Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73097 

PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS, 

AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK 

SYSTEM 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 7 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 462(k); Sec. 

7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 10–137 

(2001) and D.C. Code 50–2201 (2001). 

■ 2. In § 7.89 add paragraph (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 7.89 New River Gorge National River. 

* * * * * 

(b) Bicycling. (1) Where may I ride a 

bicycle within New River Gorge National 

River? Bicycle use is allowed: 

(i) On park roads and in parking areas; 

and 

(ii) On administrative roads and trails 

authorized for bicycle use as listed in 

the following table. 

Administrative Roads and Trails 

Authorized for Bicycle Use—North to 

South 

Hawks Nest Connector Trail 

Fayetteville Trail 

Park Loop Trail 

Timber Ridge Trail 

Kaymoor Trail 

Craig Branch Trail 

Arrowhead Trail 

Long Point Trail (except 0.2 miles 

closest to Long Point Vista) 

Keeneys Creek Rail Trail 

Headhouse Trail 

Tipple Trail 

Seldom Seen Trail 

Nuttallburg Town Loop Connector Trail 

Brooklyn Mine Trail 

Brooklyn Miner’s Connector Trail 

Southside Trail 

Rend Trail 

Stone Cliff Trail 

Terry Top Trail 

Garden Ground Stacked Loop Trail 

Little Laurel Trail 

Mud Turn Trail 

Glade Creek Trail 

Panther Branch Connector Trail 

(2) How will I know where these 

administrative roads and trails are 

located in the park? The administrative 

roads and trails where bicycle use is 

authorized are identified on maps 

located in the Superintendent’s office, at 

park visitor centers, at interpretive 

kiosks, and on the park’s Web site. 

Additional information about bicycling 

will also be posted at appropriate 

trailheads and other locations. 

(3) What requirements must I meet to 

ride a bicycle within New River Gorge 

National River? (i) In addition to the 

applicable provisions in 36 CFR part 4, 

all bicyclists must yield to other trail 

users in the following manner: 

(A) A bicyclist must yield to an 

equestrian; 

(B) A bicyclist must yield to a 

pedestrian; and 

(C) A bicyclist travelling downhill 

must yield to a bicyclist travelling 

uphill. 

(ii) Yielding the right of way requires 

slowing down to a safe speed, being 

prepared to stop, establishing 

communication, and passing safely. 

(iii) Failure to yield is prohibited. 

(4) How will the Superintendent 

manage bicycle use where it is 

authorized? The Superintendent may 

close park and administrative roads, 

parking areas and trails, or portions 

thereof, reopen the same, or impose 

conditions or restrictions for bicycle use 

after taking into consideration public 

health and safety, natural and cultural 

resource protection, and other 

management activities and objectives. 

(i) The Superintendent will provide 

public notice of all such actions through 

one or more of the methods listed in 

§ 1.7 of this chapter. 

(ii) Violating a closure, condition, or 

restriction is prohibited. 

Dated: November 20, 2013. 

Rachel Jacobson, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29087 Filed 12–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–EJ–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[EPA–R06–OW–2011–0712; FRL–9903–26– 

Region–6] 

Ocean Dumping; Sabine-Neches 

Waterway (SNWW) Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Site Designation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA today designates 

four new Ocean Dredged Material 

Disposal Sites (ODMDS) located 

offshore of Texas for the disposal of 

dredged material from the SabineNeches Waterway (SNWW) Channel 

Improvement Project (CIP), which 

includes an extension of the Entrance 

Channel into the Gulf of Mexico, 

pursuant to the Marine Protection, 

Research and Sanctuaries Act, as 

amended (MPRSA). The designation of 

these four disposal sites does not by 

itself authorize the disposal of dredged 

material, but makes these sites available 

for use for dredged material from the 

CIP if no environmentally preferable, 

practicable alternative for managing that 

dredged material exists, and if analysis 

of the dredged material indicates that it 

is suitable for open-water disposal. This 

action is to designate adequate, 

environmentally-acceptable ocean 

disposal site capacity for suitable 

dredged material generated from new 

work (construction) and future 

maintenance dredging from the SNWW 

CIP. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

6, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jessica Franks, Ph.D., Marine and 

Coastal Section (6WQ–EC), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 

1200, 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. Site Location 

• D. Disposal Volume Limit 

• E. Site Management and Monitoring Plan 

• F. Ocean Dumping Site Designation 

Criteria 

• General Selection Criteria 

• Specific Selection Criteria 

• G. Responses to Comments 

• 1. Concerns About Minimizing Ocean 

Disposal by Maximizing Beneficial Reuse 

• 2. Concerns About a Consistency 

Determination 

• 3. Question on the Designation Process 

• H. Regulatory Requirements 

• National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

• Endangered Species Act Consultation 

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act of 1996 

• Coastal Zone Management Act 

• Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 

• Administrative Review 

• Executive Order 12886 

• Paperwork Reduction Act 

• Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

• Unfunded Mandates 

• Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

• Executive Order 13175: Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

• Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

• Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use Compliance With 

Administrative Procedure Act 

• National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

• Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low Income 

Populations 

• List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73098 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Final 

EIS for the SNWW CIP was published in 

the Federal Register (FR) April 4, 2011 

(Vol. 76, Nos. 43). That 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. 

A. Potentially Affected Entities 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action are persons, organizations, or 

government bodies seeking to dispose of 

dredged material in ocean waters 

offshore of Texas for the disposal of 

dredged material from the SabineNeches Waterway, under the Marine 

Protection Research and Sanctuaries 

Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. The Final 

Rule would be primarily of relevance to 

the US Army Corps of Engineers when 

proposing to dispose of dredged 

material from the Sabine-Neches 

Waterway. Potentially affected 

categories and entities include: 

Category Examples of potentially affected 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 

regarding entities likely to be affected by 

this action. For questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, 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. 

Pursuant to its voluntary NEPA 

policy, published at 63 FR 58045 

(October 29, 1998), EPA typically relies 

on the EIS process to enhance public 

participation on the Final 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 process published in the 

Federal Register (FR). 

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 at 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 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.’’ 

The Final Rule provides adequate, 

environmentally-acceptable 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. 

The proposed rule for designation was 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 27, 2013, as docket number EPA– 

R06–OW–2011–0712. The comment 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73099 

period closed on August 12, 2013. 

Comments received are addressed in 

section G., below. Under NEPA, federal 

agencies prepare a public record of 

decision (ROD) at the time of their 

decision on any action for which an 

FEIS has been prepared. This final 

rulemaking notice serves the same 

purpose as a ROD required under 

regulations promulgated by the Council 

on Environmental Quality for federal 

agencies subject to NEPA (CEQ 

Regulations 40 CFR 1505.2 

C. Location 

As identified in Appendix B of the 

FEIS, the environmentally preferred 

sites which EPA now designates 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. 

D. Disposal Volume Limit 

The action designates 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 is based on modeling 

in the USACE SNWW CIP Engineering 

Appendix. 

E. Site Management and Monitoring 

Plan (SMMP) 

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 for the Sabine-Neches 

Waterway Project. The SMMP provides 

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 § 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 will achieve 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 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 shortterm transport of material beyond the 

limits of the ODMDS. The SMMP 

describes physical and chemical 

sediment and biological monitoring 

requirements. Monitoring activities 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 sites satisfies the criteria 

set forth in 40 CFR part 227, subparts B, 

C, D, E, and G, and § 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 

Five general criteria and 11 specific 

site selection criteria are used in the 

selection and approval of ocean disposal 

sites for continued use (40 CFR 228.5 

and 40 CFR 228.6(a)). 

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 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 does not apply to the 

Final 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 Final Sites are as 

small as possible to reasonably meet the 

criteria stated in 40 CFR 228.5 and 40 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73100 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR 228.6(a). The size for each Final 

ODMDS is 5.32 square statute miles 

(4.02 square nautical miles). The 

SMMPs were 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 four new ODMDS 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 SNWW A–D 

sites ranges from 44 to 46 feet and the 

bottom topography is flat. SNWW–A is 

located 21 miles from shore, SNWW–B 

is located 24 miles from shore, SNWW– 

C is located 27 miles from shore and 

SNWW–D is 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 the SNWW A–D sites, the presence of 

aerial, pelagic, or benthic living 

resources is likely within the area of the 

sites. The location of the ODMDS is 

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 ODMDS would 

not adversely affect the passage of 

organisms to and from the spawningnursery 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 SNWW A–D sites are over 21 

miles from any beach and Sabine Bank 

is at least 1.7 miles from the nearest of 

the 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 

is 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. 

Surveillance and monitoring are 

feasible at the SNWW A–D sites. 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 SNWW A–D sites. 

Predominant longshore currents, and 

thus predominant longshore 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 (EIS) 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 

to the evaluation criteria published at 40 

CFR part 227. Based on current 

direction and modeling of the new work 

and maintenance material, the SNWW 

A–D sites are situated to prevent 

discharged material from reentering the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73101 

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 SNWW A–D 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 SNWW 

A–D ODMDS will not interfere with 

these or other legitimate uses of the 

ocean because the exclusion processes 

used to identify the 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. Sampled and characterized, 

benthos of the area, 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 SNWW A–D 

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, they would 

not be human pathogens, and they 

would not be non-indigenous species. 

The placement of dredged material in 

the past has not attracted or 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 SNWW A–D 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 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 feature 

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 SNWW A–D ODMDS 

are located in Federal waters (i.e., 

outside of adjacent State jurisdiction). 

G. Responses to Comments 

The proposed rule for designation was 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 27, 2013, as docket number EPA– 

R06–OW–2011–0712. The comment 

period closed on August 12, 2013. The 

EPA received four comments on the 

proposed rule from three entities and 

one individual. These comments are 

responded to here. 

1. Concerns About Minimizing Ocean 

Disposal by Maximizing Beneficial 

Re-Use 

Two commenters expressed concerns 

about using new dredged material for 

beneficial use instead of placement in 

the ODMDS SNWW A–D designated 

areas. The Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries recommended 

using new work material beneficially. 

An individual commenter expressed 

concern that disposal of dredged 

material would increase hypoxia in the 

Gulf of Mexico and recommended 

beneficial use of dredged material. 

Disposal or re-use placement 

alternatives that could practicably meet 

the purpose and need of a dredging 

project must be evaluated at the time of 

project-specific permitting. Timing and 

logistics can affect the practicability of 

dredged material disposal or beneficial 

use alternatives. For an individual 

project, ocean disposal is permitted only 

when other alternatives are not 

practicable. However, determining the 

availability of alternatives for individual 

dredging projects is independent of this 

ODMDS designation action, and such 

comments are not further addressed 

here. 

2. Concerns About a Consistency 

Determination 

The Louisiana Department of Natural 

Resources (LDNR), Office of Coastal 

Management, commented that this 

designation action ‘‘will require the 

preparation of a consistency 

determination in accordance with 

section 307(c) of the 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 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 SabineNeches Waterway Channel 

Improvement Project, the Corps of 

Engineers 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, which 

results in a more detailed description of 

project features. The LDNR’s letter also 

generally opposed EPA’s ODMDS 

designation, noting that the designation 

would provide the Corps an option 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73102 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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. However, such issues are 

independent of EPA’s proposed ODMDS 

designations, 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. The 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 ODMDS is approximately 20 miles 

off the Texas coast at its nearest point. 

Predominant longshore currents in the 

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 this 

ODMDS designation will not affect any 

land or water use or natural resource of 

Louisiana’s coastal zone, no coastal 

consistency determination need be 

prepared for this action. 

3. Question on the Designation Process 

One commenter from the U.S. Coast 

Guard asked for clarification on the 

Rule-Making process for the designation 

of the ODMDS A–D sites. The EPA 

provided clarification to the commenter. 

G. 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 designations were fully analyzed 

in an EIS on the Sabine-Neches 

Waterway Channel Improvement 

Project: Southeast Texas and Southwest 

Louisiana (SNWW CIP). The Corps of 

Engineers was the lead agency on that 

EIS and EPA was 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 

this Rule designates. 

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 the 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 SNWW A–D ODMDS. 

The NMFS issued a biological opinion 

on August 13, 2007, that site 

designation 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 SNWW A–D 

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 

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. The 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. The 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 SNWW A–D ODMDS is 

approximately 20 miles off the Texas 

coast at its nearest point. Predominant 

longshore currents in the SNWW A–D 

ODMDS locations flow from east to 

west. Dredged material transport 

modeling shows that any dredged 

materials discharged to the SNWW 

A–D ODMDS will not thus enter or 

otherwise affect Louisiana’s coastal 

zone. Because the SNWW A–D ODMDS 

designations will not affect any land or 

water use or natural resource of 

Louisiana’s coastal zone, a coastal 

consistency determination is not 

needed. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73103 

5. Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 

1990 

The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act 

is intended to protect fish and wildlife 

resources and habitat, prevent loss of 

human life, and preclude the 

expenditure of Federal funds that may 

induce development on coastal barrier 

islands and adjacent nearshore areas. 

The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 

1990 was enacted to reauthorize the 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 

1982. Exceptions to the Federal 

expenditure restrictions include 

maintenance or constructed 

improvement(s) to existing Federal 

navigational channels and related 

structures (e.g., jetties), including the 

disposal of dredged materials related to 

maintenance and construction; 

therefore, project activities related to 

disposal are exempt from the 

prohibitions set forth in this act, as 

noted in the Final EIS for the SNWW 

CIP, Vol. II. 

H. Administrative Review 

This rule designates ocean dredged 

material disposal sites pursuant to 

Section 102 of the MPRSA. This 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 Final Rule should have minimal 

impact on State, local, or Tribal 

governments or communities. 

Consequently, EPA has determined that 

this Final 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. Since the Final Rule 

would not establish or modify any 

information or recordkeeping 

requirements, but only clarifies existing 

requirements, it is not subject to the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. 

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 (RFA) 

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 Final 

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 Final 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 Final 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 Final 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 Final 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 Final 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73104 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Final 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 Final 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 

Final 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 Final 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 Final Rule would have a 

disproportionate adverse impact on 

minority or low-income population 

groups within the project area. The 

Final 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: October 31, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

In consideration of the foregoing, EPA 

amends 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)(22) through (25) to 

read as follows: 

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a 

final basis. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(22) 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. 

(23) 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. 

(24) 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 

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 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. 2013–28808 Filed 12–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Part 303–70 

[FTR Amendment 2013–02; FTR Case 2013– 

302; Docket Number 2013–0010, 

Sequence 1] 

RIN 3090–AJ37 

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); 

Agency Requirements for Payment of 

Expenses Connected With the Death of 

Certain Employees and Family 

Members 

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide 

Policy, U.S. General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES