Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56395 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this action. In addition, this action 

does not impose any enforceable duty or 

contain any unfunded mandate as 

described under Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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. This action is not a ‘‘major 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 4, 2015. 

Susan Lewis, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.680, add alphabetically the 

following commodity to the table in 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.680 Fluensulfone; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Tomato, paste ....................... 1.0 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–23359 Filed 9–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[EPA–R06–OW–2015–0121; FRL–9934–25– 

Region 6] 

Ocean Dumping: Modification of Final 

Site Designation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) today is modifying the 

use restrictions of the Galveston, TX 

Dredged Material Site, Freeport Harbor, 

TX, New Work (45 Foot Project), 

Freeport Harbor, TX, Maintenance (45 

Foot Project), Matagorda Ship Channel, 

TX, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX, 

Port Mansfield, TX, Brazos Island 

Harbor, TX and Brazos Island Harbor 

(42-Foot Project), TX Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Sites (ODMDSs) 

located in the Gulf of Mexico offshore 

of Galveston, Freeport, Matagorda, 

Corpus Christi, Port Mansfield and 

Brownsville, Texas, respectively. These 

sites are EPA designated ocean dumping 

sites for the disposal of suitable dredged 

material. This action is being taken at 

the request of the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers Galveston District to 

allow disposal of suitable dredged 

material from the vicinity of the federal 

navigation channels to alleviate 

pressure on the capacity of their upland 

dredged material placement areas, when 

necessary. 

DATES: This document is effective on 

October 19, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA established a 

docket for this action under Docket No. 

EPA–R06–OW–2015–0121. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Publicly available docket materials 

are available electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jessica Franks, Ph.D., Marine and 

Coastal Section (6WQ–EC), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 

1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–8335, fax number 

(214) 665–6689; email address 

franks.jessica@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

A. Potentially Affected Persons 

B. Background 

C. Final Action 

D. Responses to Comments 

E. Administrative Review 

1. Executive Order 12866 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use Compliance with 

Administrative Procedure Act 

9. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low Income 

Populations 

A. 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, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. EPA’s action 

would be relevant to persons, including 

organizations and government bodies 

seeking to dispose of dredged material 

in ocean waters offshore of Galveston, 

Freeport, Matagorda, Corpus Christi, 

Port Mansfield and Brownsville, Texas. 

Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) and other persons 

with permits to use designated sites 

offshore of Galveston, Freeport, 

Matagorda, Corpus Christi, Port 

Mansfield, and Brownsville, Texas 

would be most impacted by this final 

action. Potentially affected categories 

and persons include: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56396 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4—A SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DATA COLLECTION STANDARDS

Category Examples of potentially regulated persons 

Federal government ............. USACE Civil Works and O & M projects; other Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. 

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 entity, please 

refer to the contact person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

B. Background 

Section 102(c) of the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33 

U.S.C. 1401 et seq., gives the 

Administrator of EPA the authority to 

designate sites where ocean disposal 

may be permitted. On October 1, 1986, 

the Administrator delegated the 

authority to designate ocean disposal 

sites to the Regional Administrator of 

the Region in which the sites are 

located. These modifications are being 

made pursuant to that authority. 

The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations 

promulgated under MPRSA (40 CFR 

Chapter I, Subchapter H, Section 

228.11) state that modifications in 

disposal site use which involve 

withdrawal of disposal sites from use or 

permanent changes in the total specified 

quantities or types of waste permitted to 

be discharged to a specific disposal site 

will be made by promulgation in this 

Part 228. This site modification of types 

of waste permitted to be discharged to 

a specific disposal site are being 

published as a final rulemaking in 

accordance with § 228.11(a) of the 

Ocean Dumping Regulations, which 

permits changes in the total specified 

quantities or types of waste permitted to 

be discharged to a specific disposal site 

based upon changed circumstances 

concerning use of the site. 

C. Final Action 

The modifications of the use 

restrictions on the Galveston, TX, 

Dredged Material Site, Freeport Harbor, 

TX, New Work (45 Foot Project), 

Freeport Harbor, TX, Maintenance (45 

Foot Project), Matagorda Ship Channel, 

TX, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX, 

Port Mansfield, TX, Brazos Island 

Harbor, TX and Brazos Island Harbor 

(42-Foot Project), TX ODMDSs was 

requested by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Galveston District in a March 

27, 2015 letter. The current wording 

within the 40 CFR 228.15 restricts the 

use of these ODMDS to only dredged 

material originating from specific 

federal channel reaches associated with 

each ODMDS. For Freeport Harbor, TX, 

New Work (45 Foot Project) ODMDS 

and the Brazos Island Harbor (42-Foot 

Project), the ODMDSs are restricted to 

receive only construction dredged 

material from channel improvement 

projects at Freeport and Brazos Island 

Harbor, respectively. Modeling shows 

that future disposal capacity is limited 

at the placement areas typically used by 

the Galveston District when ocean 

disposal is not an option. As a result of 

these limitations, there is a need to 

change the use restrictions placed on 

these ODMDSs to include suitable 

dredged material from the greater 

vicinities of the respective federal 

channels. The restriction modification 

will provide for sufficient future 

dredged material disposal capacity for 

material originating from dredging areas 

within each Federal channel and its 

vicinity. 

D. Responses to Comments 

The proposed rule was published in 

the Federal Register on June 18, 2015 

(80 FR 34871), as docket number EPA– 

EPA–R06–OW–2015–0121. The 

comment period closed on August 3, 

2015. The EPA received one letter on 

the proposed rule from the Department 

of Interior stating that they have no 

comment. As no comments were 

received, the EPA has no responses to 

comments for the proposed rule. 

E. Administrative Review 

1. Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) EPA must 

determine whether the regulatory action 

is ‘significant,’’ and therefore subject to 

office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) review and other requirements of 

the Executive Order. The Order defines 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one 

that is likely to lead to a rule that may: 

(a) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect in a material way, the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(b) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(c) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof: or 

(d) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This Final rule should have minimal 

impact on State, local, or Tribal 

governments or communities. 

Consequently, EPA has determined that 

this Final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to 

minimize the reporting and 

recordkeeping burden on the regulated 

community, as well as to minimize the 

cost of Federal information collection 

and dissemination. In general, the Act 

requires that information requests and 

record-keeping requirements affecting 

ten or more non-Federal respondents be 

approved by OMB. Since the Final rule 

would not establish or modify any 

information or recordkeeping 

requirements, but only clarifies existing 

requirements, it is not subject to the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 56397 

This Final rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. The 

modification of the Galveston, TX, 

Dredged Material Site, Freeport Harbor, 

TX, New Work (45 Foot Project), 

Freeport Harbor, TX, Maintenance (45 

Foot Project), Matagorda Ship Channel, 

TX, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX, 

Port Mansfield, TX, Brazos Island 

Harbor, TX and Brazos Island Harbor 

(42-Foot Project), TX ODMDSs broadens 

the use of the sites providing additional 

options for dredged material placement 

in the Galveston, Freeport, Matagorda, 

Corpus Christi, Port Mansfield and 

Brownsville, Texas vicinities. 

For these reasons, the Regional 

Administrator certifies, pursuant to 

section 605(b) of the RFA, that the Final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This final rule contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector that 

may result in estimated costs of $100 

million or more in any year. It imposes 

no new enforceable duty on any State, 

local or tribal governments or the 

private sector nor does it contain any 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

government entities. Thus, the 

requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA do not apply to this final rule. 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

Tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Tribal 

implications.’’ This Final rule does not 

have Tribal implications, as defined in 

Executive Order 13175. 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This Executive Order (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

EPA must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by EPA. 

This final rule is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because 

EPA does not have reason to believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use Compliance With 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This Final rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

9. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. This Final rule does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) 

directs Federal agencies to determine 

whether the Final rule would have a 

disproportionate adverse impact on 

minority or low-income population 

groups within the project area. The 

Final rule would not significantly affect 

any low-income or minority population. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 

Environmental protection, Water 

pollution control. 

Dated: September 9, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended 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 (j)(12)(vi), (j)(13)(vi), 

(j)(14)(vi), (j)(15)(vi), (j)(17)(vi), 

(j)(18)(vi), (j)(19)(vi), and (j)(20)(vi) to 

read as follows: 

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a 

final basis. 

* * * * * 

(j)* * * 

(12) * * * 

(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be 

limited to suitable dredged material 

from the greater Houston-Galveston, 

Texas vicinity. Disposal shall comply 

with conditions set forth in the most 

recent approved Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan. 

(13) * * * 

(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be 

limited to suitable dredged material 

from the greater Freeport, Texas 

vicinity. Disposal shall comply with 

conditions set forth in the most recent 

approved Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan. 

(14)* * * 

(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be 

limited to suitable dredged material 

from the greater Freeport, Texas 

vicinity. Disposal shall comply with 

conditions set forth in the most recent 

approved Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan. 

(15) * * * 

(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be 

limited to suitable dredged material 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56398 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

from the greater Matagorda, Texas 

vicinity. Disposal shall comply with 

conditions set forth in the most recent 

approved Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan. 

* * * * * 

(17) * * * 

(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be 

limited to suitable dredged material 

from the greater Corpus Christi, Texas 

vicinity. Disposal shall comply with 

conditions set forth in the most recent 

approved Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan. 

(18)* * * 

(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be 

limited to suitable dredged material 

from the greater Port Mansfield, Texas 

vicinity. Disposal shall comply with 

conditions set forth in the most recent 

approved Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan. 

(19)* * * 

(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be 

limited to suitable dredged material 

from the greater Brownsville, Texas 

vicinity. Disposal shall comply with 

conditions set forth in the most recent 

approved Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan. 

(20) * * * 

(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be 

limited to suitable dredged material 

from the greater Brownsville, Texas 

vicinity. Disposal shall comply with 

conditions set forth in the most recent 

approved Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–23475 Filed 9–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 211 

Describing Agency Needs 

CFR Correction 

In Title 48 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Chapter 2, Parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of October 1, 2014, on page 

68, correct section 211.002–70 to read as 

follows: 

211.002–70 Contract clause. 

Use the clause at 252.211–7000, 

Acquisition Streamlining, in all 

solicitations and contracts for systems 

acquisition programs. 

[FR Doc. 2015–23456 Filed 9–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 215 

Contracting by Negotiation 

CFR Correction 

In Title 48 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Chapter 2, Parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of October 1, 2014, on page 

101, in section 215.404–71–4, in 

paragraph (f), remove the following two 

sentences: ‘‘These are the normal values 

and ranges. They apply to all 

situations.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2015–23457 Filed 9–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 237 

Service Contracting 

CFR Correction 

In Title 48 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Chapter 2, Parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of October 1, 2014, on page 

296, in section 237.102–70, paragraph 

(d)(2) is reinstated to read as follows: 

§ 237.102–70 Prohibition on contracting 

for firefighting or security-guard functions. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) Follow the procedures at PGI 

237.102–70(d) to ensure that the 

personnel limitations specified in 

paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this subsection 

are not exceeded. 

[FR Doc. 2015–23458 Filed 9–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES