45262 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

(e) Periodically inspect born-digital 

images scheduled as permanent, longterm temporary, or unscheduled, using 

sampling methods or more 

comprehensive verification systems 

(e.g., checksum programs), to evaluate 

image file stability, documentation 

quality, and finding aid reliability. 

Agencies must also establish procedures 

to refresh digital data (recopying) and to 

migrate files, especially for images and 

databases retained for five years or 

longer; 

(f) Designate a record set of images to 

maintain separately from other versions. 

Do not subject record sets of permanent 

or unscheduled images that have 

already been compressed once (e.g., 

compressed TIFF or first-generation 

JPEG) to further changes in image size; 

(g) Organize record images in logical 

series. Group permanent digital images 

separately from temporary digital 

images or designate images as 

permanent or temporary in a metadata 

field designed for that purpose; 

(h) Document information about 

digital photographic images as the 

agency produces them. Embed 

descriptive elements in each permanent 

or unscheduled image’s file header or 

capture descriptive elements in a 

separate database accompanying the 

image series. Descriptive elements must 

include: 

(1) A unique identification number; 

(2) Information about image content 

(i.e., basic ‘‘who,’’ ‘‘what,’’ ‘‘where,’’ 

‘‘when,’’ ‘‘why’’ captioning data); 

(3) Photographer’s identity and 

organizational affiliation; 

(4) Existence of any copyright or other 

potential restrictions on image use; and 

(5) Technical data, including file 

format and version, bit depth, image 

size, camera make and model, 

compression method and level, and 

custom or generic color profiles (ICC/

ICM profile), among other elements. In 

this regard, verify the extent of the 

Exchangeable Image File Format (EXIF) 

information embedded automatically by 

digital cameras and scanners; 

(i) Provide a unique file name to 

identify the digital image; and 

(j) Develop finding aids sufficiently 

detailed to ensure the agency can 

efficiently and accurately retrieve 

images. Ensure that the agency can use 

indexes, caption lists, and assignment 

logs to identify and chronologically cut 

off blocks of images for transfer to the 

National Archives of the United States. 

§ 1237.30 How must agencies handle and 

manage records on nitrocellulose-base and 

cellulose-acetate-base film? 

(a) The nitrocellulose base, a 

substance akin to gun cotton, is 

chemically unstable and highly 

flammable. Agencies must handle 

nitrocellulose-base film (used in the 

manufacture of sheet film, 35mm 

motion pictures, aerial and still 

photographs into the 1950s) as specified 

below: 

(1) Segregate nitrocellulose film 

materials (e.g., 35mm motion picture 

film and large series of still pictures) 

from other records in storage areas; 

(2) Immediately notify NARA by mail 

at National Archives and Records 

Administration; Special Media Records 

Division (RDS); 8601 Adelphi Road; 

College Park, MD 20740–6001, or by 

email at stillpix.accessions@nara.gov 

(for still photographs) or 

mopix.accessions@nara.gov (for motion 

picture film). If NARA appraises nitrate 

film materials as disposable and the 

agency wishes to retain them, the 

agency must follow the standard NFPA 

40–2011 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 1237.3); and 

(3) Follow the packing and shipping 

standards for nitrate film as specified in 

Department of Transportation 

regulations (49 CFR 172.101, Hazardous 

materials table; 172.504, Transportation; 

173.24, Standard requirements for all 

packages; and 173.177, Motion picture 

film and X-ray film—nitrocellulose 

base). Carry out nitrate film disposal in 

accordance with the relevant hazardous 

waste disposal regulations in 40 CFR, 

parts 260 through 282. 

(b) Inspect cellulose-acetate film 

periodically (at least once every five 

years) for acetic odor, wrinkling, or 

crystalline deposits on the edge or 

surface of the film, which indicate 

deterioration. Agencies must notify 

NARA about deteriorating permanent or 

unscheduled audiovisual records 

composed of cellulose acetate 

immediately after inspection, so the 

agency can copy the records prior to 

transferring the original and duplicate 

film to the National Archives of the 

United States. Notify NARA by mail at 

National Archives and Records 

Administration; Special Media Records 

Division (RDS); 8601 Adelphi Road; 

College Park, MD 20740–6001, or by 

email at stillpix.accessions@nara.gov 

(for still photographs) or 

mopix.accessions@nara.gov (for motion 

picture film). 

Dated: June 28, 2016. 

David S. Ferriero, 

Archivist of the United States. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15848 Filed 7–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[EPA–R04–OW–2016–0356; FRL–9948–90– 

Region 4] 

Ocean Dumping: Modification of an 

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site 

Offshore of Charleston, South Carolina 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

modification of the ocean dredged 

material disposal site (ODMDS) site 

offshore of Charleston, South Carolina 

pursuant to the Marine Protection, 

Research and Sanctuaries Act, as 

amended (MPRSA). The primary 

purpose for the site modification is to 

serve the long-term need for a location 

to dispose of material dredged from the 

Charleston Harbor federal navigation 

channel, and to provide a location for 

the disposal of dredged material for 

persons who have received a permit for 

such disposal. The modified site will be 

subject to ongoing monitoring and 

management to ensure continued 

protection of the marine environment. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 12, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OW–2016–0356, by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments and accessing the docket and 

materials related to this proposed rule. 

• Email: collins.garyw@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Gary W. Collins, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, Water Protection Division, 

Marine Regulatory and Wetlands 

Enforcement Section, 61 Forsyth Street, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OW–2016– 

0356. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45263 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/

epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours from the regional library at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4 Library, 9th Floor, 61 Forsyth 

Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. For 

access to the documents at the Region 

4 Library, contact the Region 4 Library 

Reference Desk at (404) 562–8190, 

between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 

p.m., and between the hours of 1:00 

p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays, for 

an appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

W. Collins, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, Water 

Protection Division, Marine Regulatory 

and Wetlands Enforcement Section, 61 

Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; 

phone number (404) 562–9395; email: 

collins.garyw@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Potentially Affected Persons 

Persons potentially affected by this 

action include those who seek or might 

seek permits or approval 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. The EPA’s proposed action would 

be relevant to persons, including 

organizations and government bodies 

seeking to dispose of dredged material 

in ocean waters offshore of Charleston, 

South Carolina. Currently, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

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, U.S. Navy 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. 

II. Background 

a. History of Disposal Sites Offshore of 

Charleston, South Carolina 

The existing Charleston ODMDS is 

located approximately 9 nautical miles 

(nmi) southeast of the mouth of 

Charleston Harbor on the continental 

shelf off the coast of South Carolina. It 

is currently 12.1 nmi2 in size, with an 

authorized disposal zone that is 3.0 

nmi2 in size. Since 1896, the area now 

designated as the Charleston ODMDS 

and vicinity has been used for disposal 

of dredged material (e.g., sand, silt, clay, 

rock) primarily from the Charleston 

Harbor Navigation Project. The 

Charleston ODMDS received interim 

site designation status in 1977 and final 

designation in 1987. The discovery of 

live bottom habitats within the original 

site resulted in several modifications to 

use of the site resulting in the creation 

of the restricted disposal zone. 

The USACE Charleston District and 

the EPA Region 4 have identified a need 

to either designate a new ODMDS or 

expand the existing Charleston ODMDS. 

The need for expanding current ocean 

disposal capacity is based on future 

capacity modeling, historical dredging 

volumes, estimates of dredging volumes 

for future proposed projects, and limited 

capacity of upland confined disposal 

facilities (CDFs) in the area. 

The proposed modification of the 

ODMDS for dredged material does not 

mean that the USACE or the EPA has 

approved the use of the ODMDS for 

open water disposal of dredged material 

from any specific project. Before any 

person can dispose dredged material at 

the ODMDS, the EPA and the USACE 

must evaluate the project according to 

the ocean dumping regulatory criteria 

(40 CFR part 227) and authorize the 

disposal. The EPA independently 

evaluates proposed dumping and has 

the right to restrict and/or disapprove of 

the actual disposal of dredged material 

if the EPA determines that 

environmental requirements under the 

MPRSA have not been met. 

b. Location and Configuration of 

Modified Ocean Dredged Material 

Disposal Site 

This action proposes the modification 

of the ocean dredged material site 

offshore of Charleston, South Carolina. 

The location of the proposed modified 

ocean dredged material disposal site is 

bounded by the coordinates, listed 

below. The proposed modification of 

the ODMDS will allow the EPA to 

adaptively manage the ODMDS to 

maximize its capacity, minimize the 

potential for mounding and associated 

safety concerns, potentially create hard 

bottom habitat and minimize the 

potential for any long-term adverse 

effects to the marine environment. 

The coordinates for the site are, in 

North American Datum 83 (NAD 83): 

Modified Charleston ODMDS 

(A) 32°36.280′ N., 79°43.662′ W. 

(B) 32°21.514′ N., 79°46.576′ W. 

(C) 32°20.515′ N., 79°45.068′ W. 

(D) 32°20.515′ N., 79°42.152′ W. 

The proposed modified ODMDS is 

located in approximately 30 to 45 feet 

of water, and is located to 

approximately 6.0 nmi offshore. The 

proposed modified ODMDS would be 

7.4 nmi2 in size. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45264 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

c. Management and Monitoring of the 

Site 

The proposed modified ODMDS is 

expected to receive sediments dredged 

by the USACE to deepen and maintain 

the federally authorized navigation 

project at Charleston Harbor, South 

Carolina, and dredged material from 

other persons who have obtained a 

permit for the disposal of dredged 

material at the ODMDS. All persons 

using the ODMDS are required to follow 

a Site Management and Monitoring Plan 

(SMMP) for the ODMDS. The SMMP 

includes management and monitoring 

requirements to ensure that dredged 

materials disposed at the ODMDS are 

suitable for disposal in the ocean and 

that adverse impacts of disposal, if any, 

are addressed to the maximum extent 

practicable. The SMMP for the proposed 

modified ODMDS, in addition to the 

aforementioned, also addresses 

management of the ODMDS to ensure 

adverse mounding does not occur, 

promotes habitat creation where 

possible and to ensure that disposal 

events minimize interference with other 

uses of ocean waters in the vicinity of 

the proposed modified ODMDS. The 

SMMP has been publically review and 

is currently being finalized by the 

Charleston Ocean ODMDS Task Force. 

The Task Force is made up of members 

representing EPA, USACE, National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 

Bureau of Environmental Management 

(BOEM), the South Carolina State Ports 

Authority (SCSPA), the South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources 

(SCDNR), and the South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control. 

d. MPRSA Criteria 

In proposing to modify the ODMDS, 

the EPA assessed the proposed modified 

ODMDS according to the criteria of the 

MPRSA, with particular emphasis on 

the general and specific regulatory 

criteria of 40 CFR part 228, to determine 

whether the proposed site designations 

satisfy those criteria. The EPA’s Final 

Environmental Assessment for 

Modification of an Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Site Offshore 

Charleston, South Carolina, [April 2016] 

(EA), provides an extensive evaluation 

of the criteria and other related factors 

for the modification of the ODMDS. 

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)). 

Dredged material disposal within the 

existing Charleston ODMDS has been 

confined to the eastern side of the 

designated site within a defined 4-mi2

disposal zone to avoid impacts to live 

hardbottom. During this time, dredged 

material disposal at the site has not 

interfered with commercial or 

recreational navigation, commercial 

fishing, or sportfishing activities. The 

proposed modification of the site 

boundaries to the north, east, and south 

is not expected to change these 

conditions. The proposed action avoids 

major fisheries, natural and artificial 

reefs, and areas of recreational use. 

Modification of the site to the east will 

minimize interference with 

shellfisheries by avoiding areas located 

primarily to the west of the ODMDS that 

are frequently used by commercial 

shrimpers. Construction of the berm 

will provide an additional 

approximately 427 acres of hardbottom 

habitat and will protect existing 

hardbottom habitat by minimizing 

sediment transport. There will be a 

3000-foot buffer along the northern 

perimeter of the ODMDS where 

dumping will not occur. Modeling 

results indicate that this buffer should 

be sufficient to protect probable 

hardbottom areas to the north of the site. 

(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)). 

The proposed ODMDS modification 

area will be used for disposal of suitable 

dredged material as determined by 

Section 103 of the MPRSA. Based on the 

USACE and EPA sediment testing and 

evaluation of dredged maintenance 

material and proposed new work 

material from the Post 45 deepening 

project, disposal is not expected to have 

any long-term impact on the water 

quality. Results of the maximum 

concentration found outside the 

disposal area after 4 hours of mixing for 

each dredging unit was zero. Based on 

these results, water quality 

perturbations that could reach any 

beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or 

known geographically-limited fishery or 

shellfishery are not expected. The 

western edge of the proposed modified 

ODMDS is approximately 7 miles 

offshore such that prevailing current 

will not transport dredged material to 

beaches. Water quality perturbations 

caused by dispersion of disposal 

material will be reduced to ambient 

conditions before reaching any 

environmentally sensitive areas. 

(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)). 

The location, size, and configuration 

of the proposed modified ODMDS 

provides long-term capacity, site 

management, and site monitoring while 

limiting environmental impacts to the 

surrounding area. Based on 25 years of 

projected new work and maintenance 

dredged material disposal needs, it is 

estimated that the ODMDS modification 

area should accommodate 

approximately 66.5 mcy of dredged 

material in order to meet the long-term 

disposal needs of the area. The dump 

zone within the proposed ODMDS is 

estimated to have approximately 75 mcy 

of capacity. The capacity in the dump 

zone provides a reasonable amount of 

additional capacity to manage risk, 

account for future unknown disposal 

operations from private entities, and 

provides a margin of navigation safety. 

The remaining area within the 

boundaries of the existing 12 nmi2

Charleston ODMDS (parallelogram) 

would be de-designated. The area to be 

de-designated is approximately 10.4 mi2

(7.8 nmi2) in size and contains 

documented hardbottom habitat. 

By adding 5.8 mi2 (4.4 nmi2) to the 

existing ODMDS disposal zone, the total 

area of the modified Charleston ODMDS 

would be 9.8 mi2 (7.4 nmi2), with a 

dump zone area of 5.1 mi2 (3.9 nmi2). 

An ODMDS of this size and capacity 

will provide a long-term ocean disposal 

option for the region. 

To help protect nearby hardbottom 

habitat from being buried by sediment 

migrating from the ODMDS, a U-shaped 

berm along the east, south, and west 

perimeters of the modified ODMDS will 

be constructed. Although there is 

probable hardbottom located north of 

the proposed modified ODMDS, no 

berm will be constructed along the 

northern boundary. However, there will 

be a 3000-foot buffer along the northern 

perimeter of the ODMDS where 

dumping will not occur. Fate modeling 

indicates that this buffer should be 

sufficient to protect probable 

hardbottom areas to the north of the site. 

When determining the size of the 

proposed site, the ability to implement 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45265 

effective monitoring and surveillance 

programs, among other things, was 

factored in to ensure that navigational 

safety would not be compromised and 

to prevent mounding of dredged 

material, which could result in adverse 

wave conditions. A site management 

and monitoring program will be 

implemented to determine if disposal at 

the site is significantly affecting 

adjacent areas and to detect the 

presence of long-term adverse effects. At 

a minimum, the monitoring program 

will consist of bathymetric surveys, 

sediment grain size analysis, chemical 

analysis of constituents of concern in 

the sediments, and a health assessment 

of the benthic community. 

(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)). 

The continental slope is 

approximately 55 nmi offshore of 

Charleston. Disposal off the continental 

shelf (shelf break) was evaluated in 

detail the 1983 ODMDS Designation EIS 

document. In comparison to locating the 

site in the nearshore region, it was 

determined that monitoring and 

surveillance would be more difficult 

and expensive in the shelf break area 

because of the distance from shore to 

the deeper waters. Transporting material 

to and performing long-term monitoring 

of a site located off the continental shelf 

is not economically or operationally 

feasible. 

The historically used ocean dumping 

site, Charleston ODMDS, is not located 

beyond the continental shelf. A portion 

of the proposed modified ODMDS 

encompasses an area previously 

designated for disposal. 

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 proposed modified ODMDS is 

located on the shallow continental shelf, 

approximately 6 nmi offshore of 

Charleston, South Carolina. Water 

depths range from ¥30 to ¥45 feet (9 

to 13 meters) with an overall average 

depth of ¥40 feet (12 meters). 

Characteristics of the South Atlantic 

Bight seafloor include low relief, 

relatively gentle gradients, and smooth 

bottom surfaces exhibiting 

physiographic features contoured by 

erosional processes. Sediments largely 

consist of fine to coarse sands. Some 

areas contain extensive coarse grains 

and shell hash. Fines were found to be 

typically less than 10%. 

(2) Location in Relation to Breeding, 

Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or Passage 

Areas of Living Resources in Adult or 

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

The proposed modified ODMDS is not 

located in exclusive breeding, 

spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage 

areas for adult or juvenile phases of 

living resources. The intensity of these 

activities within the vicinity of the 

ODMDS is seasonally variable, with 

peaks typically occurring in the spring 

and early fall for most commercially 

important finfish and shellfish species 

(USEPA 1983). The ODMDS is not 

located within North Atlantic right 

whale critical habitat. 

(3) Location in Relation to Beaches 

and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR 

228.6(a)(3)). 

The center of the proposed modified 

ODMDS is approximately 7 mi (6 nmi) 

from the nearest coastal beach. The site 

is approximately 3.1 mi (2.7 nmi) south 

of the nearest artificial reef. No 

significant impacts to beaches or 

amenity areas associated with the 

existing ODMDS have been 

documented. 

(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)). 

Only material that meets EPA Ocean 

Dumping Criteria in 40 CFR 220–229 

will be placed in the proposed site. 

Average annual maintenance material is 

approximately 1.4 mcy and 

approximately 31.2 mcy of new work 

material is expected from the Charleston 

Harbor Deepening Project. Sediments 

dredged from Charleston Harbor and the 

entrance channel are a mixture of silt, 

sand, and rock. Hopper dredge, barge, 

and scow combinations are the usual 

vehicles of transport for the dredged 

material. None of the material is 

packaged in any manner. 

(5) Feasibility of Surveillance and 

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

The EPA expects monitoring and 

surveillance at the proposed modified 

ODMDS to be feasible and readily 

performed from ocean or regional class 

research vessels. The proposed modified 

ODMDS is of similar size, water depth 

and distance from shore as are a 

majority of the ODMDSs within the 

Southeastern United States which are 

routinely monitored. The EPA will 

ensure monitoring of the site for 

physical, biological and chemical 

attributes as well as for potential 

impacts beyond the site boundaries. 

Bathymetric surveys will be conducted 

routinely as defined in the SMMP, 

contaminant levels in the dredged 

material will be analyzed prior to 

dumping, and the benthic infauna and 

epibenthic organisms will be monitored 

every 10 years, as funding allows. 

(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)). 

A study conducted by EPA from 

2013–2015 indicated that currents in the 

vicinity of the Charleston ODMDS tend 

to have a significant tidal component 

with predominant currents in the crossshore direction. The depth-averaged 

median current velocity was 18 cm/sec 

(0.6 ft/sec) with 90% of the 

measurements below 30 cm/sec (1.1 ft/ 

sec). Wind-driven circulation is the 

most important factor in controlling 

sediment transport. Strong winds 

generate waves that steer the sediment 

on the seabed and create large nearbed 

suspended sediment concentrations. 

Suspended sediment transport is 

directed mainly NE and SW in response 

to local wind climate and the windgenerated alongshore flows. LTFATE 

and MPFATE modeling results over a 

25-year period indicate depths of 

sediment deposited outside the 

boundaries of the ODMDS will not 

exceed the 5 cm deposition contour 

guidance provided by EPA. 

(7) Existence and Effects of Current 

and Previous Discharges and Dumping 

in the Area (including Cumulative 

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

Previous disposal of dredged material 

resulted in temporary increases in 

suspended sediment concentrations 

during disposal operations, localized 

mounding within the site, burial of 

benthic organisms within the site, 

changes in the abundance and 

composition of benthic assemblages, 

and changes in the sediment 

composition from sandy sediments to 

finer-grained silts. Impacts to live 

bottoms were identified in the western 

portion of the 12-mi2 ODMDS. 

Short-term, long-term, and cumulative 

effects of dredged material disposal in 

the proposed ODMDS modification area 

would be similar to those for the 

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

The proposed modified ODMDS is not 

expected to interfere with shipping, 

fishing, recreation or other legitimate 

uses of the ocean. Commercial 

navigation, commercial fishing, and 

mineral extraction (sand mining) are the 

primary activities that may spatially 

overlap with disposal at the proposed 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45266 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

modified ODMDS. The proposed 

modified ODMDS avoids the National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) recommended 

vessel routes offshore Charleston, South 

Carolina, thereby avoiding conflict with 

commercial navigation. 

Commercial fishing (shrimp trawling) 

occurs primarily to the west of the 

proposed modified ODMDS. 

The likelihood of direct interference 

with these activities is low, provided 

there is close communication and 

coordination among users of the ocean 

resources. The EPA is not aware of any 

plans for desalination plants, or fish and 

shellfish culture operations near the 

proposed modified ODMDS at this time. 

The proposed modified ODMDS is not 

located in areas of special scientific 

importance. 

(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)). 

Water quality of the existing site is 

typical of the Atlantic Ocean. Water and 

sediment quality analyses conducted in 

the study area and experience with past 

disposals in the Charleston ODMDS 

have not identified any adverse water 

quality impacts from ocean disposal of 

dredged material. The site supports 

benthic and epibenthic fauna 

characteristic of the South Atlantic 

Bight. Neither the pelagic (mobile) or 

benthic (non-mobile) communities 

should sustain irreparable harm due to 

their widespread occurrence off the 

South Carolina 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 

proposed modified ODMDS. They are 

either transported to or recruited to the 

site because the disposal of dredged 

material creates an environment where 

they can establish. Habitat conditions 

have changed somewhat at the 

Charleston ODMDS because of the 

disposal of some silty material on what 

was predominately sandy sediments. 

While it can be expected that organisms 

will become established at the site 

which were not there previously, this 

new community is not regarded as a 

nuisance, or ‘‘undesirable,’’ community. 

(11) Existence at or in Close Proximity 

to the Site of any Significant Natural or 

Cultural Feature of Historical 

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

No significant cultural features have 

been identified at, or in the vicinity of, 

the proposed modified ODMDS at this 

time. Surveys conducted in 2012–2013 

did not identify any cultural features of 

historical importance. The EPA has 

coordinated with South Carolina’s State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to 

identify any cultural features. The 

SHPO concurred with the EPA’s 

determination that the proposed 

modification of the ODMDS will have 

no effect on cultural resources listed, or 

eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places as no such 

resources exist in the project area. 

III. 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 the EPA’s 

actions under the MPRSA from the 

procedural requirements of NEPA 

through the functional equivalence 

doctrine. The EPA has, by policy, 

determined that the preparation of 

NEPA documents for certain EPA 

regulatory actions, including actions 

under the MPRSA, is appropriate. The 

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 the 

EPA uses when preparing such 

environmental review documents. The 

EPA’s primary voluntary NEPA 

document for expanding the ODMDS is 

the Final Environmental Assessment for 

Modification of an Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Site Offshore 

Charleston, South Carolina, [April 2016] 

(FEA), prepared by the EPA in 

cooperation with the USACE. Anyone 

desiring a copy of the FEA may obtain 

one from the addresses given above. A 

draft of this document was released for 

public review in December, 2015. The 

public comment period on the Draft EA 

closed on January 19, 2016. 

The EPA received 8 comment letters 

on the DEA. There were two main 

concerns expressed in those letters: (1) 

Potential movement of disposed 

material impacting areas such as habitat, 

fisheries and sand borrow areas; and (2) 

monitoring associated with the SMMP. 

No objections to the ODMDS 

modification were received. The EPA 

and USACE responded to all comments 

and they are provided in the FEA. The 

FEA and its Appendices, which are part 

of the docket for this action, provide the 

threshold environmental review for 

modification of the ODMDS. The 

information from the FEA is used above, 

in the discussion of the ocean dumping 

criteria. 

The proposed action discussed in the 

FEA is the permanent designation of a 

modified ODMDS offshore Charleston, 

South Carolina. The purpose of the 

proposed action is to provide an 

environmentally acceptable option for 

the ocean disposal of dredged material. 

The need for the modified ODMDS is 

based on a demonstrated USACE need 

for ocean disposal of dredged material 

from the Charleston Harbor Federal 

Navigation Project, and the proposed 

Charleston Harbor Deepening Project 

(also known as Post 45). The need for 

ocean disposal for these and other 

projects, and the suitability of the 

material for ocean disposal, will be 

determined on a case-by-case basis as 

part of the USACE process of issuing 

permits for ocean disposal for private/

federal actions and a public review 

process for its own actions. This will 

include an evaluation of disposal 

alternatives. 

For the proposed modified ODMDS, 

the USACE and the EPA would evaluate 

all federal dredged material disposal 

projects pursuant to the EPA criteria set 

forth in the Ocean Dumping Regulations 

(40 CFR 220–229) and the USACE 

regulations (33 CFR 209.120 and 335– 

338). The USACE issues Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act (MPRSA) permits to applicants for 

the transport of dredged material 

intended for disposal after compliance 

with regulations is determined. The 

EPA has the right to disapprove any 

ocean disposal project if, in its 

judgment, all provisions of MPRSA and 

the associated implementing regulations 

have not been met. 

The FEA discusses the need for the 

proposed modified ODMDS and 

examines ocean disposal site 

alternatives to the proposed actions. The 

need for expanding the current ODMDS 

is based on future capacity modeling, 

historical dredging volumes, estimated 

dredging volumes for proposed projects, 

and limited capacity of upland CDFs in 

the area. Non-ocean disposal options 

have been examined in the FEA based 

on information provided by the USACE 

in the Dredged Material Management 

Plans for Charleston Harbor. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45267 

The following ocean disposal 

alternatives were considered but 

eliminated from detailed evaluation in 

the FEA: 

1. Alternative 2: Use Existing ODMDS 

and Remove Disposal Zone Restriction 

Alternative 2 is the removal of the 

current disposal zone restriction and 

allowing use of the entire ODMDS for 

disposal. This alternative would require 

further delineation and assessment of 

live-bottom habitat within the western 

portion of the site or the acceptance of 

direct impacts to such habitat from 

disposal. Further habitat assessment 

could result in the need for multiple 

disposal zones to avoid direct impacts. 

From a site management and disposal 

operations perspective, a noncontiguous site would be more difficult 

and costly to manage and monitor. Use 

of the western portion of the site also 

has the potential for impacting shrimp 

trawling grounds. 

2. Alternative 3: New ODMDS North of 

the Entrance Channel 

Alternative 3 proposes to designate a 

new ODMDS north of the entrance 

channel of the same size and 

configuration as Alternative 1 (Table 

2.2–2, Figure 2–6). This site is located 

approximately 16 mi (14 nmi) offshore 

of the entrance to Charleston Harbor and 

1.6 mi (1.4 nmi) east of the anchorage 

area. 

No hardbottom or cultural resource 

surveys have been conducted in this 

area. Therefore, the presence of 

hardbottom and cultural resources 

within and adjacent to this site are 

unknown and would require additional 

surveys. As mentioned in Section 2.1– 

1, shrimpers appear to generally work 

within and on the edge of the entrance 

channel out to near the ODMDS 

disposal zone, and then they either head 

north or south and loop back inland 

(Mark Messersmith, Charleston District, 

USACE pers. corr. with Wayne 

Magwood, President, Magwood 

Seafood). Based on this information, it 

appears this site is outside of primary 

shrimping grounds. 

The predominant net sediment 

transport is generally from NE to SW 

and is influenced by local and regional 

wind and current patterns as well as 

periodic storm events. Therefore, 

disposal of dredged material in a site 

located on the north side of the entrance 

channel may result in sediment 

transport into the channel. Alternative 3 

is 7 mi (6 nmi) farther offshore than 

Alternative 1, which would significantly 

increase transit times and fuel costs. 

This site is also in close proximity to the 

anchorage area, which could impact 

transit routes to and from the ODMDS. 

Primarily due to concerns about 

dredged material being deposited back 

into the entrance channel, increased 

transportation costs, and the need for 

additional surveys to assess hardbottom 

and cultural resources, this alternative 

is eliminated from further consideration 

for this proposed action. 

3. Alternative 4: Disposal Off the 

Continental Shelf 

The continental slope is 

approximately 55 nmi offshore of 

Charleston. Disposal off the continental 

shelf (shelf break) was evaluated in 

detail the 1983 ODMDS Designation EIS 

document. In comparison to locating the 

site in the nearshore region, it was 

determined that monitoring and 

surveillance would be more difficult 

and expensive in the shelf break area 

because of the distance from shore to 

the deeper waters. There would be a 

likelihood of a higher frequency of 

rough weather that could hinder 

disposal and monitoring operations. 

Alternative 4 was considered during 

initial alternatives analysis; however, 

transporting material to and performing 

long-term monitoring of a site located 

off the continental shelf is not 

economically or operationally feasible; 

therefore, disposal off the continental 

shelf is eliminated from further 

consideration for this proposed action. 

4. Alternative 5: Upland Disposal 

Upland disposal is an important 

option for maintenance dredged 

material removed from the federal 

navigation channel. To ensure that 

adequate project depth is maintained 

throughout the navigation channel 

within Charleston Harbor, USACE uses 

several upland placement areas to meet 

dredged material disposal needs within 

certain reaches of the harbor. The sites 

are adjacent to the Cooper River in the 

vicinity of the shoaling areas, allowing 

for the economical transfer of dredged 

material from the shoaled areas. The 

upland placement areas require the 

maintenance and construction of dikes 

to contain dredged material and 

monitoring to provide conformance 

with environmental requirements. 

Dredged material is pumped into the 

sites and the excess surface water is 

clarified by ponding and then released 

through weir structures. 

Upland and ocean disposal site 

capacity were evaluated as part of the 

Charleston Harbor Post 45 Deepening 

IFR/EIS. Upland sites will continue to 

be used and dikes will need to be raised 

to provide additional capacity at these 

sites. Based on recent analysis 

conducted in 2014, assuming on-going 

dike raising efforts continue, there is 

sufficient capacity for at least the next 

20 years. However even with dike 

raising, it was determined that 

additional ocean disposal capacity will 

be needed to accommodate continued 

dredged material operations and 

maintenance in the future. 

Alternative 5 was considered during 

initial alternatives analysis; however, 

even with dike raising efforts upland 

capacity and land for new disposal areas 

are limited. Although upland disposal 

has been eliminated from further 

evaluation in this EA, it remains an 

option for disposal of maintenance 

material from various reaches when 

economically feasible and capacity is 

available or if dredged material is 

unsuitable for ocean disposal. Each 

dredging project will be evaluated 

separately to determine if upland 

disposal is an option. A MPRSA Section 

103 evaluation was conducted on the 

new work material, and it was 

determined to be suitable for ocean 

disposal. Therefore, dredged material 

generated from the deepening project is 

expected to be disposed at the ODMDS. 

5. Alternative 6: Beach Nourishment, 

Nearshore Placement, and Other 

Beneficial Uses 

The Federal Government has placed 

considerable emphasis on using dredged 

material in a beneficial manner. Statutes 

such as the Water Resources 

Development Acts of 1992, 1996, 2000, 

and 2007 demonstrate that beneficial 

use has been a Congressional priority. 

USACE has emphasized the use of 

dredged material for beneficial use 

through such regulations as 33 CFR part 

335, ER 1105–2–100, and ER 1130–2– 

520 and by Policy Guidance Letter No. 

56. ER 1105–2–100 states that ‘‘all 

dredged material management studies 

include an assessment of potential 

beneficial uses for environmental 

purposes including fish and wildlife 

habitat creation, ecosystem restoration 

and enhancement and/or hurricane and 

storm damage reduction.’’ In accordance 

with ER 1105–2–100, USACE is 

considering beneficial use of dredged 

material as part of the Charleston Harbor 

Post 45 Project. Potential beneficial uses 

include: 

• ODMDS berm creation 

• Reef placement 

• Crab Bank enhancement 

• Shutes Folly enhancement 

• Nearshore placement off Morris Island 

• Protection of Ft. Sumter 

Details on volumes and construction 

methods for other beneficial use projects 

will be evaluated during the preconstruction, engineering, and design 

(PED) phase. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45268 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Alternative 6 was considered during 

initial alternatives analysis; however, 

the majority of the material dredged 

from the Charleston Harbor Navigation 

Project is not suitable for beach 

nourishment, nearshore placement, or 

other beneficial uses. This alternative 

alone does not meet the project need for 

additional disposal capacity for material 

dredged during the proposed deepening 

project or annual maintenance material. 

Therefore, this alternative is eliminated 

from further consideration for this 

proposed action. However, a portion of 

rock material dredged from the entrance 

channel is proposed to be used to 

construct the berms along the perimeter 

of the Alternative 1 site to minimize 

sediment transport from the site. The 

added benefit associated with berm 

construction includes hardbottom 

habitat creation. 

6. No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative is defined 

as not modifying the existing Charleston 

ODMDS disposal zone pursuant to 

MPRSA Section 102. The current 

capacity of the existing 4-mi2 disposal 

zone within the ODMDS is 

approximately 29.5 mcy (USACE 

2014b). If no action is taken, the 

estimated volume of dredge material 

from the Post 45 deepening project that 

is slated for ocean disposal will fill the 

existing Charleston ODMDS almost to 

capacity. There would not be enough 

capacity left for disposal of O&M 

projects that are expected to generate 

approximately 1.4 mcy of dredge 

material per year. The No Action 

Alternative could result in limiting the 

long-term use of the site and the amount 

of dredged material that could be 

removed from the Charleston Harbor 

navigation channels and berths per 

dredging event. This, in turn, could 

impact operations by restricting vessel 

drafts and access to areas that were 

unable to be dredged to authorized 

project depths. The No Action 

Alternative fails to fulfill the need and 

objective to provide a long-term ocean 

disposal option for suitable dredged 

material generated from new projects 

and maintenance projects in support of 

the Charleston Harbor Federal 

Navigation Project and other local users. 

The availability of suitable ocean 

disposal sites to support ongoing 

navigation channel maintenance and 

capital improvement projects is 

essential for continued efficient 

commerce in the region. The No Action 

Alternative does not meet the proposed 

action’s purpose and need. However, it 

was evaluated in the FEIS as a basis to 

compare the effects of the other 

alternatives considered. 

7. Preferred Alternative: Modification of 

the Existing Charleston ODMDS 

The proposed ODMDS modification 

consists of the addition of a 5.8-mi2 area 

(4.4 nmi2) along the northern, eastern, 

and southern boundaries of the existing 

Charleston ODMDS disposal zone. This 

area would be added to the existing 4- 

mi2 (3 nmi2) disposal zone and would 

be designated for disposal of dredged 

material from the future harbor 

deepening projects and routine 

maintenance material from the 

Charleston Harbor Navigation Project 

and other local users. The new 

Charleston ODMDS would have a total 

area comprising 9.8 mi2. Within the 

larger ODMDS, a dump zone is 

proposed that will serve as the 

boundaries that ocean dumping will 

occur in. This dump zone within the 

ODMDS was modeled using Long Term 

Fate and Multiple Placement Fate 

models. The EPA also proposes the dedesignation of the remaining area within 

the boundaries of the existing 12 nmi2

Charleston ODMDS (parallelogram) 

located primarily in the western portion 

of the site that is not included in the 

disposal zone or the proposed 

modification area. The area to be dedesignated is approximately 10.4 mi2

(7.8 nmi2) in size and contains 

documented hardbottom habitat. 

The Final EA presents the information 

needed to evaluate the suitability of 

ocean disposal areas for final 

designation use and is based on a series 

of disposal site environmental studies. 

The environmental studies and final 

designation are being conducted in 

accordance with the requirements of 

MPRSA, the Ocean Dumping 

Regulations, and other applicable 

Federal environmental legislation. 

b. MSA 

The EPA integrated the essential fish 

habitat (EFH) assessment with the EA, 

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 

(NMFS) on December 4, 2015. The 

NMFS responded via letter that they 

have no comments on the proposed 

project. 

CZMA 

Pursuant to an Office of Water policy 

memorandum dated October 23, 1989, 

the EPA has evaluated the proposed site 

designations for consistency with the 

State of South Carolina’s (the State) 

approved coastal management program. 

The EPA has determined that the 

designation of the proposed site is 

consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable with the State coastal 

management program, and submitted 

this determination to the State for 

review in accordance with the EPA 

policy. The State conditionally 

concurred with this determination on 

February 17, 2016. The EPA has taken 

the State’s comments into account in 

preparing the FEA for the site, in 

determining whether the proposed site 

should be designated, and in 

determining whether restrictions or 

limitations should be placed on the use 

of the site, if they are designated. 

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. The EPA 

incorporated a Biological Assessment 

(BA) into the EA to assess the potential 

effects of expanding the Charleston 

ODMDS on aquatic and wildlife species 

and submitted that document to the 

NMFS and USFWS on December 4, 

2016. The EPA concluded that the 

proposed project would not adversely 

affect any threatened or endangered 

species, nor would it adversely modify 

any designated critical habitat. The 

USFWS concurred on the EPA’s finding 

that the proposed action is not likely to 

adversely affect listed endangered or 

threatened species under the 

jurisdiction of the USFWS. The NMFS 

concluded the proposed action is not 

likely to adversely affect listed species 

under their jurisdiction. 

c. NHPA 

The USACE and the EPA initiated 

consultation with the State of South 

Carolina’s Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) on December 4, 2015, 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 of Historic Places (NRHP). In a 

letter dated January 6, 2016, the SHPO 

determined that no properties listed in 

or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places will be 

affected by the project. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 45269 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This rulemaking proposes the 

designation of a modified ODMDS 

pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA. 

This proposed action complies with 

applicable executive orders and 

statutory provisions as follows: 

a. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

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. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This 

proposed site designation, does not 

require persons to obtain, maintain, 

retain, report, or publicly disclose 

information to or for a Federal agency. 

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. The EPA 

determined that this proposed action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on small entities because the 

proposed rule will only have the effect 

of regulating the location of site to be 

used for the disposal of dredged 

material in ocean waters. After 

considering the economic impacts of 

this proposed rule, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed action contains no 

Federal mandates under the provisions 

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

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

1531 to 1538, for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action imposes no new enforceable duty 

on any State, local or tribal governments 

or the private sector. Therefore, this 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small government 

entities. Those entities are already 

subject to existing permitting 

requirements for the disposal of dredged 

material in ocean waters. 

e. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It does not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government, as specified in Executive 

Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. In 

the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between the EPA and 

State and local governments, the EPA 

specifically solicited comments on this 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

f. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 because the 

modification of the Charleston ODMDS 

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. The EPA specifically 

solicits additional comments on this 

proposed action from tribal officials. 

g. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern health or 

safety risks, such that the analysis 

required under Section 5–501 of the 

Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This proposed 

action is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 because it does not establish an 

environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. The 

proposed action concerns the 

modification of the Charleston ODMDS 

and only has the effect of providing a 

designated location for ocean disposal 

of dredged material pursuant to Section 

102(c) of the MPRSA. However, we 

welcome comments on this proposed 

action related to this Executive Order. 

h. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355) 

because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined under 

Executive Order 12866. However, we 

welcome comments on this proposed 

action related to this Executive Order. 

i. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs 

the 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 the EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. This proposed 

action includes environmental 

monitoring and measurement as 

described in EPA’s proposed SMMP. 

The EPA will not require the use of 

specific, prescribed analytic methods for 

monitoring and managing the 

designated ODMDS. The Agency plans 

to allow the use of any method, whether 

it constitutes a voluntary consensus 

standard or not, that meets the 

monitoring and measurement criteria 

discussed in the proposed SMMP. The 

EPA welcomes comments on this aspect 

of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45270 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this proposed action. 

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. The 

EPA determined that this proposed rule 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. The EPA has assessed the 

overall protectiveness of modifying the 

Charleston ODMDS against the criteria 

established pursuant to the MPRSA to 

ensure that any adverse impact to the 

environment will be mitigated to the 

greatest extent practicable. We welcome 

comments on this proposed action 

related to this Executive Order. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 

Environmental protection, Water 

pollution control. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of Section 102 of the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as 

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

Dated: June 22, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 

chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Register as follows: 

PART 228—CRITERIA FOR THE 

MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES 

FOR OCEAN DUMPING 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 228 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 228.15 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (h)(5)(i) through (iii) 

and (vi) to read as follows: 

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a 

final basis. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) Location: 32°36.280′ N., 79°43.662′ 

W.; 32°21.514′ N., 79°46.576′ W.; 

32°20.515′ N., 79°45.068′ W.; 32°20.515′ 

N., 79°42.152′ W. 

(ii) Size: Approximately 7.4 square 

nautical miles in size. 

(iii) Depth: Ranges from 

approximately 30 to 45 feet (9 to 13.5 

meters). 

* * * * * 

(vi) Restrictions: (A) Disposal shall be 

limited to dredged material from the 

Charleston, South Carolina, area; 

(B) Disposal shall be limited to 

dredged material determined to be 

suitable for ocean disposal according to 

40 CFR 227.13; 

(C) Disposal shall be managed by the 

restrictions and requirements contained 

in the currently-approved Site 

Management and Monitoring Plan 

(SMMP); 

(D) Monitoring, as specified in the 

SMMP, is required. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–16584 Filed 7–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

45 CFR Part 75 

RIN 0991–AC06 

Health and Human Services Grants 

Regulation 

AGENCY: Department of Health and 

Human Services; Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Financial Resources, 

Division of Grants, Office of Grants 

Policy, Oversight, and Evaluation. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) proposes changes to 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services’ (HHS) adoption of the Office 

of Management and Budget’s (OMB) 

Uniform Administrative Requirements, 

Cost Principles, and Audit 

Requirements for Federal Awards 

(‘‘Uniform Administrative 

Requirements’’) published on December 

19, 2014 (79 FR 75871) and the 

technical amendments published by 

HHS on January 20, 2016 (81 FR 3004). 

HHS codified the OMB language, with 

noted modifications as explained in the 

preamble to the December 

promulgation, in 45 CFR part 75. The 

HHS-specific modifications to the 

Uniform Administrative Requirements 

adopted prior regulatory language that 

was not in conflict with OMB’s 

language, and provided additional 

guidance to the regulated community. 

Unlike all of the other modifications to 

the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements, these proposed changes, 

although based on existing law or HHS 

policy, were not previously codified in 

regulation. This NPRM seeks comments 

on these important proposed regulatory 

changes. 

DATES: To be assured consideration, 

comments must be received at the 

address provided below, no later than 5 

p.m. on August 12, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer 

to file code 0991–AC06. Because of staff 

and resource limitations, comments 

must be submitted electronically to 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Audrey Clarke at HHS at 202–720–1908. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Inspection of Public Comments: All 

comments received before the close of 

the comment period are available for 

viewing by the public, including 

personally identifiable or confidential 

business information that is included in 

a comment. We post all comments 

received before the end of the comment 

period on the following Web site as 

soon as possible after they have been 

received: http://regulations.gov. Follow 

the search instructions on that Web site 

to view the public comments. 

Background 

This NPRM proposes changes to the 

HHS’s adoption of the Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles, and Audit Requirements for 

Federal Awards published on December 

19, 2014 (79 FR 75871) and the 

technical amendments published by 

HHS on January 20, 2016 (81 FR 3004). 

HHS codified the OMB language, with 

noted modifications, in 45 CFR part 75. 

Unlike all of the other modifications to 

the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements, these proposed changes, 

although based on existing law or HHS 

policy, were not previously codified in 

regulation. This NPRM seeks comments 

for these important regulatory changes. 

In order to give full effect to other 

important government-wide initiatives, 

HHS is proposing further amendments 

at this time, which HHS intends to 

finalize as soon as possible. HHS 

proposes several additional changes to 

the codification of 2 CFR part 200 in 45 

CFR part 75. First, HHS proposes to add 

language to 45 CFR 75.102, clarifying 

that the audit requirements and cost 

principles applicable to contracts and 

compacts awarded pursuant to the 

Indian Self Determination and 

Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) are 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS