22524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 82 / Thursday, April 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Related Information 

(k) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness 

Directive CF–2009–02, dated January 19, 

2009; Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 

A601R–11–077, Revision A, dated December 

11, 2001; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 

601R–11–088, Revision B, dated November 

17, 2009; for related information. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(l) You must use Bombardier Service 

Bulletin 601R–11–088, Revision B, dated 

November 17, 2009; and Bombardier Alert 

Service Bulletin A601R–11–077, Revision A, 

dated December 11, 2001, excluding Service 

Bulletin Comment Sheet—Facsimile Reply 

Sheet and CRJ 100/200 Service Bulletin 

Facsimile Reply Sheet; as applicable; to do 

the actions required by this AD, unless the 

AD specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

Bombardier Service Bulletin A601R–11–088, 

Revision B, dated November 17, 2009, under 

5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) The Director of the Federal Register 

previously approved the incorporation by 

reference of Bombardier Alert Service 

Bulletin A601R–11–077, Revision A, dated 

December 11, 2001, excluding Service 

Bulletin Comment Sheet—Facsimile Reply 

Sheet and CRJ 100/200 Service Bulletin 

Compliance Facsimile Reply Sheet, on April 

4, 2003 (68 FR 9509, February 28, 2003). 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Coˆte 

Vertu Road West, Dorval, Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, 

Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514– 

855–7401; e-mail 

thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; Internet http:// 

www.bombardier.com. 

(4) You may review copies of the service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221 or 425–227–1152. 

(5) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington on April 16, 

2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9594 Filed 4–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 522 

[Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0002] 

Implantation or Injectable Dosage 

Form New Animal Drugs; Butorphanol 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is amending the 

animal drug regulations to reflect 

approval of an original abbreviated new 

animal drug application (ANADA) filed 

by Modern Veterinary Therapeutics, 

LLC. The ANADA provides for use of an 

injectable solution of butorphanol 

tartrate in cats for the relief of pain. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 29, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

K. Harshman, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine (HFV–170), Food and Drug 

Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., 

Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–8197, email: john.harshman@fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Modern 

Veterinary Therapeutics, LLC, 1550 

Madruga Ave., suite 329, Coral Gables, 

FL 33146, filed ANADA 200–446 for the 

use of BUTORPHINE (butorphanol 

tartrate, USP) Veterinary Injection in 

cats for the relief of pain. Modern 

Veterinary Therapeutics’ BUTORPHINE 

Veterinary Injection is approved as a 

generic copy of TORBUGESIC–SA 

(butorphanol tartrate, USP) Veterinary 

Injection, approved under NADA 141– 

047 held by Fort Dodge Animal Health, 

Division of Wyeth, a wholly owned 

subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc. The ANADA is 

approved as of March 26, 2010, and the 

regulations in 21 CFR 522.246 are 

amended to reflect the approval. 

In accordance with the freedom of 

information provisions of 21 CFR part 

20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a 

summary of safety and effectiveness 

data and information submitted to 

support approval of this application 

may be seen in the Division of Dockets 

Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug 

Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 

1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday. 

FDA has determined under 21 CFR 

25.33 that this action is of a type that 

does not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. Therefore, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

This rule does not meet the definition 

of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because 

it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’ 

Therefore, it is not subject to the 

congressional review requirements in 5 

U.S.C. 801–808. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 522 

Animal drugs. 

■ Therefore, under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 

authority delegated to the Commissioner 

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to 

the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 

CFR part 522 is amended as follows: 

PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR 

INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW 

ANIMAL DRUGS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 522 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 

§ 522.246 [Amended] 

■ 2. In paragraph (b)(2) of § 522.246, 

remove ‘‘No. 059130’’ and in its place 

add ‘‘Nos. 015914 and 059130’’. 

Dated: April 23, 2010. 

William T. Flynn, 

Acting Director, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9871 Filed 4–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[EPA–R10–OW–2010–0086; FRL–9143–2] 

Ocean Dumping; Designation of Ocean 

Dredged Material Disposal Sites 

Offshore of the Siuslaw River, Oregon 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the 

designation of the Siuslaw River ocean 

dredged material disposal sites 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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 82 / Thursday, April 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 22525 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule 

will be effective June 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: For more information on 

this final 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 final 

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–088), 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: On 

February 4, 2010, EPA published a 

proposed rule at 75 FR 5708 to 

designate two new ocean dredged 

material disposal sites near the mouth of 

the Siuslaw River, Oregon. EPA 

received three comments on the 

proposed rule. 

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 final 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. 

2. Background 

a. History of Disposal Sites Offshore of 

the Siuslaw River, Oregon 

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. To provide 

for sufficient disposal capacity over the 

long term, EPA proposed 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. 

Those proposed Sites are finalized in 

this action. 

b. Location and Configuration of 

Siuslaw River Ocean Dredged Material 

Disposal Sites 

This action finalizes 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 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. This final 

designation of the Siuslaw River ODMD 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

22526 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 82 / Thursday, April 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

The two Sites are 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 Sites are 4,800 by 

2,000 feet and 3,000 by 2,000 feet, 

respectively. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULESER29AP10.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 82 / Thursday, April 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 22527 

c. Management and Monitoring of the 

Sites 

The final 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 the final Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Sites. 

The SMMP finalized in this action 

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 final SMMP for the 

Siuslaw River Sites 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. 

d. MPRSA Criteria 

EPA assessed the Sites against the 

criteria of the MPRSA, with particular 

emphasis on the general and specific 

regulatory criteria of 40 CFR part 228 to 

determine that the final Site 

designations satisfied those criteria. 

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 

final Sites are 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 final 

SMMP outlines site management 

objectives, including minimizing 

interference with other uses of the 

ocean. Should a site use conflict be 

identified, it is anticipated that site use 

would 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, 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 Sites. 

Most of the dredged material to be 

disposed of at the Sites is expected to 

come from the entrance channel, where 

material is predominantly sand 

(approximately 97%), while a small 

amount of material (up to 3%) would be 

classified as fine-grained. Based on 

modeling work performed by the Corps, 

the coarser (sandy) material is expected 

to settle out of the water column within 

a few minutes of disposal while the 

fine-grained material is expected to 

settle out of the water column less 

rapidly. No increase in turbidity is 

expected to be measurable at the beach. 

(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)). 

EPA sized the final Sites to meet this 

criterion. The footprints of the Sites are 

based on the presumed northerly 

movement of coastal littoral material 

over the course of the yearly dredging 

and disposal cycle and are needed to 

optimize the dispersal of material into 

the active littoral zone, limit wave 

effects due to mounding, and keep 

material from reentering the navigation 

channel to the south. 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. EPA’s designation of the 

two Sites with deeper areas within each 

Site allows site managers to be 

responsive to annual and long-term 

sediment transport patterns. Effective 

monitoring of the Sites is necessary and 

required. EPA requires annual 

bathymetric surveys to monitor each 

Site for capacity and potential 

mounding concerns. 

(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)). 

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 

Sites is expected to be available to the 

littoral system. Keeping this material in 

the littoral system with the potential to 

sustain a dynamic equilibrium along the 

Oregon coast is perceived as a benefit. 

The Sites incorporate historic disposal 

locations within the footprint of each 

Site, but have been expanded to allow 

more of the material to remain in the 

littoral system and allow for increased 

site capacity. 

Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6) 

(1) Geographical Position, Depth of 

Water, Bottom Topography and 

Distance from Coast (40 CFR 

228.6(a)(1)). 

The geographical position of each 

Site, including the depth, bottom 

topography and distance from the 

coastline, has been chosen to minimize 

adverse effects to the marine 

environment. As EPA understands the 

currents at the Sites and the influence 

of those currents on the movement of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

22528 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 82 / Thursday, April 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

material in the area, there is a high 

likelihood that some of the material 

disposed at the Sites, especially within 

in the shallower portion of the North 

site, will be transported to the littoral 

sediment circulation system. Disposal at 

the Sites will be managed 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 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 including two public 

recreation areas located to the north of 

the Siuslaw River, Heceta Beach Park 

and Harbor Vista Park. 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 final 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 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 Sites were 

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 final 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 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 special 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 did not identify any potential 

adverse water quality impacts from 

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 

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. The final 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 were 

identified at, or in the vicinity of, the 

Sites. EPA coordinated with Oregon’s 

State Historic Preservation Officer and 

with Tribes in the vicinity of the Sites 

to identify any cultural features. No 

cultural features were identified. No 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 82 / Thursday, April 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 22529 

shipwrecks were observed or 

documented within the Sites or their 

immediate vicinity. 

3. Response to Comments 

EPA received three comments on the 

proposed rule. All three comments 

supported the Site designations. One 

commenter asked whether the Sites 

could be extended to run parallel to the 

coastline in order to create a 

‘‘speedbump’’ resulting in decreased 

wave energy and erosion on the beach. 

The final Sites include shallow areas 

(less than 50 ft), where more material is 

expected to remain in the littoral 

system, thereby potentially decreasing 

potential beach erosion. The creation of 

a nearshore ‘‘speedbump’’ or berm 

would dissipate wave energy reaching 

the beach, but would increase the wave 

height at the berm, potentially creating 

an unacceptable safety risk. The same 

commenter asked whether the sandy 

dredged material could be used to 

restore an eroded beach rather than be 

disposed in the Sites. The sandy 

dredged material in the vicinity of these 

Sites is already found in abundance 

onshore in the nearby Oregon Dunes 

Recreation Area and onshore dune 

fields. No eroded beaches in the 

immediate vicinity of the Sites for 

which this material is needed have been 

identified at this time. 

4. 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 final Siuslaw River, Oregon 

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites 

Evaluation Study and Environmental 

Assessment, April 2010 (EA), jointly 

prepared by EPA and the Corps. The 

final EA and its Technical Appendices, 

which are part of the docket for this 

action, provided the threshold 

environmental review for designation of 

the two Sites. The information from the 

EA was used extensively 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 reviewed 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. NMFS found that all potential 

adverse effects to ESA-listed marine 

mammals from EPA’s action to 

designate the Siuslaw Sites are 

discountable or insignificant. Those 

findings are documented in the 

Biological Opinion issued by NMFS to 

EPA on April 16, 2010. With respect to 

EFH, NMFS concluded that disposal of 

dredged material will affect turbidity 

and sedimentation levels and 

temporarily decrease prey and nursery 

resources for pelagic organisms within 

the Sites during disposal events. 

However, these effects are avoidable or 

can be offset or mitigated through 

further evaluation of the effects and 

further study of seasonal distribution, 

abundance and habitat use. These 

findings are documented in the 

‘‘Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act’’ 

section of the Biological Opinion. NMFS 

included two ‘‘conservation 

recommendations’’ which encouraged 

an effects evaluation and a study on 

distribution, abundance and habitat use. 

EPA will respond in a separate written 

response to the NMFS 

recommendations. 

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. On 

April 14, 2010, DLCD concurred in 

writing with EPA that the Site 

designations were consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with the 

enforceable policies of the OCMP. 

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. On 

August 24, 2009, the USFWS concurred 

in writing with EPA’s finding that the 

Site designations would not likely 

adversely affect ESA-listed species or 

critical habitat. 

NMFS issued a Biological Opinion 

(BO) on April 21, 2010. NMFS 

concluded that EPA’s action is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of Oregon Coast (OC) coho 

salmon or southern green sturgeon 

(Acipenser medirostris), or to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat 

designated for green sturgeon. NMFS 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

22530 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 82 / Thursday, April 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

also concluded that EPA’s action would 

not likely adversely affect southern 

green sturgeon, euchalon, eastern Stellar 

sea lions, blue whales, fin whales, 

humpback whales, Southern Resident 

Killer whales, marine turtle species, or 

critical habitat designated for southern 

green sturgeon or proposed for green 

leatherback turtles. NMFS concluded 

that dredging activities were not 

interrelated to EPA’s action. However, 

NMFS did make a finding that disposal 

of dredged material at the Sites by the 

Corps, the anticipated primary user of 

the Sites, was interrelated to EPA’s 

action. 

NMFS then focused its effects 

analysis on the effects of disposal at the 

Sites. Looking solely to the effects of 

disposal of dredged material at the Sites 

by the Corps from the Corps’ Siuslaw 

River Navigation project, NMFS 

estimated 19 juvenile OC coho salmon 

per year were likely to be injured or 

killed by Corps activities. NMFS 

acknowledged that EPA’s action does 

not authorize or compel site use and 

will not itself result in disposal of 

dredged material. NMFS found that all 

incidental take will occur at the projectspecific level. Based on this finding, 

NMFS did not find a basis to provide a 

take authorization in the current BO. 

NMFS stated that all take authorization 

will occur in subsequent site-specific 

consultations. 

Finally NMFS included two 

discretionary conservation 

recommendations in the BO. The first 

recommendation suggested 

collaborating with NMFS and the Corps 

on a methodology to evaluate the effects 

of dredging and disposal on ESA-listed 

species. The second recommendation 

suggested undertaking a study to 

determine seasonal distribution, 

abundance, and habitat use of salmon, 

sturgeon, and marine turtles in the 

nearshore within and near the contour 

of designated ocean dredged material 

disposal sites. Such recommendations 

are purely advisory in nature. EPA 

appreciates that collaboration on a 

methodology could be helpful and 

supports NMFS and Corps efforts in 

such an endeavor. EPA also appreciates 

that the study recommended by NMFS 

could contribute to the scientific 

knowledge base but believes that NMFS, 

the expert Federal agency on seasonal 

distribution, abundance and habitat use 

would be better suited than EPA to carry 

out such a study. 

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. The SHPO concurred by letter 

on December 10, 2009, that the project 

would have no affect on any known 

cultural resources. 

4. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This rule finalizes the designation of 

two ocean dredged material disposal 

sites pursuant to Section 102 of the 

MPRSA. This action complies with 

applicable executive orders and 

statutory provisions as follows: 

a. Executive Order 12866 

This 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. 

b. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This 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-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. EPA determined 

that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on small 

entities because the final 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 final 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 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 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. 

f. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This 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 

action EPA consulted with Tribal 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 82 / Thursday, April 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 22531 

officials in the development of this 

action, particularly as the action related 

to potential impacts to historic or 

cultural resources. 

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 action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not establish an 

environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. The 

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. 

h. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This 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. 

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 action 

includes environmental monitoring and 

measurement as described in EPA’s 

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 SMMP. 

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 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 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. 

k. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 

5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to the House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective June 1, 2010. 

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: April 21, 2010. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, EPA amends chapter I, title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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); 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

22532 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 82 / Thursday, April 29, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1The rulemaking commenced in response to a 

petition for rulemaking from Ms. Justine May, who 

asked NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 120 in such 

a way that motor vehicles would be equipped with 

tires that meet maximum load standards when the 

vehicle is loaded with a reasonable amount of 

luggage and the total number of passengers the 

vehicle is designed to carry. Ms. May’s reason for 

her petition was her family’s personal experience 

with a fifth-wheel travel trailer. She stated that 

there was no information provided with her trailer 

stating its cargo carrying capacity. Ms. May believed 

that loading her vehicle with cargo for a trip placed 

it in an overloaded condition, resulting in tire 

blowouts. A discussion of motor home and 

recreational trailer loading problems can be found 

in the August 31, 2005 notice of proposed 

rulemaking (70 FR 51707, 51708) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2005–22242). 

(3) Monitoring, as specified in the 

SMMP, is required. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–9982 Filed 4–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0055] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Cargo Carrying Capacity 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Denial of petitions for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: This document denies 

petitions for reconsideration of a final 

rule published December 4, 2007 which 

amended the Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 

120 on tire selection and rims. The final 

rule addressed the problem of light 

vehicle, motor home and recreation 

vehicle trailer overloading by requiring 

manufacturers of light vehicles, motor 

homes, and recreation vehicle trailers to 

provide, among other matters, 

information to consumers about the 

vehicle’s load carrying capacity. 

DATES: The December 4, 2007 final rule 

became effective June 2, 2008. Today’s 

document makes no changes to the 

regulatory text of that final rule 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 

Samuel Daniel, Office of Crash 

Avoidance Standards at (202) 366–4921. 

His FAX number is (202) 366–7002. 

For legal issues, you may call Ms. 

Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief 

Counsel at (202) 366–2992. Her FAX 

number is (202) 366–3820. 

You may send mail to both of these 

officials at National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the December 2007 Final Rule 

II. Petitions for Reconsideration 

a. The Information that Should Be 

Provided to Consumers 

1. Water Weight as Cargo 

2. Dealers Wanting To Require 

Manufacturers To Weigh Each RV 

3. Providing the UVW to Consumers on the 

RV Trailer CCC Label 

b. How the Information Should Be 

Displayed or Conveyed to the Consumer 

1. Owner’s Manual Requirements 

2. Other Means of Informing Consumers 

c. The Weight That Can Be Added to a 

Vehicle After Final Vehicle Certification 

and Before First Retail Sale Without 

Triggering a Requirement To Re-Label 

the Vehicle 

1. Raising the Threshold 

2. 49 CFR § 595.7 

3. Use of a Single Weight Threshold Only, 

Not Percentage of GVWR 

d. Applying FMVSS No. 110 Re-Labeling 

Requirements Only to Alterers 

e. Issues Outside the Scope of Rulemaking 

1. Dealers Changing Tire Placard 

2. Load Distribution 

III. Conclusion 

I. Summary of the December 2007 Final 

Rule 

On December 4, 2007 (72 FR 68442) 

(Docket No. NHTSA–2007–0040), 

NHTSA published a final rule that 

amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120 to 

address the problem of motor home and 

recreation vehicle trailer overloading. 

The final rule took effect on June 2, 

2008. Standard No. 110 was renamed, 

Tire selection and rims and motor 

home/recreation vehicle trailer load 

carrying capacity information for motor 

vehicles with a GVWR [Gross Vehicle 

Weight Rating] of 4,536 kilograms 

(10,000 pounds) or less. Standard No. 

120 was renamed, Tire selection and 

rims and motor home/recreation vehicle 

trailer load carrying capacity 

information for motor vehicles with a 

GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms 

(10,000 pounds). Among other things, 

the December 2007 final rule amended 

the standards to require all motor homes 

and recreation vehicle (RV) trailers to 

bear a label that informs the consumer 

about the vehicle’s load carrying 

capacity. 

Over the years, the agency has 

received inquiries and complaints from 

the public about problems resulting 

from motor home and travel trailer 

overloading. Many overloading 

problems surface in the form of 

complaints about poor handling, 

reduced braking capabilities, tire failure 

and the premature failure of suspension 

components. NHTSA issued the final 

rule to address the problem of 

overloading, by helping consumers have 

a better idea of when the cargo carrying 

capacities of their motor homes and 

travel trailers are being met, and 

exceeded.1

The final rule addressed motor homes 

and RV trailers. The agency believed 

that many owners of these vehicles are 

unaware of their vehicle’s cargo carrying 

capacity until a problem becomes 

apparent. State laws do not require 

motor homes and travel trailers to use 

roadside weighing stations as they do 

for heavy commercial vehicles. NHTSA 

believed that consumer information in 

the form of a required label will inform 

consumers of a motor home or travel 

trailer’s cargo carrying capacity and will 

result in reduced overloading of the 

vehicles. 

For motor homes and RV trailers, the 

final rule required labels that display 

the vehicle identification number (VIN), 

the weight of a full load of water, the 

unit weight of water and a cautionary 

statement that the weight of water is 

part of cargo. The rule required motor 

home labels to display the maximum 

weight of occupants and cargo, and RV 

trailer labels to display the maximum 

weight of cargo. In addition, for motor 

homes, the label must show the seating 

capacity of the vehicle—based on the 

number of safety belts in the vehicle— 

and must indicate that the tongue 

weight of a towed trailer counts as part 

of the motor home’s cargo. 

To promote a consistent conspicuous 

label location, the final rule specified 

that permanent load carrying capacity 

labels be affixed to the interior of the 

forward-most exterior passenger door on 

the right side of the vehicle and be 

visible. As an alternative, to address 

aesthetic considerations, the rule 

permitted manufacturers to place a 

temporary label to the interior of the 

forward-most exterior passenger door on 

the right side of the vehicle and to apply 

a permanent label in the area of the 

vehicle specified by FMVSS Nos. 110 

and 120 for tire information. 

In addition, the final rule adopted a 

threshold for correcting load carrying 

capacity information on FMVSS No. 110 

vehicle placards, motor home occupant 

and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC) 

labels and RV trailer cargo carrying 

capacity (CCC) labels of the lesser of 1.5 

percent of GVWR or 100 pounds in 

FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120. When weight 

is added between final vehicle 

certification and first retail sale, the load 

carrying capacity values on the labels 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES