

Remediation Services industry (NAICS 

562), the Wood Product Manufacturing 

industry (NAICS 321), the Fabricated 

Metal Product Manufacturing industry 

(NAICS 332), the Electronics and 

Electrical Equipment Manufacturing 

industry (NAICS 334 and 335), as well 

as facilities engaged in the recycling of 

materials containing CERCLA hazardous 

substances as requiring further study 

before EPA decides whether to begin the 

regulatory development process. EPA 

also wants to clarify the proper Docket 

Identification Number for the January 

2010 ANPRM. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

April 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2009–0834, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic docket at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

superfund.docket@epa.gov, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009– 

0834. In contrast to EPA’s electronic 

public docket, EPA’s e-mail system is 

not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system. If 

you send an e-mail comment directly to 

the Docket without going through EPA’s 

electronic public docket, EPA’s e-mail 

system automatically captures your email address. E-mail addresses that are 

automatically captured by EPA’s e-mail 

system are included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the official 

public docket, and made available in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS