Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7055 

action on the issues being proposed for 

approval today. Approval of Arkansas’ 

redesignation request would change the 

legal designation of the portion of 

Crittenden County that is within the 

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area, as found at 

40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Approval of Arkansas’ 

associated SIP revision would also 

incorporate a plan for maintaining the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area through 

2027 into the SIP. This maintenance 

plan includes contingency measures to 

remedy any future violations of the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures 

for evaluation of potential violations. 

The maintenance plan also establishes 

NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2012 and 

2027 for the Arkansas portion of the 

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. The MVEBs 

are listed in Table 6 in section VI. 

Additionally, EPA is notifying the 

public of the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the newly-established 

NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2012 and 

2027 for the Arkansas portion of the 

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. 

IX. Proposed Actions 

EPA is taking three separate but 

related actions regarding the 

redesignation and maintenance of the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

Arkansas portion of the Memphis, TNMS-AR Area. EPA is proposing to 

determine that the entire Memphis, TNMS-AR Area is attaining the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the maintenance 

plan (including the Clarification Letter) 

for the Arkansas portion of the Area, 

including the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 

2012 and 2027, into the Arkansas SIP 

(under CAA section 175A). The 

maintenance plan demonstrates that the 

Area will continue to maintain the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2027 and 

that the budgets meet all of the 

adequacy criteria contained in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and (5). Further, as part of 

today’s action, EPA is describing the 

status of its adequacy determination for 

the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2012 and 

2027 in accordance with 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(2). Within 24 months from the 

effective date of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the MVEBs or the 

publication date for the final rule for 

this action, whichever is earlier, the 

transportation partners will need to 

demonstrate conformity to the new NOX

and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.104(e)(3). 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Arkansas portion of 

the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has met 

the criteria under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this 

basis, EPA is proposing to approve 

Arkansas’ redesignation request for the 

Arkansas portion of the Memphis, TNMS-AR Area. If finalized, approval of 

the redesignation request would change 

the official designation of the portion of 

Crittenden County that is within the 

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area, as found at 

40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely propose to approve state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and do not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For this reason, these 

proposed actions: 

• Are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: January 27, 2016. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02567 Filed 2–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[FRL–9942–08–Region 1] 

Ocean Disposal; Proposed 

Amendments to Restrictions on Use of 

Dredged Material Disposal Sites in the 

Central and Western Portions of Long 

Island Sound; Connecticut 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS2
7056 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1CT DEP has since been renamed and 

reconfigured as the Connecticut Department of 

Energy & Environmental Protection (CT DEEP). 

2EPA held, and continues to hold, the view that 

the site designations without the additional 

restrictions would have been consistent with the 

enforceable policies of New York’s CMP. 

Nevertheless, EPA agreed that the additional site 

restrictions placed reasonable conditions on when 

the disposal sites could be used that provided 

enhanced assurance that the requirements of the 

CZMA, the MPRSA, and NEPA are met. Moreover, 

adding these site use restrictions represented a 

reasonable course of action lying between the 

alternatives of not designating any disposal sites at 

all, and designating sites for an indefinite term 

without the Restrictions. Furthermore, EPA noted 

that the added site use restrictions arose out of 

comments submitted by NY DOS and other parties 

and would be consistent with EPA’s environmental 

analysis and proposed action. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) today proposes to amend 

federal regulations that designated, and 

placed restrictions on the use of, the 

Central Long Island Sound and Western 

Long Island Sound dredged material 

disposal sites, located offshore from 

New Haven and Stamford, Connecticut, 

respectively. The amended regulation 

incorporates standards and procedures 

for the use of those sites as 

recommended in the Long Island Sound 

Dredged Material Management Plan, 

which was completed by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers on January 11, 2016. 

The Dredged Material Management Plan 

identifies a wide range of alternatives to 

open-water disposal and recommends 

standards and procedures for 

determining which alternatives to 

pursue for different dredging projects, 

so as to reduce or eliminate wherever 

practicable the open-water disposal of 

dredged material. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 25, 2016. EPA will hold 

two public meetings to receive comment 

on the proposed rule. The first will be 

held on March 1, 2016, from 5 p.m. to 

7 p.m. at the Port Jefferson Free Library, 

100 Thompson Street, Port Jefferson, 

New York. The second will be held on 

March 2, 2016, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 

p.m. at the University of ConnecticutStamford, Auditorium 2, 1 University 

Place, Stamford, Connecticut. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to: Stephen Perkins, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, New 

England Regional Office, 5 Post Office 

Square, Suite 100, Mail Code: OEP06–3, 

Boston, MA 02109–3912 or 

electronically to CLDS@epa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Perkins, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Mail Code: OEP06–3, Boston, 

MA 02109–3912, telephone (617) 918– 

1501, electronic mail: perkins.stephen@

epa.gov. 

Public Review of Documents: The file 

supporting these proposed revisions is 

available for inspection as follows: 

In person. The Proposed Rule and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Dredged 

Material Management Plan (DMMP) and 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) for Long Island Sound 

are available for inspection at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, New 

England Regional Office, 5 Post Office 

Square, Boston, MA. Persons interested 

in inspecting materials in person should 

contact Stephen Perkins by telephone 

(617) 918–1501 or electronic mail: 

perkins.stephen@epa.gov to arrange a 

time to view them. 

Electronically. You also may review 

and/or obtain electronic copies of the 

Proposed Rule from EPA’s Web site 

http://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/

lisdreg/eis.html. The DMMP and PEIS 

are available from the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers’ Long Island Sound DMMP 

Web site at: http://

www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/

ProjectsTopics/

LongIslandSoundDMMP.aspx. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of this document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. Background 

II. The Dredged Material Management Plan 

for Long Island Sound 

III. Standards and Procedures 

A. Standards 

B. Procedures 

IV. Compliance With Statutory and 

Regulatory Requirements 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On June 3, 2005, EPA published in 

the Federal Register (70 FR 32498) a 

final rule (the 2005 Rule) designating 

two open-water dredged material 

disposal sites, the Central Long Island 

Sound site (CLDS, previously referred to 

as CLIS) and the Western Long Island 

Sound site (WLDS, previously referred 

to as WLIS), for the disposal of dredged 

material from harbors and navigation 

channels in Long Island Sound (LIS) in 

the states of Connecticut and New York. 

These disposal site designations were 

subject to various restrictions designed 

both to ensure appropriate use of the 

sites and to support the goal of reducing 

or eliminating the disposal of dredged 

material into Long Island Sound. In 

support of this action, EPA also 

prepared a Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

pursuant to the Agency’s voluntary 

NEPA compliance policy. 

Pursuant to the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA), EPA 

consulted with the New York 

Department of State (NY DOS) and the 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection (CT DEP) 1 on 

the designation of these two sites. NY 

DOS raised objections as to the 

consistency of the designations with the 

enforceable policies of New York’s 

Coastal Management Program. After 

consulting with both states, as well as 

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

EPA negotiated an interim resolution 

with NY DOS regarding its concerns. 

Specifically, EPA agreed to include 

restrictions on the use of the sites in 

order to meet NY DOS’s concerns and 

provide enhanced assurance that the 

requirements of the CZMA, the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act (MPRSA), and NEPA are met.2

These restrictions were agreed to by 

both the NY DOS and the CT DEP. 

The restrictions were designed to 

ensure appropriate use and management 

of the designated disposal sites and to 

support the common goal of New York 

and Connecticut to reduce or eliminate 

wherever practicable the disposal of 

dredged material in Long Island Sound. 

To support this goal, the restrictions 

contemplated that there would be a 

regional dredged material management 

plan (DMMP) for Long Island Sound 

that would help to guide the 

management of dredged material from 

projects which occur after completion of 

the DMMP. DMMPs are comprehensive 

studies carried out by the USACE, in 

consultation with the EPA and the 

affected states, to help manage dredged 

material in a cost-effective and 

environmentally acceptable manner. 

The Governors of New York and 

Connecticut jointly requested the 

USACE to develop a regional DMMP for 

Long Island Sound. Consistent with the 

two states’ requests, the 2005 

designations contemplated that the 

DMMP for Long Island Sound would 

include the identification of alternatives 

to open-water disposal and the 

development of procedures and 

standards for the use of the disposal 

sites and any practicable alternatives to 

open-water disposal, so as to reduce or 

eliminate wherever practicable the 

open-water disposal of dredged 

material. The restrictions also included 

transitional conditions to govern 

dredged material management during 

the development of the DMMP, 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7057 

including sunset provisions for the sites 

if the DMMP was not completed. 

The restrictions also included 

conditions that specified that use of the 

sites would be suspended if, (a) within 

60 days of the completion of the DMMP, 

the EPA does not propose legally 

binding amendments to the regulations 

for the two disposal sites to incorporate 

lawful procedures and standards 

consistent with those recommended in 

the DMMP for the use of the disposal 

sites and the use of practicable 

alternatives to open-water disposal, and 

(b) within 120 days of completion of the 

DMMP, and subject to the EPA’s 

consideration of public comments, the 

EPA does not issue legally binding final 

amendments adopting such procedures 

and standards. Any such suspension in 

the use of the sites would be lifted if and 

when EPA issued the required final 

rule. 

II. The Dredged Material Management 

Plan for Long Island Sound 

On January 11, 2016, the USACE 

completed the Dredged Material 

Management Plan for Long Island 

Sound—Connecticut, New York, Rhode 

Island. EPA, NOAA, and the states of 

Connecticut and New York were active 

participants in the development of the 

DMMP. These agencies participated on 

a Steering Committee and other subgroups to assist the USACE throughout 

the process. EPA provided feedback to 

USACE on individual sections of the 

DMMP as they were developed and on 

the draft of the complete DMMP. 

The DMMP examines the need for 

dredging over a 30-year horizon, past 

dredging history and dredged material 

placement, and current beneficial use 

practices. The DMMP covers adjacent 

waters from which dredged material 

was likely to originate within the draw 

area of any proposed regional disposal 

solution, including Block Island Sound, 

Little Narragansett Bay, Fishers Island 

Sound, Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay. 

A total of nearly 240 harbors, coves, 

bays and rivers supporting various 

levels of navigational access are located 

along these shores. 

The Long Island Sound DMMP 

estimates a dredging need of 52.9 cubic 

yards over its 30-year planning horizon. 

Of this total, about 29 percent is 

expected to be sand, about 65 percent is 

expected to be fine-grained materials 

suitable for open-water placement, and 

about 6 percent is expected to be 

unsuitable for open-water placement. 

The distribution of this material among 

the three states is as follows: About 74 

percent is from Connecticut, 25 percent 

is from New York and 1 percent from 

Rhode Island. Of the total volume, about 

63 percent is from the USACE Federal 

Navigation Projects (FNP), 2 percent is 

from other federal agency projects, and 

35 percent is from non-federal dredging 

activities under permit. The USACE has 

indicated that budgetary constraints are 

likely to reduce the dredging volumes 

from FNPs. 

The DMMP identifies and assesses 

alternatives for future dredged material 

placement and beneficial use for each 

federal project and separable 

component, and identifies the likely 

Federal Base Plans (the least cost 

environmentally acceptable alternative) 

for future FNP dredging activities. 

Finally, the DMMP recommends 

procedures to be followed and standards 

to be applied in evaluating and 

recommending dredged material 

placement options, tracking dredged 

material placement, pursuing 

opportunities for alternative and 

beneficial uses of dredged material in 

Long Island Sound, and researching and 

monitoring the impacts of past and 

future placement activities. 

The DMMP is not a decision 

document, in that it does not determine 

the specific dredged material placement 

solution for any specific Federal 

Navigation Project activity. It also does 

not authorize disposal or any other form 

of management of any particular 

dredged material. Instead, the DMMP 

will serve as a framework to help guide 

future investigations and inform 

decision-making for federal actions with 

respect to dredging and dredged 

material placement. As individual 

projects come up for their next 

maintenance cycle, or as feasibility 

studies for proposed improvement 

dredging projects are prepared, those 

studies should reference the evaluations 

and recommendations in the DMMP in 

examining placement alternatives and 

making a final determination as to the 

Federal Base Plan and appropriate 

beneficial use opportunities beyond the 

base plan. 

The DMMP identifies the likely 

Federal Base Plans for each of the 52 

FNPs and sub-projects in the Long 

Island Sound region that will or may 

require maintenance dredging of project 

features during the 30-year planning 

horizon. Opportunities for federal 

participation in beneficial use options 

are also identified along with nonfederal responsibilities for study and 

implementation of the various 

placement alternatives. 

Identification of the likely Federal 

Base Plan for a particular federal 

dredging project is not the same as 

selecting a placement option for that 

project, nor does it limit potential 

federal participation in the project. For 

each federal project, as it is considered 

for funding for dredging, the Corps must 

analyze the available alternatives, other 

eligible authorities, and the willingness 

and capability of non-federal costsharing partners to participate before 

recommending any final plan for 

dredged material placement or 

beneficial use. Other factors beyond cost 

can also contribute to decisions on 

placement options for dredging projects. 

Ecosystem restoration is recognized as 

one of the primary missions of the 

USACE under its planning guidance, 

and the placement option that is 

selected for a project should maximize 

the sum of net economic development 

and environmental restoration benefits. 

A beneficial use option may be selected 

for a project even if it is not the Federal 

Base Plan for that project. 

In response to the 2005 Rule, and in 

accordance with the DMMP Project 

Management Plan (work plan), Section 

7 of the DMMP recommends procedures 

to be followed and standards to be 

applied in evaluating and 

recommending dredged material 

placement options, tracking dredged 

material placement, pursuing 

opportunities for alternative and 

beneficial uses of dredged material in 

Long Island Sound, and researching and 

monitoring impacts of past and future 

placement activities. These 

recommendations form the basis for 

EPA’s proposed amendments to the 

2005 restrictions, as described below. 

III. Standards and Procedures 

Consistent with the 2005 Rule and 

with the recommendations of the 

DMMP, EPA is proposing to amend the 

current restrictions to include standards 

and procedures for the use of 

practicable alternatives to open-water 

disposal, so as to reduce or eliminate 

wherever practicable the open-water 

disposal of dredged material. 

A. Standards 

EPA proposes to retain the current 

restriction at 40 CFR 

228.15(b)(4)(vi)(I)(1) which provides 

that disposal at the sites shall be 

allowed only if there is no practicable 

alternative to open-water disposal and 

that any practicable alternative will be 

fully utilized for the maximum volume 

of dredged material practicable. EPA 

also proposes to retain the first sentence 

of § 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(I)(2) which 

recognizes that any alternative to openwater disposal may add additional 

costs. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

2005 Rule, the decision regarding 

whether there is a ‘‘practicable 

alternative’’ will continue to be made on 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS2
7058 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

a case-by-case basis, in connection with 

the permitting process. The term 

‘‘practicable alternative’’ is defined in 

40 CFR 227.16(b) of the EPA’s ocean 

disposal regulations as an alternative 

which is, ‘‘available at reasonable 

incremental cost and energy 

expenditures, [and] which need not be 

competitive with the costs of ocean 

dumping, taking into account the 

environmental benefits derived from 

such activity, including the relative 

adverse environmental impacts 

associated with the use of alternatives to 

ocean dumping.’’ This definition is 

incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 

228.15(b)(4)(vi)(I)(1). 

In addition, 40 CFR 

228.15(b)(4)(vi)(I)(2)) in the 2005 Rule 

emphasizes that the designated sites 

may not be used whenever a 

‘‘practicable alternative’’ is available 

even when this means reasonable added 

incremental costs. Under this paragraph 

and the general ocean dumping 

regulations, the USACE (the permitting 

agency) must make the initial 

determination of whether this test has 

been met, but the USACE decision is 

subject to review and possible objection 

by the EPA. Given that these regulations 

entail restrictions on an EPA site 

designation, if the EPA objects to any 

USACE determination that practicable 

alternatives are not available, use of the 

designated sites will be prohibited 

unless and until the EPA objection is 

resolved. 

By definition, the requirement that 

projects use ‘‘practicable alternatives’’ 

will not impose unreasonably higher 

costs. Also, if an alternative does not 

have less adverse environmental impact 

or potential risk to other parts of the 

environment than use of the Sound, 

today’s rule will not require that it be 

used. However, the EPA recognizes that 

even where use of Long Island Sound 

has been determined to be 

environmentally acceptable, there may 

be alternatives (e.g., those involving 

beneficial use) that are environmentally 

preferable to open-water disposal at the 

designated disposal sites in the Sound. 

When such preferable alternatives are 

identified, they will need to be used if 

they are available at ‘‘reasonable 

incremental cost.’’ 

The language retained from the 2005 

Rule does not attempt to specify in 

advance how the ‘‘reasonable 

incremental cost’’ standard will be 

applied in any particular case. The 

regulation contemplates a balancing 

test, and the EPA believes that the 

determination is best made on a case-bycase basis. The language of the 2005 

Rule also does not attempt to specify 

who will need to pay for any reasonable 

incremental costs. Rather, the share of 

such costs (if any) to be borne by private 

parties, state government, local 

government, or the federal government 

also will need to be worked out in 

response to actual situations. It should 

be understood, however, that if the use 

of a practicable alternative is required in 

the future pursuant to today’s proposed 

rule (and 40 CFR 227.16), and no entity 

is willing to pay the reasonable 

incremental costs, then use of the sites 

will be prohibited for such projects even 

when this means that planned projects 

cannot go forward. EPA recognizes that 

this could result in deferral of 

maintenance or improvement projects 

that could impact navigation. 

EPA proposes to add the following 

standards, derived from the DMMP, for 

the disposal of dredged material, by 

type of material, in the amended 

restrictions for both disposal sites. 

These proposed amendments do not 

make decisions about the suitability of 

any particular dredged material for 

open-water disposal or any other type of 

management. Each dredging project will 

have to go through project-specific 

permitting evaluations. 

1. Unsuitable Material 

‘‘Unsuitable fine-grained materials’’ 

are those determined by physical, 

chemical and biological testing to be 

unsuitable for unconfined open-water 

placement. Accordingly, EPA’s 

proposed rule specifies that unsuitable 

fine-grained materials shall not be 

disposed of at the designated sites. 

2. Sandy Material 

‘‘Sandy material’’ in Long Island 

Sound is coarse-grained material of 

generally up to 20 percent fines when 

used for direct beach placement, or up 

to 40 percent fines when used for 

nearshore bar/berm nourishment. Clean 

sandy material should be used for beach 

or nearshore bar/berm nourishment 

whenever practicable. Sandy material 

has a high value as nourishment or in 

other coastal resiliency applications, 

and recent experience is that state and 

local governments, as well as property 

owner groups, are willing to fund the 

additional cost for such material even 

where there is no other federal project 

authority to assist in that cost. This is 

primarily because using dredged sand is 

typically far less costly than acquiring 

sand from an upland source. As long as 

beach or nearshore placement is a 

practicable alternative, project 

proponents will need to identify and 

secure funding for any needed nonfederal cost-sharing. Accordingly, the 

proposed rule specifies that coarsegrained material should be used for 

beach or nearshore bar/berm 

nourishment, or other beneficial use 

whenever practicable. 

3. Suitable Fine-Grained Material 

‘‘Suitable fine-grained material’’ in 

Long Island Sound is typically clay and 

silty material of more than 20 to 40 

percent fines that is not suitable for 

beach or nearshore placement, yet is 

determined through testing and analysis 

to be suitable for open-water placement. 

Although the most likely cost-effective 

and environmentally acceptable method 

of placement of this material is at openwater disposal sites, EPA proposes that 

every proposed project exhaust the 

possibility for a practicable alternative 

to open-water disposal. More 

specifically, for materials dredged from 

upper river channels in the Connecticut, 

Housatonic and Thames Rivers, 

whenever practicable, the one existing 

Confined Open Water site, and on-shore 

or in-river placement, should be used 

for such projects. 

Other beneficial uses, such as marsh 

creation, should be examined and used 

whenever practicable. Project 

proponents should determine if 

environmental and/or other benefits 

may offset the incremental project cost 

sufficiently to warrant federal 

participation under one or more of the 

other authorities discussed in Section 6 

of the DMMP. EPA anticipates that the 

opportunities for beneficial use of fine 

grained materials may increase in the 

future as sea level rise and related 

resiliency concerns generate demand for 

materials to conserve and protect 

shorelines. As such, the alternatives for 

fine-grained materials described in the 

DMMP should be viewed as a current 

assessment of possible beneficial uses 

rather than the limit of such 

possibilities in the future. 

The proposed rule specifies that 

beneficial uses such as marsh creation, 

should be examined and used whenever 

practicable. If no other alternative is 

determined to be practicable, suitable 

fine-grained material may be placed at 

the designated sites. 

4. Source Reduction 

Efforts to control sediment entering 

waterways can reduce the need for 

maintenance dredging of harbor features 

and facilities by reducing shoaling rates. 

Reducing sediment loads could help 

reduce the volumes dredged in each 

maintenance operation as well as reduce 

the frequency of maintenance. In 

addition, efforts to prevent introduction 

of contaminants into the watershed (e.g., 

multi-sector and municipal stormwater 

permits, measures to control nonpoint 

agricultural runoff) can result in 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7059 

reduced contaminant levels in 

sediments that can increase the range of 

options available to beneficially use 

those sediments. Continued source 

reduction efforts for both sediment and 

contaminants will assist in further 

reducing the need for open-water 

placement of dredged material in Long 

Island Sound. The EPA expects that 

federal, state and local agencies tasked 

with regulating those discharges into the 

watersheds tributary to Long Island 

Sound will exercise their authority 

under various statues and regulations in 

a continuing effort to reduce the flow of 

sediments and contaminants into state 

waterways and harbors. 

B. Procedures 

The restrictions in the 2005 Rule 

established a Regional Dredging Team 

(RDT) to identify practicable 

alternatives to open-water disposal and 

recommend their use for projects 

proposed while the DMMP was being 

prepared. The RDT was effectively used 

to review six projects while the DMMP 

was being prepared and the experience 

of the RDT resulted in some of the 

recommendations in the DMMP. 

Consistent with the recommendations in 

the DMMP, EPA proposes to extend and 

redefine the role of the RDT to ensure 

that the Standards described above are 

utilized in evaluating proposed 

dredging projects in Long Island Sound. 

EPA proposes to retain the core 

linkage between the RDT and the 

USACE project approval process as 

described in the 2005 Rule (40 CFR 

228.15(b)(4)(vi)((I) and (I)(1)). Disposal 

of dredged material at the designated 

sites shall be allowed only if, after full 

consideration of recommendations 

provided by the RDT, the USACE finds 

(and the EPA does not object to such 

finding), based on a fully documented 

analysis, that for a given dredging 

project there are no practicable 

alternatives (as defined in 40 CFR 

227.16(b)) to open-water disposal in 

Long Island Sound, or that any available 

alternative to open-water disposal will 

be fully utilized for the maximum 

volume of dredged material practicable. 

EPA proposes to amend the 2005 Rule 

to make more explicit the RDT’s 

purpose, geographic scope, 

membership, structure and general 

process as described below. 

1. Purpose of the Long Island Sound 

Regional Dredging Team (LIS RDT) 

The primary purpose of the LIS RDT 

is to reduce or eliminate wherever 

practicable the open-water disposal of 

dredged material in Long Island Sound. 

The LIS RDT will accomplish this by 

reviewing all proposed dredging 

projects subject to MPRSA (namely all 

federal projects and non-federal projects 

that generate greater than 25,000 cubic 

yards) to assess whether there are 

practicable alternatives to open-water 

disposal, by recommending that any 

available alternative(s) to open-water 

disposal be utilized for the maximum 

volume of dredged material practicable, 

and to provide documented findings 

and recommendations to USACE on 

these points so that the USACE and the 

EPA can consider the LIS RDT’s 

recommendations. The LIS RDT should 

review the alternatives analysis for all 

projects submitted to help ensure that 

available alternatives as described in the 

DMMP for each harbor and dredging 

center have been thoroughly evaluated 

and are implemented where practicable. 

While the LIS RDT will conduct project 

reviews and make submissions and 

recommendations to the USACE, the LIS 

RDT will not supplant the regulatory 

obligations or authorities of participant 

agencies under the MPRSA, CWA, 

CZMA or other applicable laws. 

Other purposes of the LIS RDT 

include: Serving as a forum for 

continuing exploration of new 

beneficial use alternatives to open-water 

disposal; promoting the use of such 

alternatives; and suggesting approaches 

for cost-sharing opportunities. For 

example, the LIS RDT could further 

investigate and develop opportunities 

for approving and funding long-term 

regional Confined Disposal Facilities 

which could accommodate suitable and 

unsuitable dredged material and 

provide environmental and social 

benefits such as parkland and habitat 

once filled and closed. 

The LIS RDT and its member agencies 

should also assist USACE and EPA in 

continuing a number of long term 

activities to continue the 

environmentally sound implementation 

of dredging and dredged material 

management in Long Island Sound. 

These activities include supporting 

USACE’s dredged material tracking 

system, supporting USACE’s DAMOS 

(Disposal Area Monitoring System) 

program and related efforts to study the 

long-term impacts of open-water 

placement, and promoting opportunities 

for beneficial use of clean, parent 

marine sediments often generated in the 

development of CAD cells. 

2. Geographic Scope 

The geographic range of the LIS RDT 

would be expanded to include all of 

Long Island Sound and adjacent waters 

landward of the seaward edge of the 

territorial sea (three mile limit) or, in 

other words, from Throgs Neck to a line 

three miles east of the baseline across 

western Block Island Sound. These 

boundaries would encompass all 

harbors and areas included in the 

DMMP except Block Island. If any other 

disposal sites are designated within 

these boundaries, review of projects 

proposed to be disposed of at those sites 

would also be within the RDT’s 

purview. 

3. Membership 

The LIS RDT should include 

representatives from affected federal 

and state government organizations. 

EPA anticipates that federal 

participation would include EPA 

Regions 1 & 2; the New England and 

New York Districts and the North 

Atlantic Division of the USACE and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. EPA encourages the 

participation of the U.S. Navy, the U.S. 

Coast Guard and the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service. EPA expects that the 

states of Connecticut, New York and 

Rhode Island would be participants 

through their environmental agencies, 

coastal zone management programs and 

relevant port authorities. EPA requests 

that, to the extent possible, member 

organizations will provide sufficient 

funding to enable their active 

participation in the LIS RDT. 

4. Structure and Process 

EPA proposes that the specific details 

for structure (e.g., chair, committees, 

working groups) and process (e.g., how 

projects come before the LIS RDT, 

coordination with other entities) be left 

for the LIS RDT to determine and 

allowed to evolve as best accomplishes 

the team’s purpose. 

The LIS RDT is encouraged to 

establish and maintain cooperative 

working relationships with other Long 

Island Sound-based organizations (e.g., 

the Long Island Sound Study’s Science 

and Technical Advisory Committee, 

non-governmental organizations, 

relevant university-based programs) so 

that relevant scientific, program and 

policy information is effectively shared 

and resources are leveraged to the 

maximum extent. The LIS RDT is also 

encouraged to consider retaining the 

Technical Working Group as a means of 

apprising stakeholder groups of the 

progress being made on beneficial use 

alternatives and aiding in soliciting 

public views on new alternatives that 

may arise. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to revise 40 

CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(G) to retain only 

the provision that provides for a party 

to petition EPA if the party is not 

satisfied that EPA’s 2016 amendments 

to the rule adopt procedures and 

standards to reduce or eliminate 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS2
7060 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

3Recognizing that, as discussed previously, EPA 

is not legally required to prepare an EIS for a 

dredged material disposal site designation, but has 

exercised its discretion to do so under EPA’s 

Voluntary NEPA Policy. (See 63 FR 58045 (Notice 

of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation 

of National Environmental Policy Act Documents), 

October 29, 1998). 

wherever practicable disposal of 

dredged material in Long Island Sound 

to the greatest extent practicable, the 

party may petition the EPA to do a 

rulemaking to amend the designation to 

establish different or additional 

standards. The EPA will act on any such 

petition within 120 days by either, 

granting the petition (and proposing a 

rule change) or denying the petition. 

Consistent with the 2005 Rule, a party 

will have the obligation to first petition 

the EPA prior to filing any court action. 

IV. Compliance With Statutory and 

Regulatory Requirements 

The dredged material disposal site 

designation process that culminated in 

the 2005 Rule was conducted consistent 

with the requirements of the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act (MPRSA), the Clean Water Act 

(CWA), the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA), the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(MSFCMA). See 70 FR 32502 (June 3, 

2005). 

EPA has determined that the 

proposed amendments to the 2005 Rule 

provide the same or greater protection of 

water quality and the marine 

environment and thus are also 

consistent with the laws noted above, as 

evaluated for the 2005 Rule. These 

proposed amendments do not make 

decisions about the suitability of any 

particular dredged material for openwater disposal or any other type of 

management of the material. Specific 

dredging projects will have to go 

through project-specific permitting 

evaluations to make those decisions. 

The proposed amendments, instead, 

provide specific standards and 

procedures that will further the goal of 

reducing or eliminating open-water 

disposal of dredged material at the 

CLDS and WLDS. Furthermore, EPA is 

not aware of any new information that 

would alter our prior conclusions that 

the disposal site designations, as 

restricted, comply with the MSFCMA, 

and will continue to do so with the 

proposed amendments to the 2005 Rule. 

To the extent that there are recurring 

requirements or new conditions under 

some of the applicable laws, the 

evaluation of the compliance of the 

proposed amendments with applicable 

requirements is described below. 

1. Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) 

Consistent with MPRSA, EPA, in 

cooperation with the USACE, published 

final Site Management and Monitoring 

Plans for the two disposal sites in 2004, 

and they went into effect when the sites 

were designated by the 2005 Rule. 

Section 102(c)(3)(F) of MPRSA requires 

that plans be updated no less frequently 

than every ten years. EPA and USACE 

initiated revisions in 2015 to the two 

SMMPs and EPA expects to separately 

release the updated plans for public 

comment by March 1, 2016. The draft 

revised SMMPs will be available at 

http://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/

lisdreg/eis.html. 

2. National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

As stated above, EPA prepared a Final 

Environmental Impact Statement in 

2004 (the 2004 FEIS) to support 

designation of the CLDS and WLDS, 

which ultimately included the 

applicable use restrictions set forth in 

the 2005 Rule. EPA has determined that 

a Supplemental EIS is not needed for 

the proposed amendments to the 2005 

Rule because the new information that 

EPA has considered is sufficient to 

show that proposed amendments will 

not affect the environment in a 

significant manner or to a significant 

extent not already considered.3 The 

proposed amendments retain and build 

on key substantive aspects of the 

original site use restrictions (see, e.g., 40 

CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(A), (B), (G), (J) and 

(K)). In addition, key aspects of these 

site use restrictions were themselves 

built upon various preexisting 

requirements from EPA’s MPRSA 

regulations (see, e.g., 40 CFR 227.16(b) 

and 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(J)). While EPA 

expects the proposed amendments to 

help foster reductions in the disposal of 

dredged material at the CLDS and 

WLDS by clarifying and retaining the 

application of existing site use 

restrictions, the environment will not be 

affected by the amendments in a 

significant manner, or to a significant 

extent, that has not already considered. 

For example, unsuitable dredged 

material (i.e., material that does not 

satisfy the sediment quality criteria in 

EPA’s MPRSA regulations) could not be 

disposed of in Long Island Sound even 

before the 2005 Rule. This was specified 

in the 2005 Rule (see 40 CFR 

228.15(b)(4)(vi)(J)), and this 

specification would be retained in the 

new amendments. As another example, 

under the regulations prior to the 2005 

Rule, dredged material consisting of 

clean (i.e., suitable) sand should not 

have been disposed of in Long Island 

Sound when a practicable upland 

management alternative, such as a beach 

nourishment site or near shore 

placement, was available for the 

material. This remained the case under 

the 2005 Rule and will continue to be 

the case under the proposed 

amendments. Moreover, the likelihood 

of identifying practicable alternatives 

for dredged material should be greater 

given (1) the enhanced procedures 

involving the RDT that were created for 

the 2005 Rule and will be retained and 

strengthened in the proposed 

amendments, and (2) the additional 

information concerning beneficial use 

options and management methods 

presented in the DMMP. At the same 

time, of course, the proposed 

amendments do not address any specific 

dredging projects, and the regulatory 

review of such projects will occur on a 

project-specific basis. 

In addition, the DMMP and the 

standards and procedures it 

recommends have been evaluated under 

NEPA. The USACE prepared a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) for the LIS DMMP that 

also was completed on January 11, 2016. 

Throughout the NEPA process, EPA 

served as a cooperating agency. (See 40 

CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5.) For the Final 

PEIS, the USACE made adjustments to 

the Draft PEIS in response to comments 

provided by EPA. The Final PEIS, 

among other things, evaluates available 

or potentially developable dredged 

material management alternatives in the 

LIS DMMP, including those 

contemplated by the proposed 

amendment for the CLDS and WLDS, 

such as, open-water placement, 

confined aquatic disposal; coastal, 

nearshore, and upland beneficial use; 

and landfill placement. Accordingly, 

EPA hereby adopts the Final PEIS as 

part of the record for this proposed rule 

amendment pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.3. 

As stated previously, because the 

proposed amendment does not, by itself, 

authorize the disposal of dredged 

material from a particular project at 

either site, appropriate additional NEPA 

analysis will be performed during the 

permitting process for individual 

projects. 

3. Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA) 

Under the CZMA, EPA, like any other 

federal agency, is required to provide 

relevant states with a determination that 

any activity it proposes that could affect 

the uses or natural resources of a state’s 

coastal zone is consistent to the 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7061 

maximum extent practicable with the 

enforceable policies of the state’s coastal 

zone management program. EPA has 

determined that the proposed 

amendments to the 2005 Rule are 

consistent with the enforceable policies 

of the coastal zone management 

programs of Connecticut and New York. 

EPA has provided each state with a 

written determination to this effect. EPA 

be will consulting with each state’s 

coastal zone management program prior 

to final rulemaking, and the final 

determinations will be included in the 

record. 

4. Endangered Species Act 

Since the 2005 Rule, the National 

Marine Fishery Service has listed the 

Atlantic sturgeon as an endangered 

species under the ESA. Parts of Long 

Island Sound are among the distinct 

population segments listed as 

endangered by NOAA, National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 2012. 

Consistent with ESA, EPA has initiated 

consultation with NMFS on this 

rulemaking action. The consultation 

includes EPA’s review of the Site 

Management and Monitoring Plans 

(SMMPs) for the two disposal sites as 

described below. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is publishing this Proposed Rule 

to amend the restrictions on the use of 

the CLDS and WLDS. This action is 

consistent with a number of the 

restrictions contained in the original 

designation of these sites in 2005. Some 

of those restrictions required the 

completion of a Dredged Materials 

Management Plan that would identify 

procedures and standards for reducing 

or eliminating the disposal of dredged 

material in Long Island Sound. Since 

the DMMP has been completed, EPA is 

proposing to remove the restrictions 

related to its development. The original 

restrictions further require EPA to 

propose, within 60 days of completion 

of the DMMP, amendments to the 

restrictions to incorporate procedures 

and standards consistent with those 

recommended in the DMMP for 

reducing or eliminating the disposal of 

dredged material in Long Island Sound. 

Today’s proposal is intended to satisfy 

that requirement. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action, as defined in the 

Executive Order, and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA because it would not require 

persons to obtain, maintain, retain, 

report or publicly disclose information 

to or for a federal agency. 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

This action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 

amended restrictions in this proposed 

rule are only relevant for dredged 

material disposal projects subject to the 

MPRSA. Non-federal projects involving 

25,000 cubic yards or less of material 

are not subject to the MPRSA and, 

instead, are regulated under CWA 

section 404. This action will, therefore, 

have no effect on such projects. ‘‘Small 

entities’’ under the RFA are most likely 

to be involved with smaller projects not 

covered by the MPRSA. Therefore, EPA 

does not believe a substantial number of 

small entities will be affected by today’s 

rule. Furthermore, the proposed 

amendments to the restrictions also will 

not have significant economic impacts 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because they primarily will create 

requirements to be followed by 

regulatory agencies rather than small 

entities, and will create requirements 

(i.e., the standards and procedures) 

intended to help ensure that the existing 

regulatory requirement (see 40 CFR 

227.16) that practicable alternatives to 

the ocean dumping of dredged material 

be utilized. 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action 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. 

6. 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 proposed 

restrictions will not have substantial 

direct effects on Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and Indian Tribes, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian Tribes. EPA 

consulted with the affected Indian tribes 

in making this determination. 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

9. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have a 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. 

11. Executive Order 13158: Marine 

Protected Areas 

Executive Order 13158 (65 FR 34909, 

May 31, 2000) requires EPA to 

‘‘expeditiously propose new sciencebased regulations, as necessary, to 

ensure appropriate levels of protection 

for the marine environment.’’ EPA may 

take action to enhance or expand 

protection of existing marine protected 

areas and to establish or recommend, as 

appropriate, new marine protected 

areas. The purpose of the Executive 

Order is to protect the significant 

natural and cultural resources within 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS2
7062 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

the marine environment, which means, 

‘‘those areas of coastal and ocean 

waters, the Great Lakes and their 

connecting waters, and submerged lands 

thereunder, over which the United 

States exercises jurisdiction, consistent 

with international law.’’ 

The EPA expects that this proposed 

rule will afford additional protection to 

the waters of Long Island Sound and 

organisms that inhabit them. Building 

on the existing protections of the 

MPRSA and the ocean dumping 

regulations, the proposed regulatory 

amendments are designed to promote 

the reduction of open-water disposal of 

dredged material in Long Island Sound. 

12. Executive Order 13547: Stewardship 

of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great 

Lakes 

Section 6(a)(i) of Executive Order 

13547, (75 FR 43023, July 19, 2010) 

requires, among other things, that EPA 

and certain other agencies ‘‘. . . to the 

fullest extent consistent with applicable 

law [to] . . . take such action as 

necessary to implement the policy set 

forth in section 2 of this order and the 

stewardship principles and national 

priority objectives as set forth in the 

Final Recommendations and subsequent 

guidance from the Council.’’ The 

policies in section 2 of Executive Order 

13547 include, among other things, the 

following: ‘‘. . . it is the policy of the 

United States to: (i) Protect, maintain, 

and restore the health and biological 

diversity of ocean, coastal, and Great 

Lakes ecosystems and resources; (ii) 

improve the resiliency of ocean, coastal, 

and Great Lakes ecosystems, 

communities, and economies. . . .’’ As 

with Executive Order 13158 (Marine 

Protected Areas), the overall purpose of 

the Executive Order is to promote 

protection of ocean and coastal 

environmental resources. 

The EPA expects that this proposed 

rule will afford additional protection to 

the waters of Long Island Sound and 

organisms that inhabit them. Building 

on the existing protections of the 

MPRSA and the ocean dumping 

regulations, the proposed regulatory 

amendments are designed to promote 

the reduction or elimination of openwater disposal of dredged material in 

Long Island Sound. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 

Environmental protection, Water 

pollution control. 

Dated: February 1, 2016. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1-New 

England. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, Chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as set forth below. 

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(b) is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) 

introductory text and (b)(4)(i) and (v) 

and (b)(4)(vi) introductory text; 

■ b. Removing paragraphs (b)(4)(vi)(C) 

through (F); 

■ c. Adding new paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(D); 

■ d. Adding new paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(E); 

■ e. Redesignating paragraph 

(b)(4)(vi)(G) as (b)(4)(vi)(F) and revising 

it; 

■ f. Removing paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(H); 

■ g. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(I) 

as (b)(4)(vi)(C) and revising it; 

■ h. Redesignating paragraph 

(b)(4)(vi)(J) through (L) as (b)(4)(vi)(G) 

through (I), respectively; 

■ i. Removing paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(M); 

■ j. Redesignating paragraph 

(b)(4)(vi)(N) as (b)(4)(vi)(J); and 

■ k. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) 

introductory text and (b)(5)(v). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a 

final basis. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Central Long Island Sound 

Dredged Material Disposal Site (CLDS). 

(i) Location: Corner Coordinates (NAD 

1983) 41°9.5′ N., 72°54.4′ W.; 41°9.5′ N., 

72°51.5′ W.; 41°08.4′ N., 72°54.4′ W.; 

41°08.4′ N., 72°51.5′ W. 

* * * * * 

(v) Period of use: Continuing use. 

(vi) Restrictions: The designation in 

this paragraph (b)(4) sets forth 

conditions for the use of Central Long 

Island Sound (CLDS) and Western Long 

Island Sound (WLDS) Dredged Material 

Disposal Sites. These conditions apply 

to all disposal subject to the MPRSA, 

namely, all federal projects and 

nonfederal projects greater than 25,000 

cubic yards. All references to 

‘‘permittees’’ shall be deemed to include 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) when it is authorizing its own 

dredged material disposal from a 

USACE dredging project. The 

conditions for this designation are as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

(C) Disposal of dredged material at the 

designated sites pursuant to the 

designation in this paragraph (b)(4) shall 

be allowed only if, after full 

consideration of recommendations 

provided by the Long Island Sound 

Regional Dredging Team (LIS RDT), the 

USACE finds (and the EPA does not 

object to such finding), based on a fully 

documented analysis, that for a given 

dredging project: 

(1) There are no practicable 

alternatives (as defined in 40 CFR 

227.16(b)) to open-water disposal in 

Long Island Sound. Any available 

practicable alternative to open-water 

disposal will be fully utilized for the 

maximum volume of dredged material 

practicable; 

(2) Determinations relating to 

paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(C)(1) of this section 

will recognize that any alternative to 

open-water disposal may add additional 

costs. Disposal of dredged material at 

the designated sites pursuant to this 

paragraph (b)(4) shall not be allowed to 

the extent that a practicable alternative 

is available. 

(3) The following standards for 

different dredged material types have 

been appropriately considered: 

(i) Unsuitable material. Any materials 

proposed for dredging that have been 

determined by physical, chemical and 

biological testing to be unsuitable for 

open-water placement shall not be 

disposed of at the designated sites. 

(ii) Suitable sandy material. Coarsegrained material, which generally may 

include up to 20 percent fines when 

used for direct beach placement, or up 

to 40 percent fines when used for 

nearshore bar/berm nourishment, 

should be used for beach or nearshore 

bar/berm nourishment or other 

beneficial use whenever practicable. 

(iii) Suitable fine-grained material. 

This material has typically greater than 

20 to 40 percent fine content and, 

therefore, is not typically considered 

appropriate for beach or nearshore 

placement, but has been determined to 

be suitable for open-water placement by 

testing and analysis. Materials dredged 

from upper river channels in the 

Connecticut, Housatonic and Thames 

Rivers, whenever possible, should be 

disposed of at existing Confined Open 

Water sites, on-shore or through in-river 

placement. Other beneficial uses such as 

marsh creation, should be examined and 

used whenever practicable. If no other 

alternative is determined to be 

practicable, suitable fine-grained 

material may be placed at the 

designated sites. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7063 

(D) Source reduction. Efforts to 

control sediment entering waterways 

can reduce the need for maintenance 

dredging of harbor features and facilities 

by reducing shoaling rates. Federal, 

state and local agencies tasked with 

regulating discharges into the watershed 

should continue to exercise their 

authorities under various statues and 

regulations in a continuing effort to 

reduce the flow of sediments into state 

waterways and harbors. 

(E) The goal of the Long Island Sound 

Regional Dredging Team (LIS RDT) is to 

reduce or eliminate wherever 

practicable the open-water disposal of 

dredged material. The LIS RDT’s 

purpose, geographic scope, 

membership, organization and 

procedures are provided as follows: 

(1) Purpose. The LIS RDT’s primary 

purpose is to conduct the review of 

dredging projects and make 

recommendations as described in 

paragraph (vi)(C) above. The LIS RDT 

shall also: Serve as a forum for 

continuing exploration of new 

beneficial use alternatives to open-water 

disposal; promote the use of such 

alternatives; and suggest approaches for 

cost-sharing opportunities. The LIS RDT 

and its member agencies should also 

assist USACE and EPA in continuing 

long term activities intended to track 

disposal of dredged material and 

monitor dredging impacts in Long 

Island Sound. These activities include 

supporting USACE’s dredged material 

tracking system, supporting USACE’s 

DAMOS (Disposal Area Monitoring 

System) program and related efforts to 

study the long-term impacts of openwater placement, and promoting 

opportunities for beneficial use of clean, 

parent marine sediments often 

generated in the development of CAD 

cells. 

(2) Geographic scope. The geographic 

scope of the LIS RDT includes all of 

Long Island Sound and adjacent waters 

landward of the seaward boundary of 

the territorial sea (three-mile limit) or, 

in other words, from Throgs Neck to a 

line three miles seaward of the baseline 

across western Block Island Sound. 

(3) Membership. The LIS RDT shall be 

comprised of representatives from 

affected federal and state government 

organizations. 

(4) Organization and procedures. 

Specific details regarding structure (e.g., 

chair, committees, working groups) and 

process shall be determined by the RDT 

and may be revised as necessary to best 

accomplish the team’s purpose. 

(F) If any party is not satisfied that 

EPA’s 2016 amendments to this rule 

adopt procedures and standards to 

reduce or eliminate wherever 

practicable disposal of dredged material 

in Long Island Sound to the greatest 

extent practicable, the party may 

petition the EPA to do a rulemaking to 

amend the designation to establish 

different or additional procedures and 

standards. The EPA will act on any such 

petition within 120 days by either, 

granting the petition (and proposing a 

rule change) or denying the petition. 

(5) Western Long Island Sound 

Dredged Material Disposal Site (WLDS). 

* * * * * 

(v) Period of use: Continuing use. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–02585 Filed 2–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS2