49134 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–0747] 

RIN 1625–AA11 

Regulated Navigation Area; Thea Foss 

and Wheeler-Osgood Waterway EPA 

Superfund Cleanup Site, 

Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

create a permanent regulated navigation 

area on a portion of the Thea Foss and 

Wheeler-Osgood Waterways, 

Commencement Bay, Tacoma, 

Washington. This regulated navigation 

area would be used to preserve the 

integrity of a clean sediment cap placed 

over certain areas of the Thea Foss and 

Wheeler-Osgood Waterways as part of 

the remediation process of the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Commencement Bay Nearshore/ 

Tideflats superfund cleanup site. This 

regulated navigation area would 

prohibit activities that would disturb 

the seabed, such as anchoring, dragging, 

trawling, spudding, or other activities 

that involve disrupting the integrity of 

the cap. It would not affect transit or 

navigation of the area. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

November 18, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2008–0747 to the Docket 

Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Online: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

(3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on 

the Ground Floor of the West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–366–9329. 

(4) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call ENS Heidi Bevis, U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector Seattle, Waterways 

Management Division, at 206–217–6147. 

If you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

to use the Docket Management Facility. 

Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’

paragraph below. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–0747), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

You may submit your comments and 

material by electronic means, mail, fax, 

or delivery to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; 

but please submit your comments and 

material by only one means. If you 

submit them by mail or delivery, submit 

them in an unbound format, no larger 

than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. 

If you submit them by mail and would 

like to know that they reached the 

Facility, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. We will 

consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

We may change this proposed rule in 

view of them. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Enter the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–0747) in the 

Search box, and click ‘‘Go >>.’’ You may 

also visit either the Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the DOT West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays; or the 

Waterways Management Division, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector Seattle, 1519 

Alaskan Way South, Seattle, WA 98134, 

between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review the 

Department of Transportation’s Privacy 

Act Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477), or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one would be 

beneficial. If we determine that one 

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold 

one at a time and place announced by 

a later notice in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood 

Waterways are part of the 

Commencement Bay Nearshore/ 

Tideflats Superfund Cleanup Site. The 

Thea Foss Waterway is the 

southernmost of the waterways in 

Commencement Bay, and the WheelerOsgood Waterway is a smaller waterway 

connected to the eastern shoreline of the 

Thea Foss Waterway at approximately 

its midpoint. The Thea Foss and 

Wheeler-Osgood Waterways cleanup 

encompassed the inner approximately 

three-fourths of the waterway, with 

active remediation performed primarily 

south of the 11th Street Bridge. This site 

is bounded by numerous publicly and 

privately owned properties. The City of 

Tacoma is leading the cleanup and 

monitoring effort in approximately 80% 

of the Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood 

Waterways in conjunction with the 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. A group of private utilities 

performed the cleanup in the remainder 

of the waterway. 

Remediation activities performed in 

the Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood 

Waterways included a combination of 

dredging, placement of enhanced 

natural recovery material (i.e., 

approximately 6 inches of clean sand), 

placement of a thick-layer cap, and 

natural recovery. These thick-layer caps 

consist of approximately three feet of 

sand and gravel and/or riprap and were 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49135 

placed in various locations within the 

waterway to contain contaminated 

sediments. These caps were designed to 

withstand activities common to a 

working waterfront. The thick-layer 

caps cover approximately 30 acres of 

sediment in the waterway. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This will be a permanent regulation 

restricting activities such as anchoring, 

dragging, trawling, spudding, or other 

activities that involve disrupting the 

integrity of the caps. Activities common 

in the proposed regulated areas include 

recreational boating, tugboat movement, 

and shipyard activities. The thick-layer 

cap areas were designed to be 

compatible with the activities described 

above that are associated with a working 

waterfront. The material used for the 

caps was chosen to be able to contain 

underlying sediments without altering 

the main activities of the working 

waterway. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. The 

proposed rule is not ‘‘a significant 

regulatory action’’ because the regulated 

areas established by the rule would 

encompass a small area that should not 

impact commercial or recreational 

traffic and prohibited activities are not 

routine for the designated areas. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The U.S. Coast Guard certifies under 

5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This rule would affect the 

following entities, some of which may 

be small entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels intending to anchor, 

dredge, spud, lay cable or disturb the 

seabed in any fashion when this rule is 

in effect. The zone would not have a 

significant economic impact due to its 

small area. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact ENS Hiedi 

Bevis, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Seattle, 

Waterways Management Division, at 

206–217–6147. The U.S. Coast Guard 

will not retaliate against small entities 

that question or complain about this 

rule or any policy or action of the U.S. 

Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520.). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
49136 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 5100.1, which guide the U.S. 

Coast Guard in complying with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), 

and have made a preliminary 

determination under the Instruction that 

there are no factors in this case that 

would limit the use of a categorical 

exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 

Instruction. Therefore, we believe that 

this rule should be categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. As a 

proposal to establish a regulated 

navigation area, this rule meets the 

criteria outlined in paragraph (34)(g). 

A preliminary ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ is available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 

will be considered before we make the 

final decision on whether this rule 

should be categorically excluded from 

further environmental review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, and 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.1324 to read as follows: 

§ 165.1324 Regulated Navigation Area; 

Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood Waterway 

EPA Superfund Cleanup Site, 

Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA. 

(a) Regulated Areas. The following 

areas are regulated navigation areas: 

(1) All waters of the Thea Foss and 

Wheeler-Osgood Waterways bounded by 

a line connecting the following points: 

Point 1: 47°15′43.0513′′ N, 

122°26′22.9718′′ W; Point 2: 

47°15′43.0920′′ N, 122°26′20.5400′′ W; 

Point 3: 47°15′42.1625′′ N, 

122°26′19.0741′′ W; Point 4: 

47°15′40.9149′′ N, 122°26′18.2348′′ W; 

Point 5: 47°15′40.5821′′ N, 

122°26′19.3051′′ W; Point 6: 

47°15′38.9184′′ N, 122°26′18.1889′′ W; 

Point 7: 47°15′38.4275′′ N, 

122°26′19.7759′′ W. [Datum: NAD 1983]. 

(2) All waters of the Thea Foss and 

Wheeler-Osgood Waterways bounded by 

a line connecting the following points: 

Point 1: 47°15′22.1992′′ N, 

122°25′57.2126′′ W; Point 2: 

47°15′22.1465′′ N, 122°25′58.5186′′ W; 

Point 3: 47°15′20.8927′′ N, 

122°25′59.1811′′ W; Point 4: 

47°15′19.7138′′ N, 122°25′59.0136′′ W; 

Point 5: 47°15′18.6957′′ N, 

122°25′57.4348′′ W; Point 6: 

47°15′18.9079′′ N, 122°25′56.5456′′ W. 

[Datum: NAD 1983]. 

(3) All waters of the Thea Foss and 

Wheeler-Osgood Waterways south of a 

line bounded by connecting the 

following points: Point 1: 

47°15′13.9421′′ N, 122°26′05.5628′′ W; 

Point 2: 47°15′15.0083′′ N, 

122°25′55.1405′′ W. [Datum: NAD 1983]. 

(b) Regulations. All vessels and 

persons are prohibited from activities 

that would disturb the seabed, such as 

anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding, 

or other activities that involve 

disrupting the integrity of the cap in the 

designated regulated navigation area. 

Vessels may otherwise transit or 

navigate within this area without 

reservation. 

(c) Waiver. The Captain of the Port 

(COTP) Puget Sound, upon advice from 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) Project Manager and 

the Washington State Department of 

Natural Resources, may, upon written 

request, authorize a waiver from this 

section if the COTP Puget Sound 

determines that the proposed operation 

supports USEPA remedial objectives, or 

can be performed in a manner that 

ensures the integrity of the sediment 

cap. A written request must describe the 

intended operation, state the need, and 

describe the proposed precautionary 

measures. Requests should be submitted 

in triplicate to Commander (dpw), 13th 

Coast Guard District, 915 2nd Avenue, 

Room 3510, Seattle, WA 98174–1067 to 

facilitate review by USEPA, U.S. Coast 

Guard, and the Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources. 

USEPA managed remedial design, 

remedial action, habitat mitigation, or 

monitoring activities associated with the 

Thea Foss and Wheeler-Osgood 

Waterway Superfund Site are excluded 

from the waiver requirement. USEPA is 

required, however, to alert the U.S. 

Coast Guard in advance concerning any 

of the above-mentioned activities that 

may, or will, take place in the Regulated 

Area. 

Dated: July 28, 2008. 

John P. Currier, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 

Thirteenth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E8–19211 Filed 8–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 55 

[OAR–2004–0091; FRL–8707–2] 

Outer Continental Shelf Air 

Regulations Consistency Update for 

California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule—Consistency 

Update. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update a 

portion of the Outer Continental Shelf 

(‘‘OCS’’) Air Regulations. Requirements 

applying to OCS sources located within 

25 miles of States’ seaward boundaries 

must be updated periodically to remain 

consistent with the requirements of the 

corresponding onshore area (‘‘COA’’), as 

mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the 

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (‘‘the 

Act’’). The portions of the OCS air 

regulations that are being updated 

pertain to the requirements for OCS 

sources by the Ventura County Air 

Pollution Control District (Ventura 

County APCD). The intended effect of 

approving the OCS requirements for the 

Ventura County APCD is to regulate 

emissions from OCS sources in 

accordance with the requirements 

onshore. The change to the existing 

requirements discussed below is 

proposed to be incorporated by 

reference into the Code of Federal 

Regulations and is listed in the 

appendix to the OCS air regulations. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 19, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number OAR–

2004–0091, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS