60662 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

V. Request for Comments 

The Copyright Office is publishing the 

proposed new fees and modification of 

the refund policy in order to provide the 

public with an opportunity to comment 

on the proposed adjustments. The Office 

anticipates implementation of the new 

fee schedule by April 1, 2009. 

Dated: October 8, 2008. 

Marybeth Peters, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. E8–24269 Filed 10–10–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[EPA–R10–OW–2008–0745; FRL–8728–6] 

Ocean Dumping; Designation of Ocean 

Dredged Material Disposal Site 

Offshore of the Rogue River, OR 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing an earlier 

proposal to designate an ocean dredged 

material disposal site near the mouth of 

the Rogue River, Oregon, and is reproposing to designate an ocean 

dredged material disposal site located 

offshore of the Rogue River, Oregon. 

EPA’s proposed rule was published at 

56 FR 47173 (September 18, 1991). 

Changes since that time to the ocean 

dumping program, including changes to 

the Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA), 

33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445, give rise to 

EPA’s decision to re-propose the site 

designation to take into account the 

statutory changes since the original 

proposal and to incorporate new data 

about the site. The new site is needed 

primarily to serve the long-term need for 

a location to dispose of material dredged 

from the Rogue River navigation 

channel, and will also serve to provide 

a location for the disposal of dredged 

material for persons who have received 

a permit for such disposal. The newly 

designated site will be subject to 

ongoing monitoring and management to 

ensure continued protection of the 

marine environment. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received by November 13, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OW–2008–0745 by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: 

Freedman.Jonathan@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Jonathan Freedman, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal 

and Public Affairs (ETPA–183), Aquatic 

Resources Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OW–2008– 

0745. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through the Web site, http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or through e-mail. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through the Web site, http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, e.g., CBI 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, Library, 10th Floor, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

Washington 98101. For access to the 

documents at the Region 10 Library, 

contact the Region 10 Library Reference 

Desk at (206) 553–1289, between the 

hours of 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., and 

between the hours of 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays, for an appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Freedman, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of 

Ecosystems, Tribal and Public Affairs 

(ETPA–183), Aquatic Resources Unit, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

Washington 98101, phone number: 

(206) 553–0266, e-mail: 

freedman.jonathan@epa.gov, or contact 

Jessica Winkler, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of 

Ecosystems, Tribal and Public Affairs 

(ETPA–183), Aquatic Resources Unit, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

Washington 98101, phone number: 

(206) 553–7369, e-mail: 

winkler.jessica@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Potentially Affected Persons 

Persons potentially affected by this 

proposed action include those who seek 

or might seek permits or approval by 

EPA to dispose of dredged material into 

ocean waters pursuant to the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act, as amended (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. 

1401 to 1445. EPA’s action would be 

relevant to persons, including 

organizations and government bodies, 

seeking to dispose of dredged material 

in ocean waters offshore of the Rogue 

River, Oregon. Currently, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) would be 

most impacted by this proposed action. 

Potentially affected categories and 

persons include: 

Category Examples of potentially regulated persons 

Federal Government ....................... U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects, and other Federal Agencies. 

Industry and General Public ........... Port Authorities, Marinas and Harbors, Shipyards and Marine Repair Facilities, Berth Owners. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60663 

Category Examples of potentially regulated persons 

State, local and tribal governments Governments owning and/or responsible for ports, harbors, and/or berths; Government agencies requiring 

disposal of dredged material associated with public works projects. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding persons likely to 

be affected by this action. For any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular person, please 

refer to the contact person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

2. Background 

a. History of Disposal Site Offshore of 

the Rogue River, Oregon 

The proposed Rogue River ocean 

dredged material disposal site, or areas 

in the same vicinity, have been used by 

the Corps since approximately 1962. 

When the MPRSA was enacted, the site 

became an ‘‘interim’’ site under the 

ocean dumping regulations, a status 

superseded by later statutory changes to 

the MPRSA. The site currently exists as 

a site selected by the Corps under 

Section 103 of the MPRSA. EPA 

concurred on the selection of the site 

and, in 2003, approved the Corps’ 

request to continue to use the site 

through the end of the 2008 dredging 

season. Site designation, pursuant to 

Section 102 of the MPRSA, is necessary 

for any use of the site to continue after 

2008. 

From 1986 through 2006, over 1.1 

million cubic yards (cy) of dredged 

material were placed at the Rogue River 

site. A uniform placement strategy, 

rather than point dumping, has been 

applied to the disposal of material at the 

site and regular bathymetric surveys 

have shown that persistent mounding 

has not occurred within the site or in 

the vicinity of the site. Site capacity 

appears to be virtually unlimited. Data 

collected at the site and modeling 

indicate that material disposed at the 

site redistributes out of the site and is 

presumed to feed the littoral cell. 

Consequently, the site is a sound 

candidate location to propose for 

designation pursuant to Section 102 of 

the MPRSA. 

b. Location and Configuration of 

Proposed Rogue River Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Site 

Today, EPA withdraws the rule the 

Agency proposed on September 18, 

1991, at 56 FR 47173 to designate a 

Rogue River site, and simultaneously 

proposes to designate the Rogue River 

ocean dredged material site at the 

coordinates listed below. The figure 

below shows the Rogue River ocean 

dredged material disposal site (Rogue 

River ODMDS or Site) EPA proposes to 

designate today. This configuration is 

expected to allow dredged material 

disposed in shallower portions of the 

site to naturally disperse into the littoral 

zone without creating mounding 

conditions that could contribute to 

adverse impacts to navigation. The 

proposed configuration will allow EPA 

to ensure that disposal of dredged 

material into the Site will be managed 

so that as much material as possible is 

retained in the active littoral drift area 

to augment shoreline building 

processes. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
60664 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

The coordinates for the Rogue River 

ODMDS, as proposed today, are, in 

North American Datum 83 (NAD 83): 

42°24′15.40′′ N 124°26′52.39′′ W 

42°24′03.40′′ N 124°26′39.39′′ W 

42°23′39.40′′ N 124°27′17.40′′ W 

42°23′51.40′′ N 124°27′30.40′′ W 

The Site is expected to occupy 

approximately 116 acres. The Site’s 

dimensions, as proposed, are: 1,400-feet 

wide by 3,600-feet long, with Site depth 

ranging from approximately 50 to 90 

feet. The Site generally lies on bottom 

contours sloping at a rate of 8/1000 feet 

to the west-southwest. The disposal 

area, placement area, and drop zone are 

identical. Limited onshore transport of 

material disposed of at the proposed 

Site is not expected because of the 

nature of the prevailing currents and 

wave transport in the vicinity of the 

Site. Net predicted material transport at 

the proposed Site is southward in the 

summer months and northward during 

the remainder of the year. These 

transport mechanisms are expected to 

move material into the active littoral 

drift area. 

c. Management and Monitoring of the 

Proposed Site 

The proposed Rogue River ODMDS is 

expected to receive sediments dredged 

by the Corps to maintain the federally 

authorized navigation project at the 

Rogue River, Oregon and dredged 

material from other persons who have 

obtained a permit for the disposal of 

dredged material at the Site. The ocean 

dumping regulations do not require a 

modification of any existing permits. All 

persons using the Site are required to 

follow the Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Rogue 

River ODMDS. The SMMP is available 

as a draft document for review and 

comment by the public as of today’s 

action proposing the Rogue River 

ODMDS designation. The draft SMMP 

includes management and monitoring 

requirements to ensure that dredged 

materials disposed at the Site are 

suitable for disposal and addresses the 

timing of disposal events to minimize 

interference with other uses of ocean 

waters in the vicinity of the proposed 

Site. 

d. MPRSA Criteria 

In proposing to designate the Rogue 

River ODMDS, EPA assessed the 

proposed action against the criteria of 

the MPRSA, with particular emphasis 

on the general and specific regulatory 

criteria of 40 CFR Part 228, to determine 

if the proposed site designation satisfies 

those criteria. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALSEP14OC08.052</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60665 

General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5) 

(1) Sites must be selected to minimize 

interference with other activities in the 

marine environment, particularly 

avoiding areas of existing fisheries or 

shellfisheries, and regions of heavy 

commercial or recreational navigation 

(40 CFR 228.5(a)). 

EPA’s assessment of information 

available at the time of this proposed 

rule included a review of the potential 

for interference with navigation, 

recreation, shellfisheries, aquatic 

resources, commercial fisheries, 

protected geologic features, and cultural 

and/or historically significant areas. 

While limited overlap was found to 

exist between disposal operations and 

salmon fishing, no observable conflicts 

were identified. No evidence was found 

to suggest that the proposed Site would 

cause interference with fisheries or with 

navigation in the Rogue River 

navigation channel. The proposed Site 

has been used over the past decades for 

dredged material disposal, most recently 

pursuant to Section 103 of the MPRSA 

as a site selected by the Corps, with 

EPA’s concurrence. Mariners in this 

area are accustomed to Site use. 

(2) Sites must be situated such that 

temporary perturbations to water quality 

or other environmental conditions 

during initial mixing caused by disposal 

operations would be reduced to normal 

ambient levels or undetectable 

contaminant concentrations or effects 

before reaching any beach, shoreline, 

marine sanctuary, or known 

geographically limited fishery or 

shellfishery (40 CFR 228.5(b)). 

Dredged material found suitable for 

disposal into ocean waters, as 

characterized by chemical and 

biological testing or as evaluated 

according to 40 CFR 227.13, will be the 

only material allowed to be disposed of 

at the proposed Site. Modeling work 

performed by the Corps demonstrates 

that water column turbidity would 

dissipate for an anticipated 97% of the 

coarser material within a few minutes of 

disposal, while the remaining 3% of the 

material, which would be classified as 

fine-grained, would dissipate within a 

half hour. Therefore, based on 

modeling, monitoring data, and history 

of use, no contaminant or water quality 

effects would be expected to reach any 

beach, shoreline, or other area outside of 

the proposed Site. Over time, some of 

the suitable disposed material would be 

expected to migrate into the littoral 

system, and potentially to coastal 

shorelines. 

(3) If Site designation studies show 

that any interim disposal sites do not 

meet the site selection criteria, use of 

such sites shall be terminated as soon as 

any alternate site can be designated (40 

CFR 228.5(c)). 

There are no interim disposal sites 

near the proposed Rogue River Site as 

defined under the Ocean Dumping 

regulations. The designation of the 

proposed Site is necessary because no 

location for the disposal of dredged 

material will exist in the vicinity of the 

proposed Site after the end of the 2008 

dredge season. 

(4) The sizes of disposal sites will be 

limited in order to localize for 

identification and control any 

immediate adverse impacts, and to 

permit the implementation of effective 

monitoring and surveillance to prevent 

adverse long-range impacts. Size, 

configuration, and location are to be 

determined as part of the disposal site 

evaluation (40 CFR 228.5(d)). 

EPA sized the proposed Site to meet 

this criterion. The proposed Site tends 

to be moderately dispersive in the nearshore area and tends to be less 

dispersive farther from shore. The 

overall stability of the Site, as indicated 

by the lack of adverse mounding, is a 

significant component of the 

justification for the size of the Site. Data 

collected by the Corps through 

bathymetric monitoring show the spread 

and movement of material after 

placement. The data establish that 

material from the Site eventually 

disperses over the footprint of the site 

with seasonal movement into the littoral 

system. Effective monitoring of the 

proposed Site is anticipated based on 

past practice and current ability to 

monitor the location and conduct 

surveillance. 

(5) EPA will, wherever feasible, 

designate ocean dumping sites beyond 

the edge of the continental shelf and 

other such sites where historical 

disposal has occurred (40 CFR 228.5(e)). 

The proposed Site would be located 

where historic disposal has occurred 

with only minimal impact to the 

environment, and to other uses and 

amenities. Locations off the continental 

shelf in the Pacific ocean as a general 

rule are inhabited by stable benthic and 

pelagic ecosystems on steeper gradients 

that are not well adapted to frequent 

disturbance events such as would occur 

if disposal of dredged material took 

place. Monitoring and surveillance of a 

site located beyond the edge of the 

continental shelf would be challenging 

and would present safety concerns for 

crew transporting the material to be 

disposed. In addition, dredged material 

disposed at a location beyond the 

continental shelf would not be available 

to the littoral system. The loss of 

material would potentially have a 

negative impact the mass balance of the 

system with a resulting negative impact 

on erosion/accretion patterns along this 

limited area of coastline near the Rogue 

River. 

Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6) 

(1) Geographical Position, Depth of 

Water, Bottom Topography and 

Distance from Coast (40 CFR 

228.6(a)(1)). 

Based on the data available at the time 

of this proposal, the geographical 

position, including the depth of the 

proposed Site, bottom topography, and 

distance from the coastline in the 

vicinity of the proposed Site, indicate 

that designation of the proposed Site 

will not cause adverse effects to the 

marine environment. Based on EPA’s 

understanding of currents at the 

proposed Site and their influence on the 

movement of material in the area, there 

is a high likelihood that much of the 

material disposed at the Site will be 

transported to the littoral system. This 

movement is expected to allow for longterm disposal without creation of 

adverse mounding conditions. 

(2) Location in Relation to Breeding, 

Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or Passage 

Areas of Living Resources in Adult or 

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

The proposed Site is not located in 

exclusive breeding, spawning, nursery 

or feeding areas for adult or juvenile 

phases of living resources. Many 

nearshore pelagic organisms occur in 

the water column over the proposed Site 

but these organisms are found off most 

of the Pacific coast and are not unique 

to the proposed Site. Benthic fauna 

common to nearshore, sandy, waveinfluenced regions that exist along the 

Pacific coast that are found at the 

proposed Site are generally well-suited 

to survive in this dynamic environment 

and have been found to adapt well to 

natural and human perturbations. 

Benthic communities are expected to 

rapidly recolonize in the event of 

burying after disposal. Near the 

proposed Site, a variety of pelagic and 

demersal fish species, as well as 

shellfish, are found. Anadromous 

salmonids are found at all seasons in the 

nearshore area off the mouth of the 

Rogue River. Seals and sea lions also 

inhabit the lower Rogue River and 

coastal area. Nesting areas offshore of 

the Rogue River entrance channel 

support a variety of avian species. 

Whales and sea turtles are present 

seasonally offshore of the coastline in 

this area, but are generally observed 

further offshore than the proposed site. 

No unique breeding, spawning, nursery, 

feeding, or passage habitat is located 

within the proposed Site or within its 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
60666 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

immediate vicinity. Based on modeling 

of the water column, which indicates 

that turbidity would be expected to 

dissipate fairly rapidly, any avoidance 

behavior by any species at the proposed 

Site would be short-term. 

(3) Location in Relation to Beaches 

and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR 

228.6(a)(3)). 

The proposed Site, although located 

in close proximity to the Rogue River 

navigation channel, is located a 

sufficient distance offshore to avoid 

adverse impacts to beaches and other 

amenity areas. The local beaches 

support tourism, and recreational and 

commercial fishing. Transportation of 

dredges or barges to and from the 

proposed Site to dispose of dredged 

material is expected to be coordinated 

so as to avoid disturbance of other 

activities near the Rogue River entrance 

channel. Dredged material disposed of 

at the proposed Site is expected to 

disperse into the littoral system, with a 

possible positive effect over time of 

reducing erosion of coastal beaches. 

(4) Types and Quantities of Wastes 

Proposed to be Disposed of, and 

Proposed Methods of Release, including 

Methods of Packing the Waste, if any (40 

CFR 228.6(a)(4)). 

Dredged material found suitable for 

disposal into ocean waters, as 

characterized by chemical and 

biological testing or as evaluated 

according to 40 CFR 227.13, will be the 

only material allowed to be disposed of 

at the proposed Site. No material 

defined as ‘‘waste’’ under the MPRSA 

will be allowed to be disposed of at the 

proposed Site. The dredged material 

expected to be disposed of at the Site 

will be predominantly marine sand, far 

removed from known sources of 

contamination. The physical and 

chemical analyses of material from the 

Rogue River Navigation Channel and 

boat basin indicated only two 

anomalies. The first is an elevated level 

of nickel relative to other river drainage 

basins along the Oregon coast. Since 

elevated nickel levels have been 

detected in Rogue River channel 

sediments historically, those levels are 

believed to reflect the ambient 

background for the Rogue River system. 

The second was an elevated level of 

phenol in one sample location. The 

sediments associated with the elevated 

phenol sample will not be dredged until 

further characterization can be 

completed and disposal of the material 

at the proposed Site will not take place 

unless and the material has been found 

to be suitable for unconfined ocean 

disposal. 

With respect to proposed methods of 

releasing material at the proposed Site, 

material will be released just below the 

surface from dredges while the dredges 

are under power and slowly transiting 

the proposed Site. This method of 

release is expected to spread material at 

the Site to minimize mounding and to 

minimize impacts to the benthic 

community and other species in the Site 

at the time of a disposal event. 

(5) Feasibility of Surveillance and 

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

Monitoring and surveillance at the 

proposed Site are expected to be feasible 

and easily performed from small surface 

research vessels. The proposed Site is 

accessible for bathymetric and side-scan 

sonar surveys. At a minimum, it is 

expected that annual bathymetric 

surveys will be conducted at the 

proposed Site to confirm that no 

unacceptable mounding is taking place 

within the Site or its immediate 

vicinity. Routine monitoring is expected 

to concentrate on examining how the 

distribution of material in the nearshore portions of the Site augment 

littoral processes and how distribution 

of material in the deeper portions of the 

Site avoid or minimize mounding. 

(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)). 

Dispersal, horizontal transport and 

vertical mixing characteristics of the 

area at and in the vicinity of the 

proposed Site are complex. In part, this 

complexity is a result of rocky reefs to 

the north of the proposed Site which 

appear to influence mass transport, and 

in part the complexity can be attributed 

to prevailing wave-induced motion and 

currents moving towards the north 

during much of the year. Wave-induced 

motion appears to cause near-constant 

mobilization of bottom sediment. The 

overall regional mass transport trend 

suggests that net littoral transport of 

material is to the north from the 

proposed Site. That overall littoral 

transport appears to be balanced by 

offshore transport from the mouth of the 

Rogue River to the north of the proposed 

Site such that there is shoreline 

accretion to the north and relative 

equilibrium of the shoreline to the 

south. 

(7) Existence and Effects of Current 

and Previous Discharges and Dumping 

in the Area (including Cumulative 

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

The approximate annual loading 

volume of dredged material placed at 

the proposed Site is expected to equal 

54,000 cubic yards (cy) of material. This 

average was calculated by averaging 

seasonal material placement over 

disposal seasons from the time the site 

became a selected site. EPA’s evaluation 

of historical data and modeling 

conducted by the Corps concluded that 

past disposal operations have not 

resulted in unacceptable environmental 

degradation and future disposal of 

dredged material is not expected to 

result in unacceptable environmental 

degradation. Although mounding is a 

potential effect at any dredged material 

disposal site, bathymetric surveys at the 

Rogue River ODMDS have not shown 

persistent mounding over the 30 year 

site use history. Annual monitoring of 

the proposed Site will be required in the 

draft SMMP for the proposed Site. In the 

unlikely event mounding occurred, the 

draft SMMP includes requirements for 

managing the proposed Site to address 

mounding issues. 

(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)). 

Designation of the proposed Site is 

not expected to interfere with shipping, 

fishing, recreation or other legitimate 

uses of the ocean. Disposals at the new 

Site will be managed through the SMMP 

to minimize interference with other 

legitimate uses of the ocean through 

careful timing and staggering of 

disposals in the near-shore portion of 

the proposed Site. Commercial and 

recreational fishing and commercial 

navigation are the primary uses for 

which such timing will be needed. No 

plans for mineral extraction offshore of 

the Rogue River are planned or 

proposed for this area. Data indicates 

that magnetic anomalies suggestive of 

mineral placer offshore deposits were 

actually attributable to near-surface 

masses of bedrock. No desalination or 

energy projects are planned in the 

vicinity of the proposed Site. Fish and 

shellfish culture operations are not 

under consideration for the area. There 

are no known areas of scientific 

importance in the vicinity of the 

proposed Site. 

(9) The Existing Water Quality and 

Ecology of the Sites as Determined by 

Available Data or Trend Assessment of 

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

EPA has not identified any adverse 

water quality impacts from ocean 

disposal of dredged material as a result 

of disposal into the existing 103(b)- 

selected site at the Rogue River. The 

data collected for the 103(b)-selected 

site suggest that the pelagic and benthic 

communities, which are widespread in 

occurrence off the Oregon coast, are not 

expected to experience long-term 

impacts. The ability of this mobile sand 

community to rapidly recolonize 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60667 

supports the conclusion that long-term 

adverse impacts will not occur from 

managed disposal of dredged material at 

the proposed Site. 

(10) Potentiality for the Development 

or Recruitment of Nuisance Species in 

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

Nuisance species, considered as any 

undesirable organism not previously 

existing at a location, have not been 

observed at, or in the vicinity of, the 

proposed Site. Material expected to be 

disposed at the proposed Site will 

primarily be marine sands but some 

fine-grained material, finer than natural 

background, may also be disposed. 

While this finer-grained material could 

have the potential to attract nuisance 

species to the proposed Site, no such 

recruitment has occurred while the 

proposed Site has been used as a 103(b)- 

selected site. Evidence suggests that 

such fine grained material is quickly 

dispersed from the site. The draft SMMP 

includes specific biological monitoring 

requirements, which would act to 

identify any nuisance species, and 

management requirements, which 

would allow EPA to direct special 

studies and/or operational changes to 

address the issue. 

(11) Existence at or in Close Proximity 

to the Site of any Significant Natural or 

Cultural Feature of Historical 

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

The proposed Site is located about 

two nautical miles south-southeast from 

the Rogue Reef complex, an ecologically 

unique feature among a system of neritic 

reefs off the Oregon coast. Material 

disposed at the proposed Site would be 

clean sand that is expected to settle to 

the seafloor quickly. Movement of the 

relatively small quantities of disposed 

sand into the reef area would be 

anticipated to occur, if at all, through 

naturally occurring littoral transport 

which would not be expected to 

adversely affect aquatic communities in 

the reef areas. No significant cultural 

features have been identified at, or in 

the vicinity of, the proposed Site. As 

discussed further below, EPA 

coordinated with Oregon’s State 

Historic Preservation Officer and with 

Tribes in the vicinity of the proposed 

Site to identify any cultural features. 

None were identified. No shipwrecks 

were observed or documented within 

the proposed Site or its immediate 

vicinity. Notwithstanding heavy ship 

traffic supplying gold fields near this 

general area in the 1800s, side-scan 

sonar did not detect any shipwrecks and 

extensive review of shipwreck databases 

did not show any shipwrecks at, or near, 

the proposed Site. 

e. National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA); Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA); 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA); Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA); Endangered Species Act (ESA); 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) 

(1) NEPA 

Section 102 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 

4370f, requires that Federal agencies 

prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for major federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. NEPA does not 

apply to EPA designations of ocean 

disposal sites under the MPRSA because 

the courts have exempted EPA’s actions 

under the MPRSA from the procedural 

requirements of NEPA through the 

functional equivalence doctrine. Under 

that doctrine, as EPA discussed most 

recently in the Agency final rule 

revising the NEPA regulations, the 

courts reasoned that actions under the 

MPRSA are functionally equivalent to 

the analysis required under NEPA 

because such actions are undertaken 

with full consideration of 

environmental impacts and with 

opportunities for public involvement. 

See 72 FR 53653, September 19, 2007. 

EPA has, by policy, determined that the 

preparation of non-EIS NEPA 

documents for certain EPA regulatory 

actions, including actions under the 

MPRSA, is appropriate. EPA’s ‘‘Notice 

of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary 

Preparation of NEPA Documents,’’ 

(Voluntary NEPA Policy), 63 FR 58045 

(October 29, 1998), sets out both the 

policy and procedures EPA uses when 

preparing such environmental review 

documents. EPA’s 2007 revisions to 40 

CFR Part 6 provided the framework EPA 

used to prepare the voluntary NEPA 

documents for this proposed action. 

EPA’s primary voluntary NEPA 

document for designating the proposed 

Site is the Rogue River, Oregon Ocean 

Dredged Material Disposal Site 

Evaluation Study and Environmental 

Assessment, 2008 (EA), jointly prepared 

by EPA and the Corps. The EA and its 

Technical Appendices, which are part 

of the docket for today’s proposed 

action, provide the threshold 

environmental review for the Site 

designation. The information from the 

EA is used extensively, above, in the 

discussion of the ocean dumping 

criteria. Because EPA’s Voluntary NEPA 

Policy does not require the preparation 

of an EIS for this proposed action, the 

EA prepared for this Site designation is 

available for public comment and a final 

EA will be made available at the time of 

final rulemaking. Persons interested in 

commenting on this issue should do so 

at this time. There may not be another 

opportunity to comment. 

(2) MSA and MMPA 

In the spring of 2008, EPA initiated 

consultation with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) concerning 

essential fish habitat and protected 

marine mammals. EPA prepared an 

essential fish habitat (EFH) assessment 

pursuant to Section 305(b), 16 U.S.C. 

1855(b), of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

as amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 to 

1891d. NMFS is also reviewing EPA’s 

EFH assessment and ESA Biological 

Assessment for purposes of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 

amended (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 to 

1389. Consultation under both MMPA 

and MSA is still underway, but is 

expected to conclude before EPA takes 

any action to finalize today’s proposed 

rule. Persons interested in commenting 

on this issue should do so at this time. 

There may not be another opportunity 

to comment. 

(3) CZMA 

EPA initiated consultation with the 

state of Oregon on coastal zone 

management issues in June and July of 

2008. EPA prepared a consistency 

determination for the Oregon Ocean and 

Coastal Management Program (OCMP) 

to meet the requirements of the Coastal 

Zone Management Act, as amended, 

(CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 to 1465, and 

will submit that determination formally 

to the Oregon Department of Land 

Conservation and Development (DLCD) 

for review. 

(4) ESA 

EPA initiated informal consultation 

with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service on its action to 

designate the Rogue River ODMDS 

beginning in the spring of 2008. EPA 

prepared a Biological Assessment to 

assess the potential effects of the Site 

designation on aquatic and wildlife 

species to determine whether or not its 

action might adversely affect species 

listed as endangered or threatened and/ 

or adversely modify or destroy their 

designated critical habitat. EPA found 

that its action would not be likely to 

adversely affect aquatic or wildlife 

species listed as endangered pursuant to 

the Endangered Species Act, as 

amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1544, 

or the critical habitat of such species. 

EPA found that site designation does 

not have a direct impact on any of the 

identified ESA species but also found 

that indirect impacts associated with 

reasonably foreseeable future disposal 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
60668 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

activities had to be considered. These 

indirect impacts included a short-term 

increase in suspended solids and 

turbidity in the water column when 

dredged material was disposed at the 

new Site and an accumulation of 

material on the ocean floor when 

material was disposed at the Site. EPA 

concluded that while its action may 

affect ESA-listed species, the action 

would not be likely to adversely affect 

ESA-listed species or critical habitat. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) concurred with EPA’s finding 

that EPA’s action to designate the 

proposed Rogue River ODMDS would 

not likely adversely affect listed species 

or critical habitat. Consultation with the 

USFWS for this proposed action is 

complete. The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) is still 

reviewing the proposed action, but 

consultation with NMFS is expected to 

be completed before EPA takes any 

action to finalize today’s proposed rule. 

EPA specifically requests that any 

comments concerning ESA be made at 

this time. This may be the only 

opportunity for interested persons to 

comment on this issue. 

(5) NHPA 

EPA initiated consultation with the 

State of Oregon’s Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) to address National 

Historic Preservation Act, as amended 

(NHPA), 16 U.S.C. Sections 470 to 

470a–2, which requires Federal agencies 

to take into account the effect of their 

actions on districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, or objects, included in, or 

eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register. EPA determined that no 

historic properties were affected, or 

would be affected, by the proposed 

designation of the Site. EPA did not find 

any historic properties within the 

geographic area of the proposed Site. 

This determination was based on an 

extensive review of the National 

Register of Historic Districts in Oregon, 

the Oregon National Register list and an 

assessment of cultural resources near 

the proposed Site. Side scan sonar of the 

proposed Site did not reveal the 

presence of any shipwrecks or other 

cultural or historic properties. This 

consultation is expected to be 

completed before EPA takes any action 

to finalize today’s proposed rule. EPA 

specifically requests that any comments 

concerning NHPA be made at this time. 

This may be the only opportunity for 

interested persons to comment on this 

issue. 

3. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This rule proposed to designate an 

ocean dredged material disposal site 

pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA. 

This rule complies with applicable 

executive orders and statutory 

provisions as follows: 

(1) Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant,’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Executive Order defines 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one 

that is likely to result in a rule that may: 

(1) 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; (2) create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs, or 

the rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) 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 proposed rule 

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 proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 

because this proposed rule does not 

establish or modify any information or 

recordkeeping requirements for the 

regulated community and only seeks to 

authorize the pre-existing requirements 

under State law and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing, and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in Title 

40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 

9. 

(3) Regulatory Flexibility 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

generally requires Federal agencies to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

of any rule subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s size regulations at 13 

CFR Part 121.201; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. EPA has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

small entities because the proposed rule 

will only have the effect of regulating 

the location of a site to be used for the 

disposal of dredged material in ocean 

waters. After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s rule, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. EPA continues 

to be interested in the potential impacts 

of the proposed rule on small entities 

and welcomes comments on issues 

related to such impacts. 

(4) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531 to 

1538, for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action imposes no new enforceable duty 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60669 

on any State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of the UMRA. This action is also not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of the UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

government entities. Those entities are 

already subject to existing permitting 

requirements for the disposal of dredged 

material in ocean waters. 

(5) Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ 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 

various levels of government.’’ This 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 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. 

This rule proposes to designate a site for 

the disposal of dredged material in 

ocean waters. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this rule. In the 

spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule 

from State and local officials. 

(6) Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 because the 

designation of this dredged material 

disposal Site will not have a direct 

effect on Indian Tribes, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and Indian Tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. Although Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this proposed 

rule EPA consulted with tribal officials 

in the development of this rule, 

particularly as it relates to potential 

impacts to historic or cultural resources. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

(7) Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it does 

not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. The proposed action concerns the 

designation of an ocean disposal Site 

and would only have the effect of 

providing a designated location to use 

for ocean disposal of dredged material 

pursuant to section 102(c) of the 

MPRSA. 

(8) Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action 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’’ as 

defined under Executive Order 12866. 

(9) National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

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

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus bodies. The 

NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. The proposed 

action includes environmental 

monitoring and measurement as 

described in EPA’s draft SMMP. EPA 

will not require the use of specific, 

prescribed analytic methods for 

monitoring and managing the proposed 

Site once designated. Rather, the 

Agency plans to allow the use of any 

method, whether it constitutes a 

voluntary consensus standard or not, 

that meets the monitoring and 

measurement criteria discussed in the 

final SMMP. EPA welcomes comments 

on this aspect of the proposed 

rulemaking and, specifically, invites the 

public to identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

(10) Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. EPA 

has determined that this proposed rule 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. EPA has assessed the 

overall protectiveness of designating the 

proposed disposal Site against the 

criteria established pursuant to the 

MPRSA to ensure that any adverse 

impact on the environment will be 

mitigated to the greatest extent 

practicable. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 

Environmental protection, Water 

pollution control. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of Section 102 of the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as 

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

Dated: October 1, 2008. 

Elin D. Miller, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, Chapter I of title 40 is 

amended as set forth below: 

PART 228—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 228 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1418. 

2. Section 228.15 is amended by 

adding paragraph (n)(6) as follows: 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS
60670 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a 

final basis. 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(6) Rogue River, OR—Dredged 

Material Site 

(i) Location: 42°24′ 5.40′′ N, 

124°26′52.39′′ W; 42°24′03.40′′ N, 

124°26′39.39′′ W; 42°23′39.40′′ N, 

124°27′17.40′′ W; 42°23′51.40′′ N, 

124°27′30.40′′ W (NAD 83) 

(ii) Size: Approximately 1.1 

kilometers long and 0.4 kilometers 

wide. 

(iii) Depth: Ranges from 

approximately 15 to 27 meters 

(iv) Primary Use: Dredged material 

(v) Period of Use: Continuing Use 

(vi) Restrictions: (1) Disposal shall be 

limited to dredged material determined 

to be suitable for ocean disposal 

according to 40 CFR 227.13, from the 

Rogue River navigation channel and 

adjacent areas; (2) Disposal shall be 

managed by the restrictions and 

requirements contained in the currently 

approved Site Management and 

Monitoring Plan (SMMP); (3) 

Monitoring, as specified in the SMMP, 

is required. 

(7) (reserved) 

[FR Doc. E8–24176 Filed 10–10–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 08–2147; MB Docket No. 08–199; RM– 

11486] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Kearney, NE 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission requests 

comments on a channel substitution 

proposed by Pappas Telecasting of 

Central Nebraska, L.P. (‘‘Pappas’’), the 

permittee of KHGI-DT, DTV channel 36, 

Kearney, Nebraska. Pappas requests the 

substitution of DTV channel 13 for 

channel 36 at Kearney. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before November 13, 2008, and reply 

comments on or before November 28, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. In addition to filing comments 

with the FCC, interested parties should 

serve counsel for petitioner as follows: 

Kathleen Victory, Esq., Fletcher, Heald 

& Hildreth, PLC, 1300 North 17th Street, 

11th Floor, Arlington, VA 22209. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce L. Bernstein, 

joyce.bernstein@fcc.gov, Media Bureau, 

(202) 418–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

08–199, adopted September 19, 2008, 

and released September 25, 2008. The 

full text of this document is available for 

public inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the FCC’s 

Reference Information Center at Portals 

II, CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

will also be available via ECFS (http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents 

will be available electronically in ASCII, 

Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This 

document may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 

1–800–478–3160 or via e-mail http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts are 

prohibited in Commission proceedings, 

such as this one, which involve channel 

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for 

rules governing permissible ex parte 

contacts. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Television, Television broadcasting. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.622(i) [Amended] 

2. Section 73.622(i), the DTV Table of 

Allotments under Nebraska, is amended 

by adding channel 13 and removing 

channel 36 at Kearney. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Clay C. Pendarvis, 

Associate Chief, Video Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E8–24303 Filed 10–10–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 08–1503; MB Docket No. 08–100; RM– 

11437] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Columbus, GA 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission requests 

comments on a channel substitution 

proposed by WTVM License Subsidiary, 

LLC (‘‘WTVM’’), the permittee of 

WTVM–DT, post-transition digital 

channel 9, Columbus, Georgia. WTVM 

requests the substitution of digital 

channel 11 for post-transition digital 

channel 9 at Columbus. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before November 13, 2008, and reply 

comments on or before November 28, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. In addition to filing comments 

with the FCC, interested parties should 

serve counsel for petitioner as follows: 

Jennifer A. Johnson, Esq., Covington & 

Burlington, LLP, 1201 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004– 

2401. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shaun A. Maher, shaun.maher@fcc.gov, 

Media Bureau, (202) 418–1600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

08–100, adopted September 25, 2008, 

and released September 30, 2008. The 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS