Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54497 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ethan Kalett, Director of Regulatory 

Affairs (107B), Veterans Health 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20420; (202) 461–7633. 

(This is not a toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

13, 1996, VA published a final rule in 

the Federal Register (61 FR 21964) 

amending its medical regulations in 38 

CFR part 17 by making a number of 

nonsubstantive changes. In the 

document, we removed § 17.31 (a), (b) 

introductory text and (b)(1) through 

(b)(4), (b)(6), (b)(7), and (c), leaving 

(b)(5) and (d). Inadvertenly, we then 

redesignated § 17.31(b)(5) as § 17.31, 

creating a second § 17.31. The second 

§ 17.31 is obsolete. This document 

corrects the error by removing the 

second § 17.31 from 38 CFR part 17. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 

Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug 

abuse, Foreign relations, Government 

contracts, Grant programs—health, 

Grant programs—veterans, Health care, 

Health facilities, Health professions, 

Health records, Homeless, Medical and 

dental schools, Medical devices, 

Medical research, Mental health 

programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Scholarships and 

fellowships, Travel and transportation 

expenses, Veterans. 

Approved: 

Robert C. McFetridge, 

Director, Regulation Policy and Management, 

Office of the General Counsel, Department 

of Veterans Affairs. 

■ For the reason set out in the preamble, 

VA is correcting 38 CFR part 17 as 

follows. 

PART 17—MEDICAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1721, and as 

stated in specific sections. 

■ 2. In part 17, remove the second 

§ 17.31. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22252 Filed 9–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0431; FRL–9197–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Withdrawal of Direct Final 

Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment, 

EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule 

to extend the attainment date from June 

15, 2010 to June 15, 2011 for the 

Baltimore nonattainment area, which is 

classified as moderate for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS). In the direct final 

rule published on July 23, 2010, we 

stated that if we received any adverse 

comments by August 23, 2010, the rule 

would be withdrawn and would not 

take effect. EPA received an adverse 

comment within the comment period. 

EPA will address the comment received 

in a subsequent final action based upon 

the proposed action also published on 

July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43114). EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. 

DATES: Effective Date: The direct final 

rule is withdrawn as of September 8, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

e-mail at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: August 18, 2010. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ Accordingly, the amendments to 

§ 81.321, published in the direct final 

rule on July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43069), are 

withdrawn as of September 8, 2010. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22344 Filed 9–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[FRL–9197–6] 

Ocean Dumping; Guam Ocean 

Dredged Material Disposal Site 

Designation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is designating the 

Guam Deep Ocean Disposal Site (G– 

DODS) as a permanent ocean dredged 

material disposal site (ODMDS) located 

offshore of Guam. Dredging is essential 

for maintaining safe navigation at port 

and naval facilities in Apra Harbor and 

other locations around Guam. Beneficial 

re-use of dredged material (e.g., for 

habitat creation, construction material, 

or landfill cover) is preferred over ocean 

disposal. However, not all dredged 

materials are suitable for beneficial reuse, and not all suitable materials can be 

re-used or stockpiled for future use 

given costs, logistical constraints, and 

capacity of existing land disposal or rehandling sites. Therefore, there is a need 

to designate a permanent ODMDS 

offshore of Guam. Disposal operations at 

the site will be limited to a maximum 

of 1 million cubic yards (764,555 cubic 

meters) per calendar year and must be 

conducted in accordance with the Site 

Management and Monitoring Plan and 

any project-specific permit conditions. 

The designated ODMDS will be 

monitored periodically to ensure that 

the site operates as expected. 

DATES: Effective October 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Allan Ota, Dredging and Sediment 

Management Team, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX (WTR–8), 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105, telephone (415) 972–3476 or 

FAX: (415) 947–3537 or E-mail: 

ota.allan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

supporting document for this site 

designation is the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Designation of 

an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal 

Site Offshore of Guam. This document 

is available for public inspection at the 

following locations: 

1. Guam EPA’s Main Office, 17–3304 

Mariner Avenue, Tiyan, Guam 96913. 

2. Nieves M. Flores Memorial Public 

Library, 254 Martyr Street, Hagatna, 

Guam 96910. 

3. Barrigada Public Library, 177 San 

Roque Drive, Barrigada, Guam 96913. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

54498 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

4. Dededo Public Library, 283 West 

Santa Barbara Avenue, Dededo, Guam 

96929. 

5. Maria R. Aguigui Memorial Library 

(Agat Public Library), 376 Cruz Avenue, 

Guam 96915. 

6. Rosa Aguigui Reyes Memorial 

Library (Merizo Public Library), 376 

Cruz Avenue, Merizo, Guam 96915. 

7. Yona Public Library, 265 Sister 

Mary Eucharita Drive, Yona, Guam 

96915. 

8. EPA Region IX, Library, 75 

Hawthorne Street, 13th Floor, San 

Francisco, California 94105. 

9. EPA Public Information Reference 

Unit, Room 2904, 401 M Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

10. EPA Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/region9/water/dredging/ 

index.html. 

A. Potentially Affected Entities 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action are persons, organizations, or 

government bodies seeking to dispose of 

dredged material in ocean waters at the 

G–DODS, under the Marine Protection 

Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. 

1401 et seq. The Final Rule would be 

primarily of relevance to parties of the 

island of Guam seeking permits from the 

USACE to transport dredged material for 

the purpose of disposal into ocean 

waters at the G–DODS, as well as the 

USACE itself (when proposing to 

dispose of dredged material at the G– 

DODS). Potentially affected categories 

and entities seeking to use the G–DODS 

and thus subject to this Rule include: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry and General Public ................. • Ports. 

• 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. 

Federal government ............................. • USACE Civil Works and O & M projects. 

• Other Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. 

This table lists the types of entities 

that EPA is now aware potentially could 

be affected. EPA notes, however, that 

nothing in this Rule alters in any way 

the jurisdiction of EPA, or the types of 

entities regulated under the Marine 

Protection Research and Sanctuaries 

Act. To determine if you or your 

organization may be potentially affected 

by this action, you should carefully 

consider whether you expect to propose 

ocean disposal of dredged material, in 

accordance with the Purpose and Scope 

provisions of 40 CFR 220.1, and if you 

wish to use the G–DODS. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the persons listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Background 

Ocean disposal of dredged materials 

is regulated under Title I of the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries 

Act (MPRSA; 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). 

The EPA and the USACE share 

responsibility for the management of 

ocean disposal of dredged material. 

Under Section 102 of MPRSA, EPA has 

the responsibility for designating an 

acceptable location for the ODMDS. 

With concurrence from EPA, the USACE 

issues permits under MPRSA Section 

103 for ocean disposal of dredged 

material deemed suitable according to 

EPA criteria in MPRSA Section 102 and 

EPA regulations in Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations part 227 (40 CFR 

part 227). 

It is EPA’s policy to publish an EIS for 

all ODMDS designations (Federal 

Register, Volume 63, Page 58045 [63 FR 

58045], October 1998). A site 

designation EIS is a formal evaluation of 

alternative sites which examines the 

potential environmental impacts 

associated with disposal of dredged 

material at various locations. The EIS 

must first demonstrate the need for the 

ODMDS designation action (40 CFR 

6.203(a) and 40 CFR 1502.13) by 

describing available or potential aquatic 

and non-aquatic (i.e., land-based) 

alternatives and the consequences of not 

designating a site—the No Action 

Alternative. Once the need for an ocean 

disposal site is established, potential 

sites are screened for feasibility through 

the Zone of Siting Feasibility (ZSF) 

process. Potential alternative sites are 

then evaluated using EPA’s ocean 

disposal criteria at 40 CFR part 228 and 

compared in the EIS. Of the sites which 

satisfy these criteria, the site which best 

complies with them is selected as the 

preferred alternative for formal 

designation through rulemaking 

published in the Federal Register (FR). 

Historically, dredged material 

generated around Guam by the Navy 

and the Port Authority of Guam (PAG) 

has either been placed in upland 

dewatering/disposal sites or beneficially 

used. To date these have been the only 

management options for dredged 

material. The anticipated volume of 

dredged material generated around 

Guam over the next 30 years would 

exceed the capacity of known or 

existing stockpile or beneficial use 

options. Assuming all existing upland 

dewatering facilities are used and all 

known beneficial use options are fully 

implemented, there would still be an 

excess of dredged material to be 

managed. This need for additional 

dredged material disposal capacity 

would be exacerbated by the separatelyproposed increase in military presence 

on Guam, which could include 

extensive Navy and PAG navigation 

improvements. An ODMDS provides an 

important management option for 

dredged material that is suitable and 

non-toxic, but for which other 

management options are not practical. 

The purpose of this action is to ensure 

that adequate, environmentallyacceptable ocean disposal site capacity, 

in conjunction with other management 

options including upland disposal and 

beneficial reuse, is available for suitable 

dredged material generated from Apra 

Harbor and other locations on and 

around Guam. 

Formal designation of an ODMDS 

does not constitute approval of dredged 

material for ocean disposal. Instead, 

decisions to allow ocean disposal are 

made on a case-by-case basis through 

the MPRSA Section 103 permitting 

process, resulting in a USACE permit or 

its equivalent process for USACE’s Civil 

Works projects. For every project, the 

permitting process includes evaluating 

the need for ocean disposal and 

suitability of the proposed dredged 

material. Even when alternatives, 

including beneficial reuse, are not 

practicable, dredged material proposed 

for disposal at a designated ODMDS 

must conform to EPA’s permitting 

criteria for acceptable quality (40 CFR 

parts 225 and 227), as determined from 

physical, chemical, and bioassay/ 

bioaccumulation tests. Only clean nonmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54499 

toxic dredged material as determined 

under national sediment testing 

protocols (EPA and USACE 1991) is 

acceptable for ocean disposal. This 

ocean disposal site designation has been 

prepared pursuant to Section 102 of the 

Marine Protection, Research and 

Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) and is based 

on EPA’s general and specific criteria as 

evaluated in the March 2010 ‘‘Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Designation of an Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Site Offshore of 

Guam’’ (Final EIS). 

C. Disposal Site Location 

EPA has determined that the 

Northwest Alternative identified in the 

Final EIS is the environmentally 

preferred site, and this action designates 

the G–DODS as an ocean dredged 

material disposal site, located 

approximately 11 nautical miles (21 

kilometers) west of Apra Harbor. The 

circular seafloor boundary of G–DODS 

is centered at 13° 35.500′ North latitude 

by 144° 28.733′ East longitude (North 

American Datum from 1983), with a 

diameter of 3 nautical miles (5.6 

kilometers). However, all dredged 

material must be discharged within a 

smaller 3,280 foot (1,000 meter) 

diameter Surface Disposal Area (SDA) at 

the center of the overall site. The depth 

of the center of the site is 8,790 feet 

(2,680 meters). 

D. Disposal Volume Limit 

G–DODS is designated for a maximum 

annual dredged material disposal 

quantity of 1 million cubic yards 

(764,555 cubic meters) of suitable 

dredged material from Apra Harbor and 

other areas in and around Guam. This 

maximum volume, evaluated in the 

Final EIS, is based on historical 

dredging volumes from the local port 

districts, marinas and harbors, and 

Federal navigational channels, as well 

as estimates of future average annual 

dredging. However, EPA expects 

disposal volumes to be much less than 

the maximum in most years. 

E. Site Management and Monitoring 

Plan 

Verification that significant impacts 

do not occur outside of the disposal site 

boundaries will be demonstrated 

through implementation of the Site 

Management and Monitoring Plan 

(SMMP) developed as part of the action 

and included with the Final EIS. The 

main purpose of the SMMP is to provide 

a structured framework to ensure that 

dredged material disposal activities will 

not unreasonably degrade or endanger 

human health, welfare, the marine 

environment, or economic potentialities 

(Section 103(a) of the MPRSA). Three 

main objectives for management of the 

G–DODS are: (1) Protection of the 

marine environment; (2) beneficial use 

of dredged material whenever practical; 

and (3) documentation of disposal 

activities at the ODMDS. The SMMP 

will be reviewed periodically in 

combination with review of site 

monitoring data, and the SMMP may be 

updated as necessary. 

The EPA and USACE Honolulu 

District personnel will achieve these 

objectives by jointly administering the 

following activities: (1) Regulation and 

administration of ocean disposal 

permits; (2) development and 

maintenance of a site monitoring 

program; (3) evaluation of permit 

compliance and monitoring results; and 

(4) maintenance of dredged material 

testing and site monitoring records to 

insure compliance with annual disposal 

volume targets and to facilitate future 

revisions to the SMMP. 

The SMMP includes periodic physical 

monitoring to confirm that disposal 

material is deposited generally within 

the seafloor disposal boundary, as well 

as chemical monitoring to confirm that 

the sediment actually disposed at the 

site is in fact suitable (is consistent with 

the pre-disposal testing results). Other 

activities implemented through the 

SMMP to achieve these objectives 

include: (1) Regulating quantities and 

types of material to be disposed, 

including the time, rates, and methods 

of disposal; and (2) recommending 

changes to site use requirements, 

including disposal amounts or timing, 

based on periodic evaluation of site 

monitoring results. 

F. Ocean Disposal Site Designation 

Criteria 

Five general criteria and 11 specific 

site selection criteria are used in the 

selection and approval of ocean disposal 

sites for continued use (40 CFR 228.5 

and 40 CFR 228.6(a)). 

General Selection Criteria 

1. The dumping of materials into the 

ocean will be permitted only at sites or 

in areas selected to minimize the 

interference of disposal activities with 

other activities in the marine 

environment, particularly avoiding 

areas of existing fisheries or 

shellfisheries, and regions of heavy 

commercial or recreational navigation. 

The ZSF specifically screened the 

marine environment to avoid areas of 

existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and 

regions of heavy commercial or 

recreational navigation. The alternatives 

evaluated in the Final EIS each avoid 

such areas to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

2. Locations and boundaries of 

disposal sites will be so chosen that 

temporary perturbations in water 

quality or other environmental 

conditions during initial mixing caused 

by disposal operations anywhere within 

the site can be expected to be reduced 

to normal ambient seawater levels or to 

undetectable contaminant 

concentrations or effects before reaching 

any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, 

or known geographically limited fishery 

or shellfishery. 

Both alternative site boundaries are 

located sufficiently from shore 

(minimum 11 nautical miles [21 

kilometers]) and from geographically 

limited fishing areas or other sensitive 

fishery resources to allow water quality 

perturbations caused by dispersion of 

disposal material to be reduced to 

ambient conditions before reaching 

environmentally sensitive areas. 

3. If at any time during or after 

disposal site evaluation studies, it is 

determined that existing disposal sites 

presently approved on an interim basis 

for ocean dumping do not meet the 

criteria for site selection set forth in 

Sections 228.5 through 228.6, the use of 

such sites will be terminated as soon as 

suitable alternate disposal sites can be 

designated. 

The interim ODMDS established for 

Guam does not meet current EPA 

criteria. It was never used and the 

designation was terminated. 

4. The sizes of the ocean disposal sites 

will be limited in order to localize for 

identification and control any 

immediate adverse impacts and permit 

the implementation of effective 

monitoring and surveillance programs 

to prevent adverse long-range impacts. 

The size, configuration, and location of 

any disposal site will be determined as 

a part of the disposal site evaluation or 

designation study. 

The size and shape of the G–DODS is 

the minimum necessary to limit 

environmental impacts to the 

surrounding area and facilitate 

surveillance and monitoring operations, 

determined by computer modeling as 

described in the Final EIS. In addition, 

all dredged material discharge must take 

place within a smaller 3,280 foot (1,000 

meter) diameter Surface Disposal Area 

(SDA) at the center of the overall site. 

5. EPA will, wherever feasible, 

designate ocean dumping sites beyond 

the edge of the continental shelf and 

other such sites that have been 

historically used. 

The island of Guam is volcanic and 

not part of a continental land mass and 

does not have a continental shelf. In the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

54500 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

absence of a shelf break, continental 

shelf can be defined as submerged land 

between shoreline and depth of 656 ft 

(200 m). On Guam, this typically occurs 

within 1 nautical mile (1.9 kilometers) 

of shore. The slope tends to increase 

rapidly offshore of Guam and depths 

can reach 6,000 ft (1.829 km) within 3 

nm (5.6 km) (Weston Solutions and Belt 

Collins 2006). The center point of 

G–DODS is well beyond the continental 

shelf, 11 nautical miles (21 kilometers) 

from the shoreline. No ocean disposal 

sites have been used for Guam dredging 

projects. 

Specific Selection Criteria 

1. Geographical position, depth of 

water, bottom topography, and distance 

from the coast. 

Centered at 13° 35.500′ N. and 144° 

28.733′ E. and 11.1 nm (20.6 km) from 

Apra Harbor. The bottom topography at 

the site is essentially flat and the depth 

at the center of the site is 8,790 ft 

(2,680 m). 

2. Location in relation to breeding, 

spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage 

areas of living resources in adult or 

juvenile phases. 

Due to the marine open water locale 

of this site, the presence of aerial, 

pelagic, or benthic living resources is 

likely within these areas. However, the 

site location, water depth and sparse 

biological communities would minimize 

any potential impacts to pelagic and 

benthic resources. 

3. Location in relation to beaches and 

other amenity areas. 

The site is greater than 8.0 nm (14.8 

km) from the jurisdictional 3nm coastal 

zone boundary and unlikely to interfere 

with coastal amenities. This site is not 

visible from shore. No adverse impacts 

from dredged material disposal 

operations are expected on these 

amenity areas. 

4. Types and quantities of wastes 

proposed to be disposed of, and 

proposed methods of release, including 

methods of packaging the waste, if any. 

Only suitable dredged material may 

be disposed at the site—no dumping of 

toxic materials or industrial or 

municipal waste would be allowed. 

Dredged material proposed for ocean 

disposal is subject to strict testing 

requirements established by the EPA 

and USACE, and only clean (non-toxic) 

dredged materials are allowed to be 

disposed at the G–DODS. Most dredged 

material to be disposed will likely be 

fine-grained material (clays and silts) 

originating from the Inner Apra Harbor 

area, and coarser-grained material 

(sands and gravels) originating from the 

Outer Apra Harbor area. Corals, 

boulders, and other larger sized 

materials are not allowed to be disposed 

at the G–DODS. Maximum annual 

dredged material volumes would be set 

at 1,000,000 cy (764,555 m3). Dredged 

material is expected to be released from 

split hull barges. 

5. Feasibility of surveillance and 

monitoring. 

EPA (and USACE for Federal projects 

in consultation with EPA) is responsible 

for site and compliance monitoring. 

USCG is responsible for vessel trafficrelated monitoring. Monitoring of the 

disposal site is feasible and facilitated 

through use of a satellite-based remote 

tracking system as specified in the 

SMMP. 

6. Dispersal, horizontal transport, and 

vertical mixing characteristics of the 

area, including prevailing current 

direction and velocity, if any. 

Oceanographic current velocities are 

greatest at the surface due to 

atmospheric circulation (e.g., winddriven) events, while intermediate and 

bottom layer currents are much slower, 

driven by thermohaline circulation and 

influenced by tidal circulation. 

Computer modeling, taking into account 

all current depths and speeds, results in 

a 2.98 mile diameter footprint of 

deposits greater than 1 cm. 

7. Existence and effects of current and 

previous discharges and dumping in the 

area (including cumulative effects). 

No evidence of previous disposal 

activities was observed during field 

reconnaissance and there are no 

designated discharge areas in the 

vicinity. No interactions with other 

discharges are anticipated due to the 

distances from existing discharge points 

located on the island of Guam. 

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. 

Minor short-term interferences with 

commercial and recreational boat traffic 

may occur due to the transport of 

dredged material along established 

shipping lanes to and from G–DODS. 

There are no oil or other mineral 

extraction platforms offshore of Guam. 

The site has not been identified as an 

area of special scientific importance. 

There are no fish/shellfish culture 

enterprises near the site, and 

transportation to the site avoids any fish 

aggregation devices (FADs). There may 

be recreational vessels passing through 

the site, but the area is not a recreational 

destination. 

9. Existing water quality and ecology 

of the site as determined by available 

data or by trend assessment or baseline 

surveys. 

Water quality is excellent with no 

evidence of degradation. Sediment 

quality is also typical of unaffected 

deep-ocean environments removed from 

pollutant sources. Baseline studies 

showed no significant benthic fish or 

shellfish resources in the area. 

10. Potentiality for the development 

or recruitment of nuisance species in 

the disposal site. 

The potential that any transported 

nuisance species would survive at the 

ODMDS is low due to depth and 

temperature differences between the 

deep ocean disposal site and the likely 

sources of dredged material in the 

harbors and other shallower areas in 

and around Guam. 

11. Existence at or in close proximity 

to the site of any significant natural or 

cultural features of historical 

importance. 

No culturally significant natural or 

cultural features, including shipwrecks, 

were identified in the vicinity of the 

ODMDS. 

G. Responses to Comments 

EPA received concurrences or lack of 

objection responses to the ocean 

disposal site designation Final EIS and 

Proposed Rule from several Federal and 

Guam agencies, including: U.S. 

Department of the Interior; National 

Park Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS); National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS); U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE); Guam 

Bureau of Statistics and Plans; and 

Guam EPA. Those comments require no 

response. 

EPA also received 14 comment letters 

or e-mails on the Final EIS and 

Proposed Rule from 8 other entities and 

individuals. Taken together, these 

letters and e-mails generated 

approximately 90 individual comments. 

Many of these comments were similar to 

each other, and we have grouped them 

into 12 categories for purposes of 

responding to them here. 

The first three categories of comments 

below relate to issues independent of 

this ocean disposal site designation 

action, and are only briefly addressed. 

The remaining comment categories are 

relevant to the scope of this action, and 

therefore are responded to here. 

1. Concerns About Military Buildup on 

Guam 

Several comments expressed concerns 

about effects of the proposed military 

buildup on Guam, including 

Environmental Justice issues, lack of 

trust of the military or other Federal 

regulatory agencies including EPA, and 

ideas for alternative expansion plans 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54501 

that could reduce buildup-related 

dredging. 

At the time of this ocean disposal site 

designation action, a separate EIS 

addressing the proposed military 

buildup on Guam was also in 

circulation. Although this ocean 

disposal site designation action takes 

into account potential ocean disposal 

needs of the possible military buildup, 

the two processes are independent. 

Guam has had no ocean disposal option 

available since 1997. EPA determined 

that there is a long-term need for an 

ocean disposal site whether or not the 

military buildup occurs, based on the 

need to support the Naval and 

commercial port facilities that currently 

exist. Effects of the proposed military 

buildup itself are outside the scope of 

this action, and such comments are not 

further addressed here. 

2. Concerns About the Impacts of 

Dredging 

Several comments were received 

concerning the direct impacts of 

dredging activities, as separate from 

ocean disposal. In particular, comments 

about dredging itself were related to: 

potential impacts to coral and other 

sensitive species and habitats, including 

cumulative impacts; the need for Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) to 

minimize direct impacts; and the need 

to mitigate for impacts of dredging. 

The potential effects of each proposed 

dredging project will vary, and 

appropriate BMPs or other permit 

conditions must be determined on a 

case-by-case basis. Coral reef and other 

resource losses due to dredging, as well 

as measures to mitigate for such losses, 

are also evaluated during the USACE 

permitting process for individual 

projects. The designation of an ocean 

disposal site is a separate action from 

any decisions to permit or to not permit 

individual dredging projects. Since 

dredging-related effects are outside the 

scope of this ocean disposal site 

designation action, such comments are 

not further addressed here. 

3. Concerns About Minimizing Ocean 

Disposal by Maximizing Beneficial 

Reuse 

One comment expressed concern that 

dredged material which could be reused 

should not be considered for ocean 

disposal simply because the timing of 

the dredging project does not match that 

of the reuse project. 

Disposal or reuse alternatives that 

could practicably meet the purpose and 

need of a dredging project must be 

evaluated at the time of project-specific 

permitting. Timing and logistics can 

affect the practicability of dredged 

material disposal or reuse alternatives. 

One option is to stockpile dredged 

material that is suitable for later reuse, 

and EPA has encouraged creation or 

coordinated management of stockpile 

capacity on Guam for just this purpose. 

For an individual project, ocean 

disposal is permitted only when other 

alternatives are not practicable. 

However, determining the availability of 

alternatives for individual projects is 

independent of this ocean disposal site 

designation action, and such comments 

are not further addressed here. 

One comment expressed concern that 

dredged material found to be unsuitable 

for ocean disposal should also be 

considered unsuitable for any reuse on 

Guam, and should instead be removed 

from the island. 

Suitability requirements for ocean 

disposal of dredged material are both 

strict, and specific to the contaminant 

exposure pathways at the ocean 

disposal site. Dredged material found 

unsuitable for ocean disposal may often 

be appropriate for placement or reuse in 

other environments where exposure 

pathways are different, provided that 

those pathways can be controlled and 

managed to avoid significant impacts. 

Specifically, dredged material that is not 

suitable for ocean disposal can often 

appropriately be included in otherwise 

approved projects where the material 

will be isolated from resources of 

concern; for example, in engineered 

fills, or as landfill daily cover. The need 

for any particular contaminant control 

or containment measures would be 

determined on a case-by-case basis. 

However, determining the appropriate 

disposal requirements for individual 

projects with ocean-unsuitable material 

is independent of this ocean disposal 

site designation action, and such 

comments are not further addressed 

here. 

4. Adequacy of the Final EIS 

Several comments focused on 

perceived inadequacies in the Final EIS 

evaluations that they viewed as so 

significant that a complete re-write and 

re-circulation of the EIS was needed. 

Perceived inadequacies regarding 

different individual topics are addressed 

below. In each case, EPA disagrees that 

the Final EIS evaluations are inadequate 

for NEPA or MPRSA disposal site 

designation purposes, and has 

determined that there is no need to rewrite and re-circulate the EIS. 

5. Preference for Other Locations 

Some comments questioned the 

distance constraints used in the Final 

EIS, and recommended that disposal 

sites be prohibited within 30 nautical 

miles of western Guam and 15 nautical 

miles around seamounts. 

The disposal site designation process 

included a Zone of Siting Feasibility 

(ZSF) evaluation that identified 

constraints on where a multi-user 

disposal site could be considered, 

including the economic transport 

distance (see Final EIS Section 2.2.1– 

2.2.4). The economic transport distance 

takes into account not just major 

potential construction projects such as 

may be proposed by the U.S. Navy or 

the Port Authority of Guam, but also 

other potential projects such as 

maintenance dredging of marinas 

outside of Apra Harbor where smaller 

commercial and recreational vessels are 

berthed. In order to accommodate such 

smaller maintenance dredging projects, 

the ZSF identified 18 nautical miles 

(nm) as the economically feasible 

transport distance. Within this radius, 

sites were identified and evaluated in 

detail in the Final EIS. Based on that 

evaluation, EPA determined that 

significant impacts would not occur at 

either alternative site. Since there would 

be no significant impacts (including to 

seamounts and related resources) at 

these sites within the economic haul 

distance, there is no need to prohibit 

disposal site designation there or to 

select a different (arbitrary) distance 

within which to consider other possible 

locations. 

6. Preference for the No Action 

Alternative 

Some comments expressed preference 

for the No Action Alternative (that an 

ocean disposal site not be designated at 

either of the alternative locations 

evaluated in the Final EIS). 

Guam has had no ocean disposal 

option available since 1997. EPA 

determined that there is a need for an 

ocean disposal site to provide an 

additional option for the management of 

suitable material dredged from Guam 

and surrounding waters. This is based 

on the long-term need to support the 

Naval and commercial port facilities 

that currently exist, independent of 

potential military and port expansion 

proposals (see Final EIS Section 1.3). 

The No Action Alternative would not 

meet the purpose and need for this 

action. Furthermore, the evaluation 

contained in the Final EIS and reflected 

in this rulemaking action determined 

that designation and use of the disposal 

site in compliance with the SMMP 

would not result in significant adverse 

direct or cumulative effects. 

7. Computer Modeling 

One comment expressed concern that 

the Final EIS evaluations were based on 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

54502 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the same kinds of computer models that 

erroneously demonstrated the safety of 

oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and 

hull integrity of the Exxon-Valdez oil 

tanker. Modeling should not just include 

the ocean floor, but also the water 

column and the possibility of a 

catastrophic accident. 

Using established and verified 

computer models, the Final EIS 

specifically evaluated suspended 

sediment plumes in the water column 

and sediment deposition on the seafloor 

associated with dredged material 

disposal (see Final EIS Section 4.1.3– 

4.1.4). (Oil has different buoyancy 

properties than dredged material, and 

different models would be used to 

evaluate oil spills.) Dredged material 

modeling considered the maximum 

volume disposal scenario developed 

from the ZSF process, and included 

both increased current speeds and 

reversed current directions to simulate 

the most severe El Nin ̃o and La Nin ̃ a 

conditions expected (see Final EIS 

Section 3.1.2, 4.1.3–4.1.4). However, 

these models are not designed, and were 

not used, to consider other issues such 

as the possibility of accidents. Vesselrelated accidents are always a risk 

during open ocean operations. The Site 

Management and Monitoring Plan 

(SMMP, included as Final EIS 

Appendix C) mitigates the potential for 

accidents during disposal operations by 

allowing operations only when weather 

and sea-state conditions are conducive 

with safe navigation, by requiring that 

transportation to the disposal site must 

be via the established vessel traffic 

lanes, and by requiring that only one 

disposal vessel at a time is allowed to 

be within the disposal area. 

Furthermore, vessel movements in the 

most congested area entering and 

exiting Apra Harbor are highly 

regulated. Vessels must contact Port 

Authority vessel control, and if a vessel 

movement is to or from Naval areas the 

vessel must also contact Navy vessel 

control. In general only one vessel is 

allowed to transit the entrance channel 

at a time. 

Some comments stated the concern 

that the disposal modeling was based on 

inadequate collection of oceanographic 

data for the area. 

EPA generally requires that a full year 

of continuous oceanographic conditions 

(current speed and direction at different 

depths, etc.) be collected in the vicinity 

of proposed ocean disposal sites, in 

order to capture the range of seasonal 

variability that occurs. This information 

is then used as direct input to the plume 

dispersion and seafloor deposition 

computer modeling. In this case, data 

were collected continuously throughout 

2008 from two separate current meter 

arrays offshore of Guam in the vicinity 

of the proposed disposal site. It is 

recognized that the waters surrounding 

the island of Guam are subject to 

periodic El Nin ̃ o and La Nin ̃ a 

conditions, as well as typhoons, that can 

substantially affect current speed and 

direction (primarily in the surface water 

layer, down to a few hundred meters in 

depth.) Therefore the data collected in 

2008 does not necessarily represent the 

full range of conditions that may occur 

in the area. For this reason, the Final 

EIS included additional modeling using 

both significantly accelerated current 

speeds and reversal in surface current 

direction to simulate the most severe El 

Nin ̃ o and La Nin ̃ a conditions expected 

(see Final EIS Section 4.1.3–4.1.4). 

(Typhoon conditions were not 

specifically modeled, because disposal 

operations are prohibited in weather 

conditions and sea states that are unsafe 

for navigation or that would risk spilling 

dredged material during transit.) The 

Final EIS evaluation concluded that 

even under severe El Nin ̃ o or La Nin ̃ a 

conditions, and even under the highly 

unlikely presumption that such extreme 

surface current conditions were to 

persist throughout the entire year, 

suspended sediment plumes would still 

dissipate to background concentrations 

within the disposal site boundary. It 

also showed that seafloor deposits 

would not be significantly different. 

This is largely due to the fact that the 

slow, deep subsurface currents (which 

have the predominant effect on overall 

deposition) are not affected by even 

severe surface current anomalies. 

8. Environmental Effects of Disposal 

Some comments expressed the belief 

that plumes of suspended sediments in 

the surface waters would be more 

persistent than described in the Final 

EIS, especially if the maximum one 

million cubic yards were really disposed 

in a one-year period. 

As discussed in the Final EIS, 

computer modeling indicated that 

surface water plumes from individual 

disposal events will dissipate to 

background concentrations within 4 

hours of disposal and within the 

boundary of the disposal site (see Final 

EIS Section 4.1.3). Although the Final 

EIS discussed an average of 1 disposal 

event per day under the maximum 

volume scenario of one million cubic 

yards in one year, it is conceivable that 

during occasional periods of heavy site 

use more than one disposal event may 

occur in a day. In such cases, a new 

disposal event could occur before the 

suspended sediment plume from the 

previous disposal event has fully 

dissipated. However these individual 

plumes, under the influence of surface 

currents and gravity, would each still be 

expected to dissipate to background 

levels within the disposal site boundary 

even under extreme current conditions. 

(This conclusion is consistent with 

experience at other open ocean disposal 

sites, including direct monitoring of 

plume dispersion following disposal 

operations.) 

Some comments stated a concern that 

adverse impacts may occur outside the 

disposal site (i.e. to the marine 

ecosystem, to recruitment of organisms 

back to Guam, and to fishing 

opportunities around Guam more 

broadly) because planktonic organisms 

including coral larvae, and larval or 

juvenile reef and pelagic fishes, as well 

as bait fish that attract larger pelagic 

fish, may be present at the disposal site 

and be affected by disposal operations. 

The Final EIS acknowledged that 

planktonic larvae, including coral larvae 

as well as larvae and juveniles of both 

pelagic and reef fishes, can be found 

throughout the 200-mile Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) surrounding 

Guam (see Final EIS Section 3.2.3). 

However, the Final EIS concluded that 

water column properties are relatively 

uniform throughout the offshore region 

including around the disposal site (see 

Final EIS Sections 3.1.2–3.1.4). In the 

absence of persistent unique 

oceanographic or habitat characteristics, 

the overall distribution of planktonic 

and larval organisms (as well as bait fish 

feeding on them and larger pelagic fish 

attracted by bait fish) would be expected 

to be similar throughout the offshore 

waters west of Guam. Since the disposal 

site represents a very small proportion 

of those offshore waters (less than one 

percent of the area within the 18 nm 

ZSF economic feasibility distance, and 

still less of the area within the 

approximately 30 nm radius reported as 

being regularly utilized by fishers), no 

significant adverse effects are expected. 

In addition, planktonic larvae of coral 

and of reef fish that drift offshore to the 

ocean disposal site generally would not 

return to Guam to survive since the 

prevailing tradewind patterns and 

surface currents would continue to carry 

them even farther offshore most of the 

time (see Final EIS Sections 3.1.2 and 

4.1.2). Finally, we are including a 

provision in the SMMP to prohibit 

disposal operations during the peak 

coral spawning period (an approximate 

six week period occurring between June 

and August each year), thus avoiding 

the time when larvae of these species 

would be most concentrated. For these 

reasons, offshore disposal operations are 

not expected to have any significant 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54503 

effect on recruitment of coral or coral 

reef fish on Guam, or to the broader 

ecosystem or fishery resources utilized 

by fishers. 

Some comments noted that reef fishes 

will sometimes cross deep ocean areas 

(for example between islands, reefs or 

seamounts) and may be affected by 

disposal. 

Although reef fishes may cross deep 

areas, there are no appropriate island, 

reef, or seamount habitats in the 

direction of or in the vicinity of the 

disposal site for reef fish originating 

from nearshore areas around Guam. The 

peak of the Perez Bank seamount, west 

of the disposal site, is approximately 

800 m deep at its shallowest (see Final 

EIS Section 3.1.5) and would not 

provide suitable habitat for reef fish 

species. Individual reef fishes transiting 

through the deep waters west of Guam 

would be as likely to be found anywhere 

offshore as within the disposal site, 

which represents a very small 

proportion (less than one percent) of 

such waters. Therefore, the potential 

impact of dredged material disposal 

operations is expected to be 

insignificant. 

One comment stated that invasive or 

non-native species in dredged material 

might drift back to Guam. 

Prevailing trade wind patterns and 

surface currents at the disposal site 

would generally carry any small 

organisms present in the suspended 

sediment plume even farther offshore 

most of the time (see Final EIS Sections 

3.1.2 and 4.1.2). Larger organisms 

present would descend with the mass of 

dredged material to the seafloor. The 

seafloor at the disposal site is very deep 

(over 8,000 feet), and (as evidenced by 

sediment characteristics and deep water 

current speeds—see Final EIS Sections 

3.1.2 and 3.1.4) is in a depositional 

environment where the sediment would 

not become resuspended or migrate 

toward shore. Future disposed 

sediments would tend to cover 

previously placed material over time. In 

addition, only non-native species 

already brought to Guam by other 

mechanisms—i.e., in vessel ballast 

water—would be present, so disposal 

operations would not introduce new 

species. For these reasons ocean 

disposal of dredged material from Guam 

would not be expected to increase either 

the presence or the spread of non-native 

species. 

Some comments expressed concern 

that consultations with NMFS 

(regarding endangered species, and 

regarding Essential Fish Habitat) were 

inadequate because coordination 

should also have occurred directly with 

the Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council (WPRFMC). 

The required consultations were 

completed with NMFS and USFWS 

with regard to seabirds, marine 

mammals, threatened and endangered 

species, fisheries, and essential fish 

habitat. These agencies provided 

recommendations at the draft EIS stage, 

which were incorporated into the Final 

EIS. No significant resource issues were 

raised by these agencies over the Final 

EIS or Proposed Rule. 

Some comments stated the Final EIS 

evaluation included insufficient 

information on the ranges and/or timing 

of important marine species—including 

sea turtles, and spinner and bottlenose 

dolphins—and failed to evaluate 

potential impacts of disposal operations 

on them. 

EPA acknowledges that there is 

limited information for a number of 

species. Nevertheless, the Final EIS 

reflects the current scientific knowledge 

and reports applicable to the region, 

including the 2007 Mariana Islands Sea 

Turtle and Cetacean Survey. The Final 

EIS acknowledged that spinner and 

bottlenose dolphins, as well as several 

species of sea turtles, are expected to 

occur regularly throughout the region 

(see Final EIS Section 3.2.5). However, 

the Final EIS concluded that water 

column properties are relatively 

uniform throughout the offshore region 

including around the disposal site (see 

Final EIS Sections 3.1.2–3.1.4). In the 

absence of persistent unique 

oceanographic or habitat characteristics, 

the overall distribution of marine 

mammals and sea turtles (as well as 

their pelagic prey organisms) would be 

expected to be similar throughout the 

offshore waters west of Guam. 

Furthermore, the disposal plume in the 

water column will be temporary 

following individual disposal events, 

and will dissipate to background levels 

within the disposal site boundary even 

assuming the maximum disposal 

volume scenario and severe El Nin ̃ o or 

La Nin ̃ a conditions (see Final EIS 

Section 4.1.3). Since the disposal site 

represents a very small proportion (less 

than one percent) of the offshore waters, 

and since disposal effects will be 

limited and temporary even within the 

disposal site, the potential impact of 

dredged material disposal operations on 

marine mammals and sea turtles is 

expected to be insignificant. 

One comment expressed concern that 

experience and knowledge of conditions 

in the deep ocean environment 

elsewhere are not necessarily 

representative of the tropical deep 

ocean environment off Guam. 

Although temperate and tropical 

ecosystems are different in many 

aspects in the surface and coastal 

waters, the physical oceanographic 

conditions of the deep ocean are fairly 

consistent throughout the world. 

Nevertheless, the Final EIS evaluation 

did not rely exclusively on knowledge 

of deep ocean environmental conditions 

elsewhere. Extensive site-specific 

oceanographic and biological baseline 

studies were conducted for the Final EIS 

(see Final EIS Sections 3.1.2–3.1.6 and 

3.2.2–3.2.3), focusing on critical 

information gaps. The resulting data 

greatly added to the available 

information about conditions offshore of 

western Guam, and allowed an adequate 

assessment of the potential impacts of 

ocean disposal activities. EPA’s 

published site selection criteria, and 

relevant monitoring experience at other 

deep ocean disposal sites, remain valid 

for the deep waters offshore of Guam. 

One comment expressed concern that 

noise and disturbance caused by vessels 

has not been studied. 

The ocean disposal site is located 

outside of, but immediately adjacent to 

established vessel traffic lanes. Vessels 

transporting dredged material to the 

disposal site must remain within the 

traffic lanes at all times during their 

approach to the site. The amount of 

disposal-related vessel traffic will be 

small in comparison to existing 

commercial vessel traffic in the area (see 

Final EIS Section 3.3.4), even without 

considering Naval vessel traffic. The 

Final EIS concluded that even at the 

worst-case annual disposal volume (an 

average of 1 disposal trip per day), only 

minor navigation-related cumulative 

impacts to fishing or other vessels 

would result (see Final EIS Section 

4.4.3). Disposal volumes, and therefore 

disposal-related vessel traffic, are 

expected to be much less than this most 

of the time, and in most years. For these 

reasons EPA believes that ocean 

disposal site designation will not cause 

significant adverse impacts as a result of 

vessel disturbance or noise. 

9. Socioeconomic, Cultural, or 

Environmental Justice Issues 

Several comments criticized the Final 

EIS for not properly recognizing the 

character of the local fishery, noting 

that the majority of fishers participate in 

the troll fishery for pelagic species 

within 20–30 miles of the coastline 

along Guam’s western seaboard where 

conditions are more consistently safe for 

fishing. A disposal site in these waters 

could therefore have larger effects on 

the fishing community than noted in the 

Final EIS. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

54504 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

The Final EIS acknowledged that the 

pelagic troll fishery is significant, and 

takes place throughout the waters 

offshore of Guam as anglers pursue 

several highly mobile species (see Final 

EIS Section 3.2.3). However, the fishery 

is not concentrated around the disposal 

site (see Final EIS Sections 3.2.3 and 

4.3) and this ocean disposal site 

designation action does not further 

prohibit or limit fishing, even in or 

immediately around the disposal site. 

The Final EIS concluded that water 

column properties are relatively 

uniform throughout the offshore region 

including around the disposal site (see 

Final EIS Sections 3.1.2–3.1.4). In the 

absence of persistent unique 

oceanographic or habitat characteristics 

in the vicinity, the overall distribution 

of planktonic and larval organisms, as 

well as bait fish feeding on them and 

larger pelagic fish attracted by bait fish, 

would be expected to be similar 

throughout the offshore waters west of 

Guam. Furthermore, suspended 

sediment plumes from disposal events 

are expected to quickly dissipate to 

background levels within the disposal 

site (see Final EIS Section 4.1.3). 

Following dissipation pelagic fishes or 

their prey would not necessarily avoid 

the area, and disposal operations are not 

expected to be so continuous or heavy 

that mobile fish species or their prey 

would avoid the area permanently. 

Since the disposal site represents a very 

small proportion of the offshore waters 

west of Guam (less than one percent of 

the area within the 18 nm ZSF 

economic feasibility distance, and still 

less of the area within the 

approximately 30 nm radius reported to 

be regularly utilized by anglers), and 

since disposal effects will be limited 

and temporary even within the disposal 

site, significant direct or cumulative 

impacts to the ocean ecosystem, 

including to pelagic fish species 

targeted by anglers, are not expected. 

Several comments expressed concern 

that fishing would be prohibited around 

the disposal site and that, together with 

previous losses of pelagic fishing areas 

to military operations and the Mariana 

Trench Marine National Monument, any 

further losses would be unacceptable. A 

related concern was that the ‘‘From the 

Reef to the Deep Blue Sea’’ program, 

which promotes conservation of coral 

reef fish species by providing the island 

community with alternative and more 

abundant pelagic fish, would be 

impacted by any decline in pelagic fish 

or restriction of traditional offshore 

fishing areas. 

EPA recognizes that fishing in some 

areas has become more difficult, or even 

off limits, as a result of other actions on 

and around Guam not related to this site 

designation. However this ocean 

disposal site designation action does not 

further prohibit or limit fishing, even in 

or immediately around the disposal site. 

In addition, since the Final EIS 

evaluation determined that no 

significant effect is expected to pelagic 

fish or the fishery targeting them, there 

should be no impact to Guam’s ‘‘From 

the Reef to the Deep Blue Sea’’ program. 

One comment noted that the Final EIS 

understated the economic value of the 

commercial fishery, and requested that 

EPA fund a baseline study of direct and 

indirect economic activity generated by 

fisheries on Guam, in order to assess 

economic impacts due to loss of fishing 

opportunities. 

The Final EIS acknowledged that it is 

often difficult to distinguish between 

commercial, recreational, and other 

fishing activities conducted around 

Guam (see Final EIS Section 3.3.1). The 

direct value of strictly commercial 

fishery landings does not take into 

account the related economic benefit to 

supporting businesses. Nor does it 

reflect direct or indirect economic 

activity generated by non-commercial 

fishing, let alone cultural values 

associated with fishing on Guam. 

However, this ocean disposal site 

designation action does not further 

prohibit or limit fishing, even in or 

immediately around the disposal site. In 

addition, as discussed above, the Final 

EIS evaluation determined that no 

significant environmental effects are 

expected to pelagic fish or the fishery 

targeting them. For these reasons, EPA 

disagrees that there is a need to further 

quantify the direct and indirect 

economic activity generated by fishing 

on Guam. 

Several comments expressed concern 

that the Final EIS downplayed the 

cultural importance of fishing and the 

supply of fresh fish (including for 

religious purposes). In particular, the 

loss of fishing opportunity would have 

a negative cultural impact on Guam. 

The Final EIS acknowledged that fish, 

and fishing, are important cultural 

aspects of life for many residents of 

Guam (see Final EIS Section 3.3.1). 

However, as discussed above the fishery 

is not concentrated around the disposal 

site (see Final EIS Sections 3.2.3 and 

4.3) and this ocean disposal site 

designation action does not further 

prohibit or limit fishing, even in or 

immediately around the disposal site. 

The Final EIS concluded that water 

column properties are relatively 

uniform throughout the offshore region 

including around the disposal site (see 

Final EIS Sections 3.1.2–3.1.4). In the 

absence of unique oceanographic or 

habitat characteristics in the vicinity, 

the overall distribution of planktonic 

and larval organisms, as well as bait fish 

feeding on them and larger pelagic fish 

attracted by bait fish (and targeted by 

fishers), would be expected to be similar 

throughout the offshore waters west of 

Guam. Furthermore, suspended 

sediment plumes from disposal events 

are expected to quickly dissipate to 

background levels within the disposal 

site (see Final EIS Section 4.1.3). 

Following dissipation pelagic fishes or 

their prey would not necessarily avoid 

the area, and disposal operations are not 

expected to be so continuous or heavy 

that mobile fish species or their prey 

would avoid the area permanently. 

Since the disposal site represents a very 

small proportion (less than one percent) 

of the offshore waters and disposal 

effects will be limited and temporary 

even within the disposal site, significant 

direct or cumulative impacts to the 

ocean ecosystem, including to pelagic 

fish species targeted by fishers, are not 

expected. The Final EIS also noted that 

cumulatively there would be only minor 

potential for navigation-related impacts 

to fishing or other vessels, even during 

periods of maximum disposal activity 

(see Final EIS Section 4.4.3). Therefore 

EPA does not believe that designation of 

the ocean disposal site will have any 

significant effect on fishing, fishes 

themselves, or associated cultural 

aspects of life on Guam. 

One comment argued that even 

though the economic impact threshold 

in Executive Order 12866 would not be 

exceeded, effects on the small island 

community of Guam would still be 

significant. 

EPA recognizes that economic 

impacts far below the $100 million 

threshold in Executive Order 12866 

could be ‘‘significant’’ to a small island 

community such as Guam’s. However, 

the EIS process concluded that there 

would be no significant effects on Guam 

including to ‘‘the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or Tribal 

governments or communities’’, because 

significant environmental effects are not 

expected and because the action does 

not prohibit or further limit fishing. 

One comment stated that the site 

designation violates Executive Order 

13132 on Federalism because it 

represents yet another Federal action 

imposed on Guam without local 

consent. 

This action does not have federalism 

implications and does not violate 

Executive Order 13132. It does not have 

a direct effect on the government of 

Guam, on the relationship between the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54505 

national government and the 

government of Guam, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The designated 

site is over 11 nautical miles offshore, 

outside of the jurisdiction of Guam 

agencies. Furthermore, EPA consulted 

directly with the Guam Bureau of 

Statistics and Plans and received their 

concurrence that the action is consistent 

with Guam’s Coastal Management 

Program. Since this action only has the 

effect of providing an additional option 

for managing dredged material and 

setting a maximum annual ocean 

disposal volume limit, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply. 

10. Sediment Testing Issues 

Some comments expressed concern 

about possible radiation releases in the 

past and the reliability of the Navy to 

report any releases in the future. They 

believed that EPA statements about 

radiation testing have been inconsistent, 

and recommended that EPA be clear 

about requiring that sediment core 

samples (rather than surface grab 

samples) be analyzed for radiation prior 

to approval of dredging and disposal 

operations. 

For every dredging project area tested, 

sediments will be representatively 

sampled down to the proposed dredging 

depth (design depth) plus overdepth 

(which is typically 2 feet below the 

project’s design depth), using coring 

equipment (not just surface grab 

samples), and tested in accordance with 

the EPA/USACE national Ocean Testing 

Manual. However, in response to these 

comments, sediment samples collected 

from dredging areas in Apra Harbor will 

be subjected to radiation analyses in 

addition to the other standard physical, 

chemical, and biological analyses. 

One comment requested that dredged 

material sampling plans, testing results, 

and site monitoring information be 

made accessible to the public (without 

a FOIA request). 

Proposed Sampling and Analysis 

Plans (SAPs) for dredging projects that 

include ocean disposal must be 

provided to EPA, USACE and 

appropriate Guam regulatory agencies 

for review and approval prior to testing. 

In addition, EPA intends to make 

publicly available (via the EPA Region 

9 Web site) SAPs and subsequent results 

reports for dredging projects that 

include ocean disposal, as well as site 

monitoring results, once such reports 

are finalized. 

11. Site Management and Monitoring 

Plan (SMMP) Issues 

One commenter was concerned that 

the language in Section 5.1.1 of the 

SMMP, which stated a number of permit 

requirements ‘‘may include the following 

***’’, implied important provisions 

might sometimes not be required in 

permits. 

EPA will revise this SMMP language 

to read: ‘‘shall include, but not be 

limited to, the following * * *’’ 

One comment recommended that any 

disposal scow that has handled 

contaminated dredged material be 

required to be cleaned before loading 

clean material for discharge at the 

ocean disposal site. 

EPA will add a requirement to this 

effect to the SMMP. 

Some comments recommended that 

all dredging activities be prohibited at 

certain times, including during the peak 

coral spawning period, during seasonal 

appearance of harvested fish species, 

and west to east wind shifts. 

Dredging operations on projects that 

include ocean disposal will not be 

allowed during the peak coral spawning 

period. (EPA generally agrees that any 

dredging in proximity to coral should 

not occur during this timeframe if at all 

possible; however, EPA does not have 

independent authority to require 

stoppage of dredging work on projects 

that do not include ocean disposal.) 

Different fish species are harvested at 

different times of the year, and there is 

no period during which disposal 

operations would avoid them all. 

However, based on the Final EIS 

conclusion that significant effects would 

not occur to these species, EPA has 

determined that no seasonal restriction 

on use of the disposal site is necessary. 

The Final EIS evaluations determined 

that disposal plumes would dissipate to 

background levels within the disposal 

site boundaries, even during current 

reversals and significant increases in 

surface current speed. Therefore EPA 

determined that timing restrictions to 

avoid wind and surface current shifts 

from west to east are also not needed. 

One comment recommended that 

large pieces of coral debris, and 

especially live coral, be prohibited from 

ocean disposal. 

EPA agrees that live coral should be 

salvaged for transplantation. Therefore 

we are adding a provision to the SMMP 

requiring mechanical dredging 

operations in areas that include live 

coral, coral rubble, rocks, or other large 

debris to utilize a metal grate (known as 

a grizzly) with no greater than 12-inch 

openings, through which the dredged 

material is passed as it is placed in 

disposal barges. Material retained on the 

grizzly must be removed and managed 

elsewhere; it may not be taken to the 

ocean disposal site. 

One comment stated that in light of 

the lack of trust by the local community, 

the entire dredging and disposal process 

needs to be monitored by independent 

observers. 

As stated in the Proposed Rule, the 

Final EIS evaluation determined that 

use of the disposal site would not be 

expected to result in long-term adverse 

environmental impact to the wideranging species of seabirds, pelagic fish, 

sea turtles or marine mammals in the 

region offshore of Guam. Therefore EPA 

has not included a requirement in the 

SMMP for independent on-board 

observers. However, the SMMP requires 

automated satellite and sensor-based 

monitoring of all transportation and 

disposal operations. In addition, the 

SMMP requires that scows must be 

inspected prior to each disposal trip, 

and certified as being in compliance 

with other SMMP specifications. 

One comment recommended that 

disposal scow tracking capability be 

‘‘real time’’ so that a disposal scow 

found to be losing material could be 

recalled prior to disposal. 

Real time monitoring for leaks is not 

considered essential for long-term 

management of ocean disposal 

operations. First, personnel are not 

necessarily available to review tracking 

data for every trip in real time. More 

importantly, even if a leaking scow were 

to be identified while during transit, it 

would generally be environmentally 

preferable to allow the scow to complete 

that trip to the ocean disposal site rather 

than to return and release additional 

material in closer proximity to corals 

and other sensitive habitats. Also, in 

some conditions there can be vessel 

safety concerns involved in aborting a 

trip and turning around a loaded scow 

in the open ocean. Instead, the 

continuous tracking system required by 

EPA documents whether a substantial 

leak or spill has occurred during a trip, 

and transmits that data at the end of 

each trip. Disposal operations may not 

proceed if the required tracking system 

is not operational. If a leak or spill was 

detected, an e-mail alert is sent to all 

appropriate parties (including the 

permittee, the dredging contractor, EPA, 

USACE, and relevant Guam regulatory 

agencies), advising to check the Web 

site for that trip. This system provides 

for timely communication with the 

dredging project managers so that 

information about causes and remedies 

can be exchanged quickly. When 

necessary, EPA and USACE can require 

physical or operational changes be 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

54506 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

made, or even that the scow in question 

be pulled immediately from service and 

not allowed to be used for disposal 

operations until repairs are completed 

and shown to be successful. 

One comment recommended that site 

monitoring include the seafloor area 

surrounding the site itself, that 

monitoring also occur for the presence 

of pelagics and planktonic organisms 

including coral larvae in the water 

column, and that sediment traps should 

be deployed outside the disposal site to 

verify the dispersion modeling. 

Both on-site and off-site stations will 

be included in benthic monitoring 

surveys. Sediment traps are not needed 

based on previous monitoring of deep 

ocean disposal operations, and because 

benthic surveys conducted under the 

SMMP will provide a more integrated, 

cumulative measure of the extent of 

dispersion and deposition. Water 

column monitoring for the presence of 

pelagic organisms, including coral 

larvae, is not necessary based on the 

Final EIS conclusion, discussed above, 

that although these organisms are 

expected to be present within the 

disposal site (just as they are present 

throughout the offshore waters west of 

Guam), significant impacts to their 

populations are not expected because 

disposal operations will be limited in 

area, extent and duration. 

12. Compensatory Mitigation 

Some comments requested specific 

compensatory mitigation for disposal 

site designation, including deployment 

of new Fish Aggregation Devices (FADs) 

as alternative fishing areas to mitigate 

for loss of fishing opportunity, and 

direct monetary compensation for 

anglers of $1.9 million per year for the 

life of the disposal site or a lump-sum 

payment of $50 million. 

A broad range of impact avoidance 

and minimization measures are built 

into the site designation process itself, 

and additional avoidance and 

minimization measures have been 

incorporated into the SMMP. As noted 

above, fishing is not prohibited in or 

around the disposal site. The fishery is 

not concentrated around the disposal 

site (see Final EIS Sections 3.2.3 and 

4.3). The Final EIS concluded that water 

column properties are relatively 

uniform throughout the offshore region 

including around the disposal site (see 

Final EIS Sections 3.1.2–3.1.4). In the 

absence of unique oceanographic or 

habitat characteristics in the vicinity, 

the overall distribution of planktonic 

and larval organisms, as well as bait fish 

feeding on them and larger pelagic fish 

attracted by bait fish, would be expected 

to be similar throughout the offshore 

waters west of Guam. Furthermore, 

suspended sediment plumes from 

disposal events are expected to quickly 

dissipate to background levels within 

the disposal site (see Final EIS Section 

4.1.3). Following dissipation pelagic 

fishes or their prey would not 

necessarily avoid the area, and disposal 

operations are not expected to be so 

continuous or heavy that mobile fish 

species or their prey would avoid the 

area permanently. Since the disposal 

site represents a very small proportion 

of the offshore waters targeted by 

anglers (less than one percent of the 

waters within 30 miles to the west of 

Guam) and disposal effects will be 

limited and temporary even within the 

disposal site, significant direct or 

cumulative impacts to the ocean 

ecosystem, including to pelagic fish 

species targeted by anglers, are not 

expected. EPA therefore disagrees that 

there is any further need for 

compensatory mitigation of the kinds 

recommended. 

Some comments recommended that 

compensatory mitigation be required for 

any leakage or spills of dredged material 

outside the disposal site. 

Leaking or spillage of material during 

transit to the disposal site is prohibited 

by the SMMP and any ocean disposal 

permits issued. Substantial mandatory 

compliance monitoring effort is directed 

at confirming that neither occurs. We 

have added a new provision to the 

SMMP specifying that if a disposal 

barge leaks or spills significantly during 

a trip to the disposal site, it may not be 

used on subsequent ocean disposal trips 

until approved again by EPA and 

USACE. EPA has substantial 

enforcement authority under the Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act, and may also refer violators to the 

Department of Justice for civil or 

criminal prosecution if necessary. 

Enforcement actions or settlements can 

require restoration where possible (e.g., 

in shallow water), in addition to 

monetary penalties. 

H. Regulatory Requirements 

1. Consistency With the Coastal Zone 

Management Act 

Consistent with the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA), EPA 

prepared a Coastal Zone Consistency 

Determination (CZCD) document based 

on information presented in the site 

designation DEIS. The CZCD evaluated 

whether the action—permanent 

designation of G–DODS would be 

consistent with the provisions of the 

CZMA. The CZCD was formally 

submitted to the Bureau of Statistics and 

Planning (BSP, Guam’s CZM agency) on 

July 24, 2009. The BSP staff concurred 

with EPA’s CZCD. The Final Rule is 

consistent with the CZMA. 

2. Endangered Species Act Consultation 

During development of the site 

designation EIS, EPA consulted with the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) pursuant to the provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

regarding the potential for designation 

and use of the ocean disposal sites to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any Federally listed species. This 

consultation process is fully 

documented in the site designation 

Final EIS. NOAA and FWS concluded 

that designation and use of the disposal 

site for disposal of dredged material 

meeting the criteria for ocean disposal 

would not jeopardize the continued 

existence of any Federally listed 

species. 

I. Administrative Review 

1. Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must 

determine whether the regulatory action 

is ‘‘significant’’, and therefore subject to 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) review and other requirements of 

the Executive Order. The Order defines 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one 

that is likely to lead to a rule that may: 

(a) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect in a material way, the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(b) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(c) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(d) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This Final Rule should have minimal 

impact on State, local or Tribal 

governments or communities. 

Consequently, EPA has determined that 

this Final Rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

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

minimize the reporting and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 54507 

recordkeeping burden on the regulated 

community, as well as to minimize the 

cost of Federal information collection 

and dissemination. In general, the Act 

requires that information requests and 

recordkeeping requirements affecting 

ten or more non-Federal respondents be 

approved by OMB. Since the Final Rule 

would not establish or modify any 

information or recordkeeping 

requirements, but only clarifies existing 

requirements, it is not subject to the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

provides that whenever an agency 

promulgates a Final Rule under 5 U.S.C. 

553, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) 

unless the head of the agency certifies 

that the final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

(5 U.S.C. 604 and 605). The site 

designation and management actions 

would only have the effect of setting 

maximum annual disposal volume and 

providing a continuing disposal option 

for dredged material. Consequently, 

EPA’s action will not impose any 

additional economic burden on small 

entities. For this reason, the Regional 

Administrator certifies, pursuant to 

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

Rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

4. Unfunded Mandates 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

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

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 year. 

This Final Rule contains no Federal 

mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for 

State, local or Tribal governments or the 

private sector. The Final Rule would 

only provide a continuing disposal 

option for dredged material. 

Consequently, it imposes no new 

enforceable duty on any State, local or 

Tribal governments or the private sector. 

Similarly, EPA has also determined that 

this Rule 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: 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 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. The Final Rule 

would only have the effect of setting 

maximum annual disposal volumes and 

providing a continuing disposal option 

for dredged material. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this Final 

Rule. 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

Tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Tribal 

implications.’’ This Final Rule does not 

have Tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. The Final Rule 

would only have the effect of setting 

maximum annual disposal volumes and 

providing a continuing disposal option 

for dredged material. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this Final 

Rule. 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This Executive Order (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

EPA must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by EPA. 

This Final Rule is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because 

EPA does not have reason to believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use Compliance With 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This Final Rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 

(May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. The Final Rule 

would only have the effect of setting 

maximum annual disposal volumes and 

providing a continuing disposal option 

for dredged material. Thus, EPA 

concluded that this Final Rule is not 

likely to have any adverse energy 

effects. 

9. National Technology Transfer 

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 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. 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 

standards 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 is not 

considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

54508 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) 

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 

determined that this Final 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 disposal sites against 

the criteria established pursuant to the 

MPRSA to ensure that any adverse 

impact to the environment will be 

mitigated to the greatest extent 

practicable. 

11. 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). This Final 

Rule will be effective October 8, 2010. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 

Environmental protection, Water 

pollution control. 

Dated: August 31, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, EPA 

amends part 228, chapter I of title 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations 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 paragraph (l)(12) to read as 

follows: 

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a 

final basis. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(12) Guam Deep Ocean Disposal Site 

(G–DODS)—Region IX. 

(i) Location: Center coordinates of the 

circle-shaped site are: 13°35.500′ North 

Latitude by 144°28.733′ East Longitude 

(North American Datum from 1983), 

with an overall diameter of 3 nautical 

miles (5.6 kilometers). 

(ii) Size: 7.1 square nautical miles 

(24.3 square kilometers) overall site. 

(iii) Depth: 8,790 feet (2,680 meters). 

(iv) Use Restricted to Disposal of: 

Suitable dredged materials. 

(v) Period of Use: Continuing use. 

(vi) Restrictions: Disposal shall be 

limited to a maximum of 1 million cubic 

yards (764,555 cubic meters) per 

calendar year of dredged materials that 

comply with EPA’s Ocean Dumping 

Regulations; disposal operations shall 

be conducted in accordance with 

requirements specified in a Site 

Management and Monitoring Plan 

developed by EPA and USACE, to be 

reviewed at least every 10 years. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–22324 Filed 9–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[WT Docket No.07–250; FCC 10–145] 

Amendment of the Commission’s 

Rules Governing Hearing AidCompatible Mobile Handsets 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) 

adopts final rules governing wireless 

hearing aid compatibility that are 

intended to ensure that consumers with 

hearing loss are able to access wireless 

communications services through a 

wide selection of handsets without 

experiencing disabling interference or 

other technical obstacles. 

DATES: Effective October 8, 2010, except 

for the amendments to § 20.19(f) which 

contain information collection 

requirements that have not been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). The Commission 

will publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date 

of these amendments. On June 6, 2008 

(73 FR 25566, May 7, 2008), the Director 

of the Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of a certain 

publication listed in this final rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Borkowski, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418– 

0626, e-mail John.Borkowski@fcc.gov. 

For additional information concerning 

the Paperwork Reduction Act 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, send an 

e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Judith 

B. Herman at 202–418–0214 or via the 

Internet at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Policy 

Statement and Second Report and Order 

in WT Docket No.07–250; FCC 10–145, 

adopted August 5, 2010, and released on 

August 5, 2010. This summary should 

be read with its companion document, 

the further notice of proposed 

rulemaking summary published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register. The full text of the Policy 

Statement and Second Report and Order 

is available for public inspection and 

copying during business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. It 

also may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor at 

Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554; the 

contractor’s Web site, http:// 

www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling 

(800) 378–3160, facsimile (202) 488– 

5563, or e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. 

Copies of the public notice also may be 

obtained via the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS) by entering the docket number 

WT Docket No.07–250. Additionally, 

the complete item is available on the 

Federal Communications Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.fcc.gov. 

Synopsis of the Policy Statement and 

Second Report and Order 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Policy Statement and 

Second Report and Order (Second R&O), 

the Commission affirms that our hearing 

aid compatibility rules must provide 

people who use hearing aids and 

cochlear implants with continuing 

access to the most advanced and 

innovative technologies as science and 

markets develop, while maximizing the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES