55770 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Commodity Parts per million 

Revocation/expiration 

date 

* * * * * 

Mango .......... 0.10 None 

* * * * * 

Papaya ......... 0.10 None 

* * * * * 

Sapodilla ....... 0.10 None 

Sapote, black 0.10 None 

Sapote, 

mamey.

0.10 None 

* * * * * 

Star apple ..... 0.10 None 

Strawberry .... 2.5 None 

Tomato ......... 0.15 None 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–19058 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[FRL–7973–8] 

Ocean Dumping; Site Designation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA today designates a new 

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site 

(ODMDS) in the Atlantic Ocean offshore 

Port Royal, South Carolina, as an EPAapproved ocean dumping site for the 

disposal of suitable dredged material. 

This action is necessary to provide an 

acceptable ocean disposal site for 

consideration as an option for dredged 

material disposal projects in the greater 

Port Royal, South Carolina, vicinity. 

This site designation is for an indefinite 

period of time, but the site is subject to 

continuing monitoring to insure that 

unacceptable adverse environmental 

impacts do not occur. 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

24, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The file supporting this 

designation is available for public 

inspection at the following location: 

EPA Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta 

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

W. Collins, (404) 562–9395. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. 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. This designation is being made 

pursuant to that authority. 

The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations 

promulgated under MPRSA (40 CFR 

Chapter I, Subchapter H, § 228.4) state 

that ocean dumping sites will be 

designated by promulgation in this part 

228. This site designation is being 

published as final rulemaking in 

accordance with § 228.4(e) of the Ocean 

Dumping Regulations, which permits 

the designation of ocean disposal sites 

for dredged material. 

B. Regulated Entities 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action are persons, organizations, or 

government bodies seeking to dispose of 

dredged material into ocean waters 

offshore Port Royal, South Carolina, 

under the MPRSA and its implementing 

regulations. This final rule is expected 

to be primarily of relevance to parties 

seeking permits from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (COE) to transport 

dredged material for the purpose of 

disposal into ocean waters and to the 

COE itself for its own dredged material 

disposal projects. Potentially regulated 

categories and entities that may seek to 

use the proposed dredged material 

disposal site may include: 

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Federal Government ................................................................................. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects, U.S. Marine 

Corps, 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 entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your organization is affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

consider whether your organization is 

subject to the requirement to obtain an 

MPRSA permit in accordance with 

Section 103 of the MPRSA and the 

applicable regulations at 40 CFR Parts 

220 and 225, and whether you wish to 

use the site subject to today’s action. 

EPA notes that nothing in this final rule 

alters the jurisdiction or authority of 

EPA or the types of entities regulated 

under the MPRSA. Questions regarding 

the applicability of this final rule to a 

particular entity should be directed to 

the contact person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

C. EIS Development 

Section 102(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq., requires that Federal agencies 

prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) on proposals for 

legislation and other major federal 

actions significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment. The 

object of NEPA is to build into the 

agency decision making process careful 

consideration of all environmental 

aspects of proposed actions. While 

NEPA does not apply to EPA activities 

of this type, EPA has voluntarily 

committed to prepare NEPA documents 

in connection with ocean disposal site 

designations. (See 63 FR 58045 [October 

29, 1998], ‘‘Notice of Policy and 

Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Documents.’’) 

EPA, in cooperation with the 

Charleston District COE, has prepared a 

Final EIS (FEIS) entitled ‘‘Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Port Royal Ocean Dredged Material 

Disposal Site Designation.’’ On June 25, 

2004, the Notice of Availability of the 

FEIS for public review and comment 

was published in the Federal Register 

(69 FR 35597 [June 25, 2004]). Anyone 

desiring a copy of the EIS may obtain 

one from the address given above. The 

public comment period on the FEIS 

closed on July 26, 2004. 

EPA received one comment letter on 

the FEIS from the South Carolina 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 55771 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control. This letter states 

the Department’s findings that the 

proposed ODMDS would be consistent 

with the State’s Coastal Zone 

Management Program. 

Pursuant to an Office of Water policy 

memorandum dated October 23, 1989, 

EPA has evaluated the proposed site 

designation for consistency with the 

State of South Carolina’s (the State) 

approved coastal management program. 

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 EPA policy. 

As stated above, the State agrees with 

this determination. 

The action discussed in the FEIS is 

the permanent designation for 

continuing use of an ODMDS near Port 

Royal, South Carolina. The purpose of 

this action is to provide an 

environmentally acceptable option for 

the continued ocean disposal of dredged 

material. The need for the permanent 

designation of a Port Royal ODMDS is 

based on a demonstrated COE need for 

ocean disposal of maintenance dredged 

material from the Federal navigation 

projects in the greater Port Royal Sound 

area. However, every disposal activity 

by the COE is evaluated on a case-bycase basis to determine the need for 

ocean disposal for that particular case. 

The need for ocean disposal for other 

projects, and the suitability of the 

material for ocean disposal, will be 

determined on a case-by-case basis as 

part of the COE’s process of issuing 

permits for ocean disposal for private/ 

federal actions and a public review 

process for its own actions. 

For the Port Royal ODMDS, the COE 

and EPA would evaluate all federal 

dredged material disposal projects 

pursuant to the EPA criteria given in the 

Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 

220–229) and the COE regulations (33 

CFR 209.120 and 335–338). The COE 

issues MPRSA permits to private 

applicants for the transport of dredged 

material intended for ocean disposal 

after compliance with regulations has 

been determined. EPA has the right to 

disapprove any ocean disposal project 

if, in its judgment, the MPRSA 

environmental criteria [Section 102(a)] 

or conditions of designation [Section 

102(c)] are not met. 

The FEIS discusses the need for this 

site designation and examines ocean 

and non-ocean disposal site alternatives 

to the proposed action. Specific 

alternatives considered were the two 

interim ocean sites, sites off the 

continental shelf, land disposal sites, 

and sites that might be used for shore 

protection. 

D. Site Designation 

On February 24, 2005, EPA proposed 

designation of an ODMDS for 

continuing disposal of dredged material 

from the Port Royal Sound area. The 

period on this proposal closed on April 

11, 2005. One e-mail letter of comment 

was received opposing not only the 

designation of this site, but all ocean 

disposal in principle. In response to this 

letter, EPA reiterates its support of 

beneficial uses of dredged material, 

when appropriate, and that this action 

is in accordance with MPRSA and the 

EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations 

promulgated under MPRSA. In addition, 

any project which proposes to dispose 

of dredged material within this site 

must evaluate the material to determine 

its suitability for ocean disposal. Only 

dredged material which has been shown 

to meet the ocean dumping criteria 

would be permitted to be placed in this 

site. 

The site is located approximately 7 

nautical miles offshore Bay Point Island, 

South Carolina. The proposed ODMDS 

occupies an area of about 1.0 square 

nautical miles (nmi2). Water depths 

within the area average 36 feet (ft.). The 

coordinates of the New Port Royal site 

proposed for final designation are as 

follows: 

Latitude Longitude 

32°05.00′ N 80°36.47′ W 

32°05.00′ N 80°35.30′ W 

32°04.00′ N 80°35.30′ W 

32°04.00′ N 80°36.47′ W 

E. Regulatory Requirements 

Pursuant to the Ocean Dumping 

Regulations, 40 CFR 228.5, five general 

criteria are used in the selection and 

approval for continuing use of ocean 

disposal sites. Sites are selected so as to 

minimize interference with other 

marine activities, to prevent any 

temporary perturbations associated with 

the disposal from causing impacts 

outside the disposal site, and to permit 

effective monitoring to detect any 

adverse impacts at an early stage. Where 

feasible, locations off the Continental 

Shelf and other sites that have been 

historically used are to be chosen. In 

this case, locations off the Continental 

Shelf are not feasible and no 

environmental benefit would be 

obtained by selecting such a site. 

Historical use of this site has not 

resulted in substantial adverse effects to 

living resources of the ocean or to other 

uses of the marine environment. If, at 

any time, disposal operations at a site 

cause unacceptable adverse impacts, 

further use of the site can be restricted 

or terminated by EPA. The site conforms 

to the five general criteria. 

In addition to these general criteria in 

§ 228.5, §228.6 lists the 11 specific 

criteria used in evaluating a disposal 

site to assure that the general criteria are 

met. Application of these 11 criteria 

constitutes an environmental 

assessment of the impact of disposal at 

the site. The characteristics of the site 

are reviewed below in terms of these 11 

criteria (the EIS may be consulted for 

additional information). 

1. Geographical Position, Depth of 

Water, Bottom Topography, and 

Distance From Coast (40 CFR 

228.6(a)(1)) 

The boundary of the site is given 

above. The northern boundary of the 

site is located about 7 nmi offshore of 

Bay Point Island, South Carolina. The 

site is approximatelty 1.0 nmi2 in area. 

The bottom topography is relatively flat 

and featureless, with water depths 

averaging 36 ft. 

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)) 

Many of the area’s species spend their 

adult lives in the offshore region, but are 

estuary-dependent because their 

juvenile stages use a low salinity 

estuarine nursery region. Specific 

migration routes are not known to occur 

within the site. The site is not known to 

include any major breeding or spawning 

area. Due to the motility of finfish, it is 

unlikely that disposal activities will 

have any significant impact on any of 

the species found in the area. In a letter 

dated October 23, 2003, the Habitat 

Conservation Division of National 

Marine Fisheries Service concurred 

with our assessment that this 

designation would not have a 

substantial individual or cumulative 

adverse impact on essential fish habitat, 

or fishery resources. 

3. Location in Relation to Beaches and 

Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR 

228.6(a)(3)) 

The site is located approximately 7 

nmi from the coast. Considering the 

previous disposal activities of the 

existing ODMDS (designated by the COE 

under Section 103 authority), dredged 

material disposal at the site is not 

expected to have an effect on the 

recreational uses of these beaches. 

55772 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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(a)(4)) 

The types of materials to be disposed 

of within this site are dredged materials 

as described in type and quantity by 

Section 2 of the FEIS. Between the years 

1992 and 2003, approximately 200,000 

cubic yards (annual average) have been 

ocean disposed within this area, 

typically once every two years. To date, 

the material from the Federal navigation 

project has been excluded from testing. 

Future disposal, which would be by 

hopper dredge or dump scow, should 

not change significantly by either 

volume or frequency. All disposals shall 

be in accordance with the approved Site 

Management and Monitoring Plan 

(SMMP) developed for this site (FEIS, 

Appendix B). 

5. Feasibility of Surveillance and 

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

Due to the relative proximity of the 

site to shore and its depth, surveillance 

will not be difficult. The SMMP for the 

Port Royal ODMDS has been developed 

and was included as an appendix in the 

FEIS. This SMMP establishes a 

sequence of monitoring surveys to be 

undertaken to determine any impacts 

resulting from disposal activities. The 

SMMP may be reviewed and revised by 

EPA. A copy of the SMMP may be 

obtained at the address given above. 

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 detailed current study, along with 

fate modelling of dredged material, was 

not deemed necessary because almost 

all of the material historically placed in 

the ocean has been sand. Therefore, a 

site-specific current study was not 

conducted within the site. Transport of 

disposed material should not present 

any adverse impacts. In summary, 

littoral drift is reported to be 

predominantly southwestward, while 

nearshore surface currents are derived 

primarily from wind stress, and are 

subject to extreme variability. 

7. Existence and Effects of Current and 

Previous Discharges and Dumping in 

the Area (Including Cumulative Effects) 

(40 CFR 228.6(a)(7)) 

This site, as well as past interim sites 

nearby, has been used to dispose of the 

material from the Port Royal Sound area 

since 1956. Subsequent monitoring of 

these disposals and the long-term effects 

show that no adverse impacts have, or 

are likely to occur to the area. 

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 location of the ODMDS was 

selected to avoid interference with 

commercial shipping. It is not 

anticipated that the site would interfere 

with any recreational activity. In 

addition, mineral extraction, fish and 

shellfish culture, and desalination 

activities do not occur in the area. 

9. The Existing Water Quality and 

Ecology of the Site as Determined by 

Available Data or by Trend Assessment 

or Baseline Surveys (40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)) 

Appropriate water quality and 

ecological assessments have been 

performed at the site. The most 

abundant benthic invertebrates found 

within the site were the annelid 

Polygrodius sp., the bivalve Ervilia 

concentrica, the polychaete Prionospio 

cristata, annelids in the class 

Oligochaeta, and the bivalve Crassinella 

lunulata. These five taxa accounted for 

more than 40 percent of total number of 

individuals collected. More detailed 

information concerning the water 

quality and ecology at the ODMDS is 

presented in the FEIS. A copy of the 

FEIS may be obtained at any of the 

addresses given above. 

10. Potentiality for the Development or 

Recruitment of Nuisance Species in the 

Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)) 

The disposal of dredged materials 

should not attract or promote the 

development of nuisance species. No 

nuisance species have been reported to 

occur at previously utilized disposal 

sites in the vicinity. 

11. Existence at or in Close Proximity to 

the Site of Any Significant Natural or 

Cultural Features of Historical 

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

There are no known such natural or 

cultural features of historical 

importance. As stated in the FEIS, this 

action has fully complied with both the 

Archaeological and Historic 

Preservation Act and the National 

Historic Preservation Act, as amended. 

F. Site Management 

Site management of the Port Royal 

ODMDS is the responsibility of EPA, in 

cooperation with the COE. The COE 

issues permits to private applicants for 

ocean disposal; however, EPA/Region 4 

assumes overall responsibility for site 

management. 

The SMMP for the Port Royal ODMDS 

was developed as a part of the process 

of completing the EIS. This plan 

provides procedures for both site 

management and for the monitoring of 

effects of disposal activities. This SMMP 

is intended to be flexible and may be 

reviewed and revised by the EPA. 

G. Proposed Action 

The EIS concludes that the site may 

be appropriately designated for use. The 

site is compatible with the 11 specific 

and five general criteria used for site 

evaluation. 

The designation of the Port Royal site 

as an EPA-approved ODMDS is being 

published as final rulemaking. Overall 

management of this site is the 

responsibility of the Regional 

Administrator of EPA/Region 4. 

It should be emphasized that, if an 

ODMDS is designated, such a site 

designation does not constitute EPA’s 

approval of actual disposal of material 

at sea. Before ocean disposal of dredged 

material at the site may commence, the 

COE must evaluate a permit application 

according to EPA’s Ocean Dumping 

Criteria. EPA has the right to disapprove 

the actual disposal, if it determines that 

environmental concerns under MPRSA 

have not been met. 

The Port Royal ODMDS is not 

restricted to disposal use by federal 

projects; private applicants may also 

dispose suitable dredged material at the 

ODMDS once relevant regulations have 

been satisfied. This site is restricted, 

however, to suitable dredged material 

from the greater Port Royal, South 

Carolina, vicinity. 

H. Regulatory Assessments 

1. Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in 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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 55773 

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. 

EPA has determined that this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 and is therefore not subject to 

OMB review. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule would not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) 

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 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

EPA is required to perform a Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis for all rules that 

may have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

EPA has determined that this action will 

not have a significant impact on small 

entities since the designation will only 

have the effect of providing an 

environmentally acceptable disposal 

option for dredged material on a 

continued basis. Consequently, by 

publication of this Rule, the Regional 

Administrator certifies that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities and 

therefore does not necessitate 

preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, 

establishes requirements for Federal 

agencies to assess the effects of their 

regulatory actions on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with Federal Mandates that may result 

in expenditures to State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

The provisions of section 205 do not 

apply when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome alternative, if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation of why that 

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 

establishes any regulatory requirements 

that may significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments to have 

meaningful and timely input in the 

development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that this action 

contains no Federal mandates (under 

the regulatory provisions of Title II of 

the UMRA) for State, local and tribal 

governments or the private sector. It 

imposes no new enforceable duty on 

any State, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Thus, the 

requirements of section 202 and section 

205 of the UMRA do not apply to this 

proposed rule. Similarly, EPA has also 

determined that this action contains no 

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 

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’’ is 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. As described 

elsewhere in this preamble, today’s 

action would only have the effect of 

providing a continual use of an ocean 

disposal site pursuant to section 102(c) 

of MPRSA. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this final rule. 

Although section 6 of Executive Order 

13132 does not apply, EPA did consult 

with State officials in developing this 

action and no concerns were raised. 

6. Executive Order 13175 

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 specified in 

Executive Order 13175. As described 

elsewhere in this preamble, today’s 

action would only have the effect of 

providing continual use of an ocean 

disposal site pursuant to section 102(c) 

of MPRSA. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this final rule. 

7. Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

applies to any rule that: (a) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866 and (b) 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 any reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. As 

described elsewhere in this preamble, 

today’s action would only have the 

effect of providing continual use of an 

ocean disposal site pursuant to section 

102(c) of MPRSA. 

8. Executive Order 13211 

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. 

55774 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

9. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer Advancement Act 

of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, 

section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus bodies. The 

NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. This final rule 

does not involve technical standards. 

Therefore, EPA did not consider the use 

of any voluntary consensus standards. 

10. Executive Order 12898 

Executive Order 12898 requires that, 

to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, each Federal agency 

must make achieving environmental 

justice part of its mission. Executive 

Order 12898 provides that each Federal 

agency must conduct its programs, 

policies, and activities that substantially 

affect human health or the environment 

in a manner that ensures that such 

programs, policies, and activities do not 

have the effect of excluding persons 

(including populations) from 

participation in, denying persons 

(including populations) the benefits of, 

or subjecting persons (including 

populations) to discrimination under 

such programs, policies, and activities 

because of their race, color, or national 

origin. 

No action from this final rule would 

have a disproportionately high and 

adverse human health and 

environmental effect on any particular 

segment of the population. In addition, 

this rule does not impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on those 

communities. 

11. The Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

Accordingly, the requirements of 

Executive Order 12898 do not apply. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 

Environmental protection, Water 

pollution control. 

Dated: September 14, 2005. 

J.I. Palmer, Jr., 

Regional Administrator for Region 4. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

Subchapter H of Chapter I of Title 40 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 228—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 228 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 228.15 is amended by 

adding (h)(23) to read as follows: 

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a 

final basis. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(23) Port Royal, SC; Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Site. 

(i) Location (NAD83): 32°05.00′ N., 

80°36.47′ W.; 32°05.00′ N., 80°35.30′ W.; 

32°04.00′ N., 80°35.30′ W.; 32°04.00′ N., 

80°36.47′ W. 

(ii) Size: Approximately 1.0 square 

nautical miles. 

(iii) Depth: Averages 36 feet. 

(iv) Primary use: Dredged material. 

(v) Period of use: Continuing use. 

(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be 

limited to suitable dredged material 

from the greater Port Royal, South 

Carolina, vicinity. Disposal shall 

comply with conditions set forth in the 

most recent approved Site Management 

and Monitoring Plan. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–19063 9–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[FRL–7973–9] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of Deletion of the 

Nutmeg Valley Road Site from the 

National Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (‘‘EPA’’ or the ‘‘Agency’’) New 

England (Region 1) announces the 

deletion of the Nutmeg Valley Road Site 

(‘‘Site’’) from the National Priorities List 

(‘‘NPL’’). The NPL constitutes appendix 

B of 40 part 300 which is the National 

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’), which EPA 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’) of 1980, as amended. 

EPA and the Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection (‘‘CT DEP’’) 

have determined that the Site poses no 

significant threat to public health or the 

environment and, therefore, no further 

remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA 

are appropriate. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Lumino, Remedial Project 

Manager, at 617–918–1348, or, 

lumino.karen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to 

be deleted from the NPL is: 

Nutmeg Valley Road Site, Wolcott, 

New Haven County, Connecticut. 

A Notice of Intent to Delete for this 

Site was published in the Federal 

Register on August 5, 2005 (70 FR 

45334). The closing date for comments 

on the Notice of Intent to Delete was 

September 6, 2005. No comments were 

received therefore, EPA has not 

prepared a Responsiveness Summary. 

EPA identifies sites that appear to 

present a significant risk to public 

health, welfare, or the environment and 

it maintains the NPL as the list of those 

sites. Any site deleted from the NPL 

remains eligible for fund-financed 

remedial actions in the unlikely event 

that conditions at the site warrant such 

action. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP 

states that fund-financed actions may be 

taken at sites deleted from the NPL. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not 

affect responsible party liability or 

impede agency efforts to recover costs 

associated with response efforts. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply.