        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0380; FRL-8694-01-R3]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans; Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Determinations for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve multiple state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for twenty-four major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and/or nitrogen oxides (NOX) pursuant to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to approve source-specific (also referred to as “case-by-case”) RACT determinations for sources at twenty-four major NOX and VOC emitting facilities submitted by PADEP. These RACT evaluations were submitted to meet RACT requirements for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before September 1, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0380 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to opila.marycate@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. Riley Burger, Permits Branch (3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-2217. Mr. Burger can also be reached via electronic mail at burger.riley@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On May 7, 2020, PADEP submitted a revision to its SIP to address case-by-case NOX and/or VOC RACT for sources at numerous major NOX and VOC emitting facilities located in the Commonwealth, including the twenty-four facilities in this action. This SIP revision is intended to address the NOX and/or VOC RACT requirements under sections 182 and 184 of the CAA for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Table 1 of this document lists the SIP submittal date and the facilities included in PADEP's submittal. Although submitted in one SIP revision by PADEP, EPA views each facility as a separable SIP revision and may take separate final action on one or more facilities.

        For additional background information on Pennsylvania's “presumptive” RACT II SIP see 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019) and on Pennsylvania's source-specific or “case-by-case” RACT determinations see the appropriate technical support document (TSD) which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0380.

          Table 1—PADEP SIP Submittals for Major NOX and/or VOC Sources in Pennsylvania Subject to Source-Specific RACT Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard

            SIP submittal date
            Major source(county)

            5/7/2020
            Anvil International, LLC (formerly Grinnell Corporation) (Lancaster).

            ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Conshohocken Plant (formerly Bethlehem Lukens Plate) (Montgomery).

            Braskem America Inc. Marcus Hook (formerly Epsilon Products Co.—Marcus Hook) (Delaware).

            Buck Co Inc. Quarryville (formerly Buck Company Inc) (Lancaster).

            Calumet Karns City Refining LLC (formerly Penreco—Karns City) (Butler).

            Clarion Bathware Marble (Clarion).

            Domtar Paper Company Johnsonburg Mill (formerly Willamette Industries, Johnsonburgh Mill) (Elk).

            Exelon Generation Company LLC Croydon Generating Station (formerly PECO Energy Co.—Croydon Generating Station) (Bucks).

            Georgia-Pacific Panel Products LLC Mt. Jewell MDF Plant (McKean).

            GE Transportation Grove City Engine (formerly GE Transportation Systems) (Mercer).

            GrafTech USA LLC St Marys (formerly The Carbide/Graphite Group, Inc) (Elk).

            Haysite Reinforced Plastics LLC Erie (Erie).

            INMETCO Ellwood City (formerly The International Metals Reclamation Co) (Lawrence).

            International Waxes Inc Farmers Valley (formerly Petrowax Refining) (McKean).

            Jeld Wen Fiber Division PA (Bradford).

            Mars Wrigley Confectionery US LLC Elizabethtown (Lancaster).

            Molded Fiber Glass Company Union City (formerly Molded Fiber Glass) (Erie).

            Monroe Energy LLC Trainer (formerly Conoco Phillips Company) (Delaware).

            Nova Chemicals Company Beaver (formerly Nova Chemicals, Inc.) (Beaver).

            Sasol Chemicals USA LLC (formerly Merisol Antioxidants LLC) (Venango).

            Silberline Manufacturing Company Lincoln Drive Plant (formerly Silberline Manufacturing Co) (Schuylkill).

            Superior Tube Company Lower Providence (formerly Superior Tube Company) (Montgomery).

            Victaulic Company Alburtis Facility (Lehigh).

            Victaulic Forks Facility (Northampton).

        I. Background
        A. 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

        Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is created by chemical reactions between NOX and VOC in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities, electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOX and VOC. Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems, particularly for children, the elderly, and people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma. Ground level ozone can also have harmful effects on sensitive vegetation and ecosystems.
        On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a standard for ground level ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. 62 FR 38856. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. EPA has designated two moderate nonattainment areas in Pennsylvania under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, namely Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE (the Philadelphia Area) and Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley (the Pittsburgh Area). See 40 CFR 81.339.
        On March 12, 2008, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone standards, by revising its level to 0.075 ppm averaged over an 8-hour period (2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS). On May 21, 2012, EPA designated five marginal nonattainment areas in Pennsylvania for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS: Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Lancaster, Reading, the Philadelphia Area, and the Pittsburgh Area. 77 FR 30088; see also 40 CFR 81.339.
        On March 6, 2015, EPA announced its revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for all purposes and for all areas in the country, effective on April 6, 2015. 80 FR 12264. EPA has determined that certain nonattainment planning requirements continue to be in effect under the revoked standard for nonattainment areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including RACT.
        B. RACT Requirements for Ozone
        The CAA regulates emissions of NOX and VOC to prevent photochemical reactions that result in ozone formation. RACT is an important strategy for reducing NOX and VOC emissions from major stationary sources within areas not meeting the ozone NAAQS.

        Areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are subject to the general nonattainment planning requirements of CAA section 172. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM) for demonstrating attainment of all NAAQS, including emissions reductions from existing sources through the adoption of RACT. Further, section 182(b)(2) of the CAA sets forth additional RACT requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or higher. Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA sets forth requirements regarding RACT for the ozone NAAQS for VOC sources. Section 182(f) subjects major stationary sources of NOX to the same RACT requirements applicable to major stationary sources of VOC.1

            1 A “major source” is defined based on the source's potential to emit (PTE) of NOX or VOC, and the applicable thresholds for RACT differs based on the classification of the nonattainment area in which the source is located. See sections 182(c)-(f) and 302 of the CAA.

        Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA applies the RACT requirements in section 182(b)(2) to nonattainment areas classified as marginal and to attainment areas located within ozone transport regions established pursuant to section 184 of the CAA. Section 184(a) of the CAA established by law the current Ozone Transport Region (OTR) comprised of 12 eastern states, including Pennsylvania. This requirement is referred to as OTR RACT. As noted previously, a “major source” is defined based on the source's potential to emit (PTE) of NOX, VOC, or both pollutants, and the applicable thresholds differ based on the classification of the nonattainment area in which the source is located. See sections 182(c)-(f) and 302 of the CAA.
        Since the 1970's, EPA has consistently defined “RACT” as the lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of the control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.2

            2 See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional Administrators, “Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas,” and also 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979).

        EPA has provided more substantive RACT requirements through implementation rules for each ozone NAAQS as well as through guidance. In 2004 and 2005, EPA promulgated an implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in two phases (“Phase 1 of the 1997 Ozone Implementation Rule” and “Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone Implementation Rule”). 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005), respectively. Particularly, the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule addressed RACT statutory requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 70 FR 71652 (November 29, 2005).
        On March 6, 2015, EPA issued its final rule for implementing the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (“the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule”). 80 FR 12264. At the same time, EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective on April 6, 2015.3

           The 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule provided comprehensive requirements to transition from the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as codified in 40 CFR part 51, subpart AA, following revocation. Consistent with previous policy, EPA determined that areas designated nonattainment for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS at the time of revocation, must retain implementation of certain nonattainment area requirements (i.e., anti-backsliding requirements) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as specified under section 182 of the CAA, including RACT. See 40 CFR 51.1100(o). An area remains subject to the anti-backsliding requirements for a revoked NAAQS until EPA approves a redesignation to attainment for the area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. There are no effects on applicable requirements for areas within the OTR, as a result of the revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus, Pennsylvania, as a state within the OTR, remains subject to RACT requirements for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

            3 On February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. Court) issued an opinion on the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The D.C. Cir. Court found certain parts reasonable and denied the petition for appeal on those. In particular, the D.C. Cir. Court upheld the use of NOX averaging to meet RACT requirements for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. However, the Court also found certain other provisions unreasonable. The D.C. Cir. Court vacated the provisions it found unreasonable.

        In addressing RACT, the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule is consistent with existing policy and Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone Implementation Rule. In the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA requires RACT measures to be implemented by January 1, 2017 for areas classified as moderate nonattainment or above and all areas of the OTR. EPA also provided in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule that RACT SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative declarations stating that there are no sources in the nonattainment area covered by a specific control technique guidelines (CTG) source category. In the preamble to the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA clarified that states must provide notice and opportunity for public comment on their RACT SIP submissions, even when submitting a certification that the existing provisions remain RACT or a negative declaration. States must submit appropriate supporting information for their RACT submissions, in accordance with the Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone Implementation Rule. Adequate documentation must support that states have considered control technology that is economically and technologically feasible in determining RACT, based on information that is current as of the time of development of the RACT SIP.

        In addition, in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA clarified that states can use weighted average NOX emissions rates from sources in the nonattainment area for meeting the major NOX RACT requirement under the CAA, as consistent with existing policy.4
           EPA also recognized that states may conclude in some cases that sources already addressed by RACT determinations for the 1979 1-hour and/or 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS may not need to implement additional controls to meet the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS RACT requirement. See 80 FR 12278 and 12279 (March 6, 2015).

            4  EPA's NOX RACT guidance “Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble” (57 FR 55620; November 25, 1992) encouraged states to develop RACT programs that are based on “area wide average emission rates.” Additional guidance on area-wide RACT provisions is provided by EPA's January 2001 economic incentive program guidance titled “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/eipfin.pdf. In addition, as mentioned previously, the D.C. Cir. Court upheld the use of NOX averaging to meet RACT requirements for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, No. 15-1115 (D.C. Cir. February 16, 2018).

        C. Applicability of RACT Requirements in Pennsylvania
        As indicated earlier, RACT requirements apply to any ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or higher (serious, severe or extreme) under CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f). Pennsylvania has outstanding ozone RACT requirements for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is part of the OTR established under section 184 of the CAA and thus is subject statewide to the RACT requirements of CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f), pursuant to section 184(b).

        At the time of revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (effective April 6, 2015), only two moderate nonattainment areas remained in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for this standard, the Philadelphia and the Pittsburgh Areas. As required under EPA's anti-backsliding provisions, these two moderate nonattainment areas continue to be subject to RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Given its location in the OTR, the remainder of the Commonwealth is also treated as moderate nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for any planning requirements under the revoked standard, including RACT. The OTR RACT requirement is also in effect under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS throughout the Commonwealth, since EPA did not designate any nonattainment areas above marginal for this standard in Pennsylvania. Thus, in practice, the same RACT requirements continue to be applicable in Pennsylvania for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. RACT must be evaluated and satisfied as separate requirements under each applicable standard.
        RACT applies to major sources of NOX and VOC under each ozone NAAQS or any VOC sources subject to CTG RACT. Which NOX and VOC sources in Pennsylvania are considered “major” and are therefore subject to RACT is dependent on the location of each source within the Commonwealth. Sources located in nonattainment areas would be subject to the “major source” definitions established under the CAA based on the area's current classification(s). In the case of Pennsylvania, sources located outside of moderate or above ozone nonattainment areas, as part of the OTR, shall be treated as if these areas were moderate.
        In Pennsylvania, the SIP program is implemented primarily by the PADEP, but also by local air agencies in Philadelphia County (the City of Philadelphia's Air Management Services [AMS]) and Allegheny County, (the Allegheny County Health Department [ACHD]). These agencies have implemented numerous RACT regulations and source-specific measures in Pennsylvania to meet the applicable ozone RACT requirements. Historically, statewide RACT controls have been promulgated by PADEP in Pennsylvania Code Title 25—Environmental Resources, Part I—Department of Environmental Protection, Subpart C—Protection of Natural Resources, Article III—Air Resources, (25 Pa. Code) Chapter 129. AMS and ACHD have incorporated by reference Pennsylvania regulations, but have also promulgated regulations adopting RACT controls for their own jurisdictions. In addition, AMS and ACHD have submitted, through PADEP, separate source-specific RACT determinations as SIP revisions for sources within their respective jurisdictions, which have been approved by EPA. See 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1).
        States were required to make RACT SIP submissions for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by September 15, 2006. PADEP submitted a SIP revision on September 25, 2006, certifying that a number of previously approved VOC RACT rules continued to satisfy RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the remainder of Pennsylvania.5

           PADEP has met its obligations under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for its CTG and non-CTG VOC sources. See 82 FR 31464 (July 7, 2017). RACT control measures addressing all applicable CAA RACT requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS have been implemented and fully approved in the jurisdictions of ACHD and AMS. See 78 FR 34584 (June 10, 2013) and 81 FR 69687 (October 7, 2016). For the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states were required to submit RACT SIP revisions by July 20, 2014. On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania. Specifically, the May 16, 2016 SIP submittal intended to satisfy sections 182(b)(2)(C), 182(f), and 184 of the CAA for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Pennsylvania's major NOX and VOC non-CTG sources, except ethylene production plants, surface active agents manufacturing, and mobile equipment repair and refinishing.6

            5 The September 15, 2006 SIP submittal initially included Pennsylvania's certification of NOX RACT regulations; however, NOX RACT portions were withdrawn by PADEP on June 27, 2016.

            6 EPA's conditional approval of PADEP's May 16, 2016 SIP revision covered relevant sources located in both  Philadelphia and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

        D. EPA's Conditional Approval for Pennsylvania's RACT Requirements Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

        On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania. PADEP's May 16, 2016 SIP revision intended to address certain outstanding VOC CTG RACT and major NOX RACT requirements under the CAA for both standards. The SIP revision requested approval of Pennsylvania's 25 Pa. Code 129.96-100, Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NO
          X
           and VOCs (the “presumptive” RACT II rule). Prior to the adoption of the RACT II rule, Pennsylvania relied on the NOX and VOC control measures in 25 Pa. Code 129.92-95, Stationary Sources of NO
          X
           and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to meet RACT for major sources of VOC and NOX. The requirements of the RACT I rule remain in effect and continue to be implemented as RACT.7
           On September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a supplemental SIP revision which committed to address various deficiencies identified by EPA in PADEP's May 16, 2016 “presumptive” RACT II rule SIP revision.

            7 These requirements were initially approved as RACT for Pennsylvania under the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The RACT I Rule was approved by EPA into the SIP on March 23, 1998. 63 FR 13789.

        On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based on PADEP's September 26, 2017 commitment letter.8
           See 84 FR 20274. In EPA's final conditional approval, EPA noted that PADEP would be required to submit, for EPA's approval, SIP revisions to address any facility-wide or system-wide averaging plan approved under 25 Pa. Code 129.98 and any case-by-case RACT determinations under 25 Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP committed to submitting these additional SIP revisions within 12 months of EPA's final conditional approval, specifically May 9, 2020.

            8 On August 27, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision vacating EPA's approval of three provisions of Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT II rule applicable to certain coal-fired power plants. Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 19-2562 (3rd Cir. August 27, 2020). None of the sources in this proposed rulemaking are subject to the three presumptive RACT II provisions at issue in that Sierra Club decision.

        Therefore, as authorized in CAA section 110(k)(3) and (k)(4), Pennsylvania was required to submit the following as case-by-case SIP revisions, by May 9, 2020, for EPA's approval as a condition of approval of 25 Pa. Code 128 and 129 in the May 16, 2016 SIP revision: (1) All facility-wide or system-wide averaging plans approved by PADEP under 25 Pa. Code 129.98 including, but not limited to, any terms and conditions that ensure the enforceability of the averaging plan as a practical matter (i.e., any monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, or testing requirements); and (2) all source-specific RACT determinations approved by PADEP under 25 Pa. Code 129.99, including any alternative compliance schedules approved under 25 Pa. Code 129.97(k) and 129.99(i); the case-by-case RACT determinations submitted to EPA for approval into the SIP should include any terms and conditions that ensure the enforceability of the case-by-case or source-specific RACT emission limitation as a practical matter (i.e., any monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, or testing requirements). See May 9, 2019 (84 FR 20274). Through multiple submissions between 2017 and 2020, PADEP has submitted to EPA for approval various SIP submissions to implement its RACT II case-by-case determinations and averaging plans. This proposed rulemaking is based on EPA's review of one of these SIP revisions.
        II. Summary of SIP Revisions

        In order to satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019 conditional approval, PADEP has submitted to EPA, SIP revisions addressing case-by-case RACT requirements for major sources in Pennsylvania subject to 25 Pa. Code 129.99. As noted in Table 1 of this document, on May 7 2020, PADEP submitted to EPA, a SIP revision pertaining to Pennsylvania's case-by-case NOX and/or VOC RACT determinations for sources located at numerous major NOX and VOC emitting facilities located in the Commonwealth. PADEP provided documentation in its SIP revisions to support its case-by-case RACT determinations for affected emission units at each major NOX and VOC emitting facilities subject to 25 Pa. Code 129.99.

        In the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revision, PADEP included a case-by-case RACT determination for the existing emissions units at each of these major sources of NOX and/or VOC that required a source specific RACT determination. In PADEP's RACT determinations an evaluation was completed to determine if previously SIP-approved, case-by-case RACT requirements (herein referred to as RACT I) were more stringent and required to be retained in the sources Title V air quality permit and subsequently, the Federally-approved SIP, or if the new case-by-case RACT requirements are more stringent and supersede the previous Federally-approved provisions.

        EPA, in this action, is taking action on sources at twenty-four major NOX and/or VOC emitting facilities in Pennsylvania, subject to Pennsylvania's case-by-case RACT requirements, as summarized in Table 2.

          Table 2—Twenty-Four Major NOX and/or VOC Sources in Pennsylvania Subject to Case-by-Case RACT II Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

            Major source (county)
            1-Hour ozone RACT source? (RACT I)
            Major source pollutant
              (NOX and/or VOC)

            RACT II permit (effective date)

            Anvil International, LLC (formerly Grinnell Corporation) (Lancaster)
            Yes
            VOC
            36-05019(2/1/2019)

            ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Conshohocken Plant (formerly Bethlehem Lukens Plate) (Montgomery)
            Yes
            NOX and VOC
            46-00011(1/26/2018)

            Braskem America Inc. Marcus Hook (formerly Epsilon Products Co.—Marcus Hook) (Delaware)
            Yes
            VOC
            23-00012(3/2/2020)

            Buck Co Inc. Quarryville (formerly Buck Company Inc) (Lancaster)
            Yes
            VOC
            36-05053(4/1/2020)

            Calumet Karns City Refining LLC (formerly Penreco—Karns City) (Butler)
            Yes
            VOC
            10-027H(11/29/2018)

            Clarion Bathware Marble (Clarion)
            No
            VOC
            16-00133(12/19/2020)

            Domtar Paper Company Johnsonburg Mill (formerly Willamette Industries, Johnsonburgh Mill) (Elk)
            Yes
            NOX and VOC
            24-00009(2/25/2020)

            Exelon Generation Company LLC Croydon Generating Station (formerly PECO Energy Co.—Croydon Generating Station) (Bucks)
            Yes
            NOX

            09-00016(4/11/2018)

            Georgia-Pacific Panel Products LLC Mt. Jewell MDF Plant (McKean)
            Yes
            NOX and VOC
            42-158R(1/2/2019)

            GE Transportation Grove City Engine (formerly GE Transportation Systems) (Mercer)
            Yes
            NOX and VOC
            43-00196(11/7/2019)

            GrafTech USA LLC St Marys (formerly The Carbide/Graphite Group, Inc) (Elk)
            Yes
            VOC
            24-00012(5/1/2019)

            Haysite Reinforced Plastics LLC Erie (Erie)
            No
            VOC
            25-00783(7/24/2019)

            INMETCO Ellwood City (formerly The International Metals Reclamation Co) (Lawrence)
            Yes
            NOX and VOC
            37-00243(12/6/2019)

            International Waxes Inc Farmers Valley (formerly Petrowax Refining) (McKean)
            Yes
            NOX and VOC
            42-00011(2/21/2020)

            Jeld Wen Fiber Division PA (Bradford)
            Yes
            NOX and VOC
            08-00003(9/21/2018)

            Mars Wrigley Confectionery US LLC Elizabethtown (Lancaster)
            Yes
            VOC
            36-05142(7/18/2019)

            Molded Fiber Glass Company Union City (formerly Molded Fiber Glass) (Erie)
            Yes
            VOC
            25-00035(2/5/2020)

            Monroe Energy LLC Trainer (formerly Conoco Phillips Company) (Delaware)
            Yes
            NOX and VOC
            23-00003(6/5/2017)

            Nova Chemicals Company Beaver (formerly Nova Chemicals, Inc.) (Beaver)
            Yes
            VOC
            04-00033(4/2/2020)

            Sasol Chemicals USA LLC (formerly Merisol Antioxidants LLC) (Venango)
            Yes
            VOC
            61-00011(2/16/2020)

            Silberline Manufacturing Company Lincoln Drive Plant (formerly Silberline Manufacturing Co) (Schuylkill)
            Yes
            VOC
            54-00041(3/16/2020)

            Superior Tube Company Lower Providence (formerly Superior Tube Company) (Montgomery)
            Yes
            VOC
            46-00020(2/5/2020)

            Victaulic Company Alburtis Facility (Lehigh)
            Unknown *
            VOC
            39-00069(10/24/2017)

            Victaulic Forks Facility (Northampton)
            Unknown **
            VOC
            48-0009(10/24/2017)

          * PADEP records indicate that Victaulic Company Alburtis Facility may have been subject to RACT I requirements because PADEP technical review memos and operating permits issued to the facility in the past reference RACT I requirements. However, in reviewing the facility's files, PADEP could not produce a RACT I permit nor any files specific to the issuance of RACT I. Furthermore, RACT I requirements were never incorporated into the Pennsylvania SIP for Victaulic Alburtis. See PADEP comment and response document dated January 2020.
          ** PADEP records indicate that Victaulic Forks Facility may have been subject to RACT I requirements because PADEP technical review memos and operating permits issued to the facility in the past reference RACT I requirements. However, in reviewing the facility's files, PADEP could not produce a RACT I permit nor any files specific to the issuance of RACT I. Furthermore, RACT I requirements were never incorporated into the Pennsylvania SIP for Victaulic Forks. See PADEP comment and response document dated January 2020.

        The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP consist of an evaluation of all reasonably available controls at the time of evaluation for each affected emissions unit, resulting in a PADEP determination of what specific control requirements, if any, satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of new or additional controls or the revisions to existing controls as RACT were specified as requirements in new or revised Federally enforceable permits (hereafter RACT II permits) issued by PADEP to the source. The RACT II permits, which revise or adopt additional source-specific controls, have been submitted as part of the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions for EPA's approval in the Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1). The RACT II permits submitted by PADEP are listed in the last column of Table 2 of this document, along with the permit effective date, and are part of the docket for this rulemaking, which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0380.9

           EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference in the Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II permits, source-specific RACT determinations under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain sources at major NOX and VOC emitting facilities.10

            9 The RACT II permits are redacted versions of a facility's Federally enforceable permits and reflect the specific RACT requirements being approved into the Pennsylvania SIP.

            10 While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit will remain part of the SIP, this RACT II rule will incorporate by reference the RACT II requirements through the RACT II permit and clarify the ongoing applicability of specific conditions in the RACT I permit.

        III. EPA's Evaluation of SIP Revisions

        After thorough review and evaluation of the information provided by PADEP for sources at twenty-four major NOX and/or VOC emitting facilities in Pennsylvania included in its SIP revision submittal, EPA finds that PADEP's case-by-case RACT determinations and conclusions provided are reasonable and appropriately considered technically and economically feasible controls, while setting lowest achievable limits. EPA finds that the proposed source-specific RACT controls for the sources subject to this rulemaking action adequately meet the CAA RACT requirements for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the subject sources of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, as they are not covered by or cannot meet Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT regulation.

        EPA also finds that all the proposed revisions to previously SIP approved RACT requirements, under the 1979 1-hour ozone standard (RACT I), as discussed in PADEP's SIP revisions, will result in equivalent or additional reductions of NOX and/or VOC emissions and should not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further progress with the NAAQS or interfere with other applicable CAA requirement in section 110(l) of the CAA.

        EPA's complete analysis of PADEP's case-by-case RACT SIP revisions is included in the TSD available in the docket for this rulemaking action and available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0380.
        IV. Proposed Action

        Based on EPA's review, EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania SIP revisions for case-by-case RACT determinations for individual sources at twenty-four major NOX and VOC emitting facilities listed in Table 2 of this document and incorporate by reference in the Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II permits, source specific RACT determinations under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for those sources. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. As EPA views each facility as a separable SIP revision, should EPA receive comment on one facility but not others, EPA may take separate, final action on the remaining facilities.
        V. Incorporation by Reference

        In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference source specific RACT determinations via the RACT II permits as described in Sections II and III—Summary of SIP Revisions and EPA's Evaluation of SIP Revisions in this document. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
        VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

        • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
        • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        In addition, this proposed rulemaking, addressing the NOX and VOC RACT case-by-case requirements for individual sources at twenty-four facilities in Pennsylvania for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

          Dated: July 22, 2021.
          Diana Esher,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

      [FR Doc. 2021-16279 Filed 7-30-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 228
        [FRL-9942-08-Region 1]
        Ocean Disposal; Proposed Amendments to Restrictions on Use of Dredged Material Disposal Sites in the Central and Western Portions of Long Island Sound; Connecticut

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today proposes to amend federal regulations that designated, and placed restrictions on the use of, the Central Long Island Sound and Western Long Island Sound dredged material disposal sites, located offshore from New Haven and Stamford, Connecticut, respectively. The amended regulation incorporates standards and procedures for the use of those sites as recommended in the Long Island Sound Dredged Material Management Plan, which was completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on January 11, 2016. The Dredged Material Management Plan identifies a wide range of alternatives to open-water disposal and recommends standards and procedures for determining which alternatives to pursue for different dredging projects, so as to reduce or eliminate wherever practicable the open-water disposal of dredged material.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before March 25, 2016. EPA will hold two public meetings to receive comment on the proposed rule. The first will be held on March 1, 2016, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Port Jefferson Free Library, 100 Thompson Street, Port Jefferson, New York. The second will be held on March 2, 2016, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the University of Connecticut-Stamford, Auditorium 2, 1 University Place, Stamford, Connecticut.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments should be sent to: Stephen Perkins, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code: OEP06-3, Boston, MA 02109-3912 or electronically to CLDS@epa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Stephen Perkins, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code: OEP06-3, Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone (617) 918-1501, electronic mail: perkins.stephen@epa.gov.

            Public Review of Documents: The file supporting these proposed revisions is available for inspection as follows:

            In person. The Proposed Rule and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Long Island Sound are available for inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA. Persons interested in inspecting materials in person should contact Stephen Perkins by telephone (617) 918-1501 or electronic mail: perkins.stephen@epa.gov to arrange a time to view them.

            Electronically. You also may review and/or obtain electronic copies of the Proposed Rule from EPA's Web site http://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/lisdreg/eis.html. The DMMP and PEIS are available from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Long Island Sound DMMP Web site at: http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/ProjectsTopics/LongIslandSoundDMMP.aspx.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

          I. Background
          II. The Dredged Material Management Plan for Long Island Sound
          III. Standards and Procedures
          A. Standards
          B. Procedures
          IV. Compliance With Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
          V. Proposed Action
          VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. Background
        On June 3, 2005, EPA published in the Federal Register (70 FR 32498) a final rule (the 2005 Rule) designating two open-water dredged material disposal sites, the Central Long Island Sound site (CLDS, previously referred to as CLIS) and the Western Long Island Sound site (WLDS, previously referred to as WLIS), for the disposal of dredged material from harbors and navigation channels in Long Island Sound (LIS) in the states of Connecticut and New York. These disposal site designations were subject to various restrictions designed both to ensure appropriate use of the sites and to support the goal of reducing or eliminating the disposal of dredged material into Long Island Sound. In support of this action, EPA also prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) pursuant to the Agency's voluntary NEPA compliance policy.
        Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), EPA consulted with the New York Department of State (NY DOS) and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) 1
           on the designation of these two sites. NY DOS raised objections as to the consistency of the designations with the enforceable policies of New York's Coastal Management Program. After consulting with both states, as well as with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), EPA negotiated an interim resolution with NY DOS regarding its concerns. Specifically, EPA agreed to include restrictions on the use of the sites in order to meet NY DOS's concerns and provide enhanced assurance that the requirements of the CZMA, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), and NEPA are met.2
           These restrictions were agreed to by both the NY DOS and the CT DEP.

            1 CT DEP has since been renamed and reconfigured as the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (CT DEEP).

            2 EPA held, and continues to hold, the view that the site designations without the additional restrictions would have been consistent with the enforceable policies of New York's CMP. Nevertheless, EPA agreed that the additional site restrictions placed reasonable conditions on when the disposal sites could be used that provided enhanced assurance that the requirements of the CZMA, the MPRSA, and NEPA are met. Moreover, adding these site use restrictions represented a reasonable course of action lying between the alternatives of not designating any disposal sites at all, and designating sites for an indefinite term without the Restrictions. Furthermore, EPA noted that the added site use restrictions arose out of comments submitted by NY DOS and other parties and would be consistent with EPA's environmental analysis and proposed action.

        The restrictions were designed to ensure appropriate use and management of the designated disposal sites and to support the common goal of New York and Connecticut to reduce or eliminate wherever practicable the disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound. To support this goal, the restrictions contemplated that there would be a regional dredged material management plan (DMMP) for Long Island Sound that would help to guide the management of dredged material from projects which occur after completion of the DMMP. DMMPs are comprehensive studies carried out by the USACE, in consultation with the EPA and the affected states, to help manage dredged material in a cost-effective and environmentally acceptable manner.

        The Governors of New York and Connecticut jointly requested the USACE to develop a regional DMMP for Long Island Sound. Consistent with the two states' requests, the 2005 designations contemplated that the DMMP for Long Island Sound would include the identification of alternatives to open-water disposal and the development of procedures and standards for the use of the disposal sites and any practicable alternatives to open-water disposal, so as to reduce or eliminate wherever practicable the open-water disposal of dredged material. The restrictions also included transitional conditions to govern dredged material management during the development of the DMMP, including sunset provisions for the sites if the DMMP was not completed.
        The restrictions also included conditions that specified that use of the sites would be suspended if, (a) within 60 days of the completion of the DMMP, the EPA does not propose legally binding amendments to the regulations for the two disposal sites to incorporate lawful procedures and standards consistent with those recommended in the DMMP for the use of the disposal sites and the use of practicable alternatives to open-water disposal, and (b) within 120 days of completion of the DMMP, and subject to the EPA's consideration of public comments, the EPA does not issue legally binding final amendments adopting such procedures and standards. Any such suspension in the use of the sites would be lifted if and when EPA issued the required final rule.
         II. The Dredged Material Management Plan for Long Island Sound
        On January 11, 2016, the USACE completed the Dredged Material Management Plan for Long Island Sound—Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island. EPA, NOAA, and the states of Connecticut and New York were active participants in the development of the DMMP. These agencies participated on a Steering Committee and other sub-groups to assist the USACE throughout the process. EPA provided feedback to USACE on individual sections of the DMMP as they were developed and on the draft of the complete DMMP.
        The DMMP examines the need for dredging over a 30-year horizon, past dredging history and dredged material placement, and current beneficial use practices. The DMMP covers adjacent waters from which dredged material was likely to originate within the draw area of any proposed regional disposal solution, including Block Island Sound, Little Narragansett Bay, Fishers Island Sound, Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay. A total of nearly 240 harbors, coves, bays and rivers supporting various levels of navigational access are located along these shores.
        The Long Island Sound DMMP estimates a dredging need of 52.9 cubic yards over its 30-year planning horizon. Of this total, about 29 percent is expected to be sand, about 65 percent is expected to be fine-grained materials suitable for open-water placement, and about 6 percent is expected to be unsuitable for open-water placement. The distribution of this material among the three states is as follows: About 74 percent is from Connecticut, 25 percent is from New York and 1 percent from Rhode Island. Of the total volume, about 63 percent is from the USACE Federal Navigation Projects (FNP), 2 percent is from other federal agency projects, and 35 percent is from non-federal dredging activities under permit. The USACE has indicated that budgetary constraints are likely to reduce the dredging volumes from FNPs.
        The DMMP identifies and assesses alternatives for future dredged material placement and beneficial use for each federal project and separable component, and identifies the likely Federal Base Plans (the least cost environmentally acceptable alternative) for future FNP dredging activities. Finally, the DMMP recommends procedures to be followed and standards to be applied in evaluating and recommending dredged material placement options, tracking dredged material placement, pursuing opportunities for alternative and beneficial uses of dredged material in Long Island Sound, and researching and monitoring the impacts of past and future placement activities.
        The DMMP is not a decision document, in that it does not determine the specific dredged material placement solution for any specific Federal Navigation Project activity. It also does not authorize disposal or any other form of management of any particular dredged material. Instead, the DMMP will serve as a framework to help guide future investigations and inform decision-making for federal actions with respect to dredging and dredged material placement. As individual projects come up for their next maintenance cycle, or as feasibility studies for proposed improvement dredging projects are prepared, those studies should reference the evaluations and recommendations in the DMMP in examining placement alternatives and making a final determination as to the Federal Base Plan and appropriate beneficial use opportunities beyond the base plan.
        The DMMP identifies the likely Federal Base Plans for each of the 52 FNPs and sub-projects in the Long Island Sound region that will or may require maintenance dredging of project features during the 30-year planning horizon. Opportunities for federal participation in beneficial use options are also identified along with non-federal responsibilities for study and implementation of the various placement alternatives.
        Identification of the likely Federal Base Plan for a particular federal dredging project is not the same as selecting a placement option for that project, nor does it limit potential federal participation in the project. For each federal project, as it is considered for funding for dredging, the Corps must analyze the available alternatives, other eligible authorities, and the willingness and capability of non-federal cost-sharing partners to participate before recommending any final plan for dredged material placement or beneficial use. Other factors beyond cost can also contribute to decisions on placement options for dredging projects. Ecosystem restoration is recognized as one of the primary missions of the USACE under its planning guidance, and the placement option that is selected for a project should maximize the sum of net economic development and environmental restoration benefits. A beneficial use option may be selected for a project even if it is not the Federal Base Plan for that project.
        In response to the 2005 Rule, and in accordance with the DMMP Project Management Plan (work plan), Section 7 of the DMMP recommends procedures to be followed and standards to be applied in evaluating and recommending dredged material placement options, tracking dredged material placement, pursuing opportunities for alternative and beneficial uses of dredged material in Long Island Sound, and researching and monitoring impacts of past and future placement activities. These recommendations form the basis for EPA's proposed amendments to the 2005 restrictions, as described below.
        III. Standards and Procedures
        Consistent with the 2005 Rule and with the recommendations of the DMMP, EPA is proposing to amend the current restrictions to include standards and procedures for the use of practicable alternatives to open-water disposal, so as to reduce or eliminate wherever practicable the open-water disposal of dredged material.
        A. Standards
        EPA proposes to retain the current restriction at 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(I)(1) which provides that disposal at the sites shall be allowed only if there is no practicable alternative to open-water disposal and that any practicable alternative will be fully utilized for the maximum volume of dredged material practicable. EPA also proposes to retain the first sentence of § 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(I)(2) which recognizes that any alternative to open-water disposal may add additional costs.

        As discussed in the preamble to the 2005 Rule, the decision regarding whether there is a “practicable alternative” will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis, in connection with the permitting process. The term “practicable alternative” is defined in 40 CFR 227.16(b) of the EPA's ocean disposal regulations as an alternative which is, “available at reasonable incremental cost and energy expenditures, [and] which need not be competitive with the costs of ocean dumping, taking into account the environmental benefits derived from such activity, including the relative adverse environmental impacts associated with the use of alternatives to ocean dumping.” This definition is incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(I)(1).
        In addition, 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(I)(2)) in the 2005 Rule emphasizes that the designated sites may not be used whenever a “practicable alternative” is available even when this means reasonable added incremental costs. Under this paragraph and the general ocean dumping regulations, the USACE (the permitting agency) must make the initial determination of whether this test has been met, but the USACE decision is subject to review and possible objection by the EPA. Given that these regulations entail restrictions on an EPA site designation, if the EPA objects to any USACE determination that practicable alternatives are not available, use of the designated sites will be prohibited unless and until the EPA objection is resolved.

        By definition, the requirement that projects use “practicable alternatives” will not impose unreasonably higher costs. Also, if an alternative does not have less adverse environmental impact or potential risk to other parts of the environment than use of the Sound, today's rule will not require that it be used. However, the EPA recognizes that even where use of Long Island Sound has been determined to be environmentally acceptable, there may be alternatives (e.g., those involving beneficial use) that are environmentally preferable to open-water disposal at the designated disposal sites in the Sound. When such preferable alternatives are identified, they will need to be used if they are available at “reasonable incremental cost.”
        The language retained from the 2005 Rule does not attempt to specify in advance how the “reasonable incremental cost” standard will be applied in any particular case. The regulation contemplates a balancing test, and the EPA believes that the determination is best made on a case-by-case basis. The language of the 2005 Rule also does not attempt to specify who will need to pay for any reasonable incremental costs. Rather, the share of such costs (if any) to be borne by private parties, state government, local government, or the federal government also will need to be worked out in response to actual situations. It should be understood, however, that if the use of a practicable alternative is required in the future pursuant to today's proposed rule (and 40 CFR 227.16), and no entity is willing to pay the reasonable incremental costs, then use of the sites will be prohibited for such projects even when this means that planned projects cannot go forward. EPA recognizes that this could result in deferral of maintenance or improvement projects that could impact navigation.
        EPA proposes to add the following standards, derived from the DMMP, for the disposal of dredged material, by type of material, in the amended restrictions for both disposal sites. These proposed amendments do not make decisions about the suitability of any particular dredged material for open-water disposal or any other type of management. Each dredging project will have to go through project-specific permitting evaluations.
        1. Unsuitable Material
        “Unsuitable fine-grained materials” are those determined by physical, chemical and biological testing to be unsuitable for unconfined open-water placement. Accordingly, EPA's proposed rule specifies that unsuitable fine-grained materials shall not be disposed of at the designated sites.
        2. Sandy Material
        “Sandy material” in Long Island Sound is coarse-grained material of generally up to 20 percent fines when used for direct beach placement, or up to 40 percent fines when used for nearshore bar/berm nourishment. Clean sandy material should be used for beach or nearshore bar/berm nourishment whenever practicable. Sandy material has a high value as nourishment or in other coastal resiliency applications, and recent experience is that state and local governments, as well as property owner groups, are willing to fund the additional cost for such material even where there is no other federal project authority to assist in that cost. This is primarily because using dredged sand is typically far less costly than acquiring sand from an upland source. As long as beach or nearshore placement is a practicable alternative, project proponents will need to identify and secure funding for any needed non-federal cost-sharing. Accordingly, the proposed rule specifies that coarse-grained material should be used for beach or nearshore bar/berm nourishment, or other beneficial use whenever practicable.
        3. Suitable Fine-Grained Material
        “Suitable fine-grained material” in Long Island Sound is typically clay and silty material of more than 20 to 40 percent fines that is not suitable for beach or nearshore placement, yet is determined through testing and analysis to be suitable for open-water placement. Although the most likely cost-effective and environmentally acceptable method of placement of this material is at open-water disposal sites, EPA proposes that every proposed project exhaust the possibility for a practicable alternative to open-water disposal. More specifically, for materials dredged from upper river channels in the Connecticut, Housatonic and Thames Rivers, whenever practicable, the one existing Confined Open Water site, and on-shore or in-river placement, should be used for such projects.
        Other beneficial uses, such as marsh creation, should be examined and used whenever practicable. Project proponents should determine if environmental and/or other benefits may offset the incremental project cost sufficiently to warrant federal participation under one or more of the other authorities discussed in Section 6 of the DMMP. EPA anticipates that the opportunities for beneficial use of fine grained materials may increase in the future as sea level rise and related resiliency concerns generate demand for materials to conserve and protect shorelines. As such, the alternatives for fine-grained materials described in the DMMP should be viewed as a current assessment of possible beneficial uses rather than the limit of such possibilities in the future.
        The proposed rule specifies that beneficial uses such as marsh creation, should be examined and used whenever practicable. If no other alternative is determined to be practicable, suitable fine-grained material may be placed at the designated sites.
        4. Source Reduction

        Efforts to control sediment entering waterways can reduce the need for maintenance dredging of harbor features and facilities by reducing shoaling rates. Reducing sediment loads could help reduce the volumes dredged in each maintenance operation as well as reduce the frequency of maintenance. In addition, efforts to prevent introduction of contaminants into the watershed (e.g., multi-sector and municipal stormwater permits, measures to control nonpoint agricultural runoff) can result in reduced contaminant levels in sediments that can increase the range of options available to beneficially use those sediments. Continued source reduction efforts for both sediment and contaminants will assist in further reducing the need for open-water placement of dredged material in Long Island Sound. The EPA expects that federal, state and local agencies tasked with regulating those discharges into the watersheds tributary to Long Island Sound will exercise their authority under various statues and regulations in a continuing effort to reduce the flow of sediments and contaminants into state waterways and harbors.
        B. Procedures
        The restrictions in the 2005 Rule established a Regional Dredging Team (RDT) to identify practicable alternatives to open-water disposal and recommend their use for projects proposed while the DMMP was being prepared. The RDT was effectively used to review six projects while the DMMP was being prepared and the experience of the RDT resulted in some of the recommendations in the DMMP. Consistent with the recommendations in the DMMP, EPA proposes to extend and redefine the role of the RDT to ensure that the Standards described above are utilized in evaluating proposed dredging projects in Long Island Sound.
        EPA proposes to retain the core linkage between the RDT and the USACE project approval process as described in the 2005 Rule (40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)((I) and (I)(1)). Disposal of dredged material at the designated sites shall be allowed only if, after full consideration of recommendations provided by the RDT, the USACE finds (and the EPA does not object to such finding), based on a fully documented analysis, that for a given dredging project there are no practicable alternatives (as defined in 40 CFR 227.16(b)) to open-water disposal in Long Island Sound, or that any available alternative to open-water disposal will be fully utilized for the maximum volume of dredged material practicable.
        EPA proposes to amend the 2005 Rule to make more explicit the RDT's purpose, geographic scope, membership, structure and general process as described below.
        1. Purpose of the Long Island Sound Regional Dredging Team (LIS RDT)
        The primary purpose of the LIS RDT is to reduce or eliminate wherever practicable the open-water disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound. The LIS RDT will accomplish this by reviewing all proposed dredging projects subject to MPRSA (namely all federal projects and non-federal projects that generate greater than 25,000 cubic yards) to assess whether there are practicable alternatives to open-water disposal, by recommending that any available alternative(s) to open-water disposal be utilized for the maximum volume of dredged material practicable, and to provide documented findings and recommendations to USACE on these points so that the USACE and the EPA can consider the LIS RDT's recommendations. The LIS RDT should review the alternatives analysis for all projects submitted to help ensure that available alternatives as described in the DMMP for each harbor and dredging center have been thoroughly evaluated and are implemented where practicable. While the LIS RDT will conduct project reviews and make submissions and recommendations to the USACE, the LIS RDT will not supplant the regulatory obligations or authorities of participant agencies under the MPRSA, CWA, CZMA or other applicable laws.
        Other purposes of the LIS RDT include: Serving as a forum for continuing exploration of new beneficial use alternatives to open-water disposal; promoting the use of such alternatives; and suggesting approaches for cost-sharing opportunities. For example, the LIS RDT could further investigate and develop opportunities for approving and funding long-term regional Confined Disposal Facilities which could accommodate suitable and unsuitable dredged material and provide environmental and social benefits such as parkland and habitat once filled and closed.
        The LIS RDT and its member agencies should also assist USACE and EPA in continuing a number of long term activities to continue the environmentally sound implementation of dredging and dredged material management in Long Island Sound. These activities include supporting USACE's dredged material tracking system, supporting USACE's DAMOS (Disposal Area Monitoring System) program and related efforts to study the long-term impacts of open-water placement, and promoting opportunities for beneficial use of clean, parent marine sediments often generated in the development of CAD cells.
        2. Geographic Scope
        The geographic range of the LIS RDT would be expanded to include all of Long Island Sound and adjacent waters landward of the seaward edge of the territorial sea (three mile limit) or, in other words, from Throgs Neck to a line three miles east of the baseline across western Block Island Sound. These boundaries would encompass all harbors and areas included in the DMMP except Block Island. If any other disposal sites are designated within these boundaries, review of projects proposed to be disposed of at those sites would also be within the RDT's purview.
        3. Membership
        The LIS RDT should include representatives from affected federal and state government organizations. EPA anticipates that federal participation would include EPA Regions 1 & 2; the New England and New York Districts and the North Atlantic Division of the USACE and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. EPA encourages the participation of the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. EPA expects that the states of Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island would be participants through their environmental agencies, coastal zone management programs and relevant port authorities. EPA requests that, to the extent possible, member organizations will provide sufficient funding to enable their active participation in the LIS RDT.
        4. Structure and Process
        EPA proposes that the specific details for structure (e.g., chair, committees, working groups) and process (e.g., how projects come before the LIS RDT, coordination with other entities) be left for the LIS RDT to determine and allowed to evolve as best accomplishes the team's purpose.

        The LIS RDT is encouraged to establish and maintain cooperative working relationships with other Long Island Sound-based organizations (e.g., the Long Island Sound Study's Science and Technical Advisory Committee, non-governmental organizations, relevant university-based programs) so that relevant scientific, program and policy information is effectively shared and resources are leveraged to the maximum extent. The LIS RDT is also encouraged to consider retaining the Technical Working Group as a means of apprising stakeholder groups of the progress being made on beneficial use alternatives and aiding in soliciting public views on new alternatives that may arise.

        Finally, EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(G) to retain only the provision that provides for a party to petition EPA if the party is not satisfied that EPA's 2016 amendments to the rule adopt procedures and standards to reduce or eliminate wherever practicable disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound to the greatest extent practicable, the party may petition the EPA to do a rulemaking to amend the designation to establish different or additional standards. The EPA will act on any such petition within 120 days by either, granting the petition (and proposing a rule change) or denying the petition. Consistent with the 2005 Rule, a party will have the obligation to first petition the EPA prior to filing any court action.
        IV. Compliance With Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

        The dredged material disposal site designation process that culminated in the 2005 Rule was conducted consistent with the requirements of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). See 70 FR 32502 (June 3, 2005).
        EPA has determined that the proposed amendments to the 2005 Rule provide the same or greater protection of water quality and the marine environment and thus are also consistent with the laws noted above, as evaluated for the 2005 Rule. These proposed amendments do not make decisions about the suitability of any particular dredged material for open-water disposal or any other type of management of the material. Specific dredging projects will have to go through project-specific permitting evaluations to make those decisions. The proposed amendments, instead, provide specific standards and procedures that will further the goal of reducing or eliminating open-water disposal of dredged material at the CLDS and WLDS. Furthermore, EPA is not aware of any new information that would alter our prior conclusions that the disposal site designations, as restricted, comply with the MSFCMA, and will continue to do so with the proposed amendments to the 2005 Rule. To the extent that there are recurring requirements or new conditions under some of the applicable laws, the evaluation of the compliance of the proposed amendments with applicable requirements is described below.
        1. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)

        Consistent with MPRSA, EPA, in cooperation with the USACE, published final Site Management and Monitoring Plans for the two disposal sites in 2004, and they went into effect when the sites were designated by the 2005 Rule. Section 102(c)(3)(F) of MPRSA requires that plans be updated no less frequently than every ten years. EPA and USACE initiated revisions in 2015 to the two SMMPs and EPA expects to separately release the updated plans for public comment by March 1, 2016. The draft revised SMMPs will be available at http://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/lisdreg/eis.html.

        2. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
        As stated above, EPA prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement in 2004 (the 2004 FEIS) to support designation of the CLDS and WLDS, which ultimately included the applicable use restrictions set forth in the 2005 Rule. EPA has determined that a Supplemental EIS is not needed for the proposed amendments to the 2005 Rule because the new information that EPA has considered is sufficient to show that proposed amendments will not affect the environment in a significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered.3

           The proposed amendments retain and build on key substantive aspects of the original site use restrictions (see, e.g., 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(A), (B), (G), (J) and (K)). In addition, key aspects of these site use restrictions were themselves built upon various preexisting requirements from EPA's MPRSA regulations (see, e.g., 40 CFR 227.16(b) and 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(J)). While EPA expects the proposed amendments to help foster reductions in the disposal of dredged material at the CLDS and WLDS by clarifying and retaining the application of existing site use restrictions, the environment will not be affected by the amendments in a significant manner, or to a significant extent, that has not already considered.

            3 Recognizing that, as discussed previously, EPA is not legally required to prepare an EIS for a dredged material disposal site designation, but has exercised its discretion to do so under EPA's Voluntary NEPA Policy. (See 63 FR 58045 (Notice of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of National Environmental Policy Act Documents), October 29, 1998).

        For example, unsuitable dredged material (i.e., material that does not satisfy the sediment quality criteria in EPA's MPRSA regulations) could not be disposed of in Long Island Sound even before the 2005 Rule. This was specified in the 2005 Rule (see 40 CFR 228.15(b)(4)(vi)(J)), and this specification would be retained in the new amendments. As another example, under the regulations prior to the 2005 Rule, dredged material consisting of clean (i.e., suitable) sand should not have been disposed of in Long Island Sound when a practicable upland management alternative, such as a beach nourishment site or near shore placement, was available for the material. This remained the case under the 2005 Rule and will continue to be the case under the proposed amendments. Moreover, the likelihood of identifying practicable alternatives for dredged material should be greater given (1) the enhanced procedures involving the RDT that were created for the 2005 Rule and will be retained and strengthened in the proposed amendments, and (2) the additional information concerning beneficial use options and management methods presented in the DMMP. At the same time, of course, the proposed amendments do not address any specific dredging projects, and the regulatory review of such projects will occur on a project-specific basis.
        In addition, the DMMP and the standards and procedures it recommends have been evaluated under NEPA. The USACE prepared a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the LIS DMMP that also was completed on January 11, 2016. Throughout the NEPA process, EPA served as a cooperating agency. (See 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5.) For the Final PEIS, the USACE made adjustments to the Draft PEIS in response to comments provided by EPA. The Final PEIS, among other things, evaluates available or potentially developable dredged material management alternatives in the LIS DMMP, including those contemplated by the proposed amendment for the CLDS and WLDS, such as, open-water placement, confined aquatic disposal; coastal, nearshore, and upland beneficial use; and landfill placement. Accordingly, EPA hereby adopts the Final PEIS as part of the record for this proposed rule amendment pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.3. As stated previously, because the proposed amendment does not, by itself, authorize the disposal of dredged material from a particular project at either site, appropriate additional NEPA analysis will be performed during the permitting process for individual projects.
        3. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

        Under the CZMA, EPA, like any other federal agency, is required to provide relevant states with a determination that any activity it proposes that could affect the uses or natural resources of a state's coastal zone is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the state's coastal zone management program. EPA has determined that the proposed amendments to the 2005 Rule are consistent with the enforceable policies of the coastal zone management programs of Connecticut and New York. EPA has provided each state with a written determination to this effect. EPA be will consulting with each state's coastal zone management program prior to final rulemaking, and the final determinations will be included in the record.
        4. Endangered Species Act
        Since the 2005 Rule, the National Marine Fishery Service has listed the Atlantic sturgeon as an endangered species under the ESA. Parts of Long Island Sound are among the distinct population segments listed as endangered by NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 2012. Consistent with ESA, EPA has initiated consultation with NMFS on this rulemaking action. The consultation includes EPA's review of the Site Management and Monitoring Plans (SMMPs) for the two disposal sites as described below.
        V. Proposed Action
        EPA is publishing this Proposed Rule to amend the restrictions on the use of the CLDS and WLDS. This action is consistent with a number of the restrictions contained in the original designation of these sites in 2005. Some of those restrictions required the completion of a Dredged Materials Management Plan that would identify procedures and standards for reducing or eliminating the disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound. Since the DMMP has been completed, EPA is proposing to remove the restrictions related to its development. The original restrictions further require EPA to propose, within 60 days of completion of the DMMP, amendments to the restrictions to incorporate procedures and standards consistent with those recommended in the DMMP for reducing or eliminating the disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound. Today's proposal is intended to satisfy that requirement.
        VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
        This action is not a significant regulatory action, as defined in the Executive Order, and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
        2. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
        This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because it would not require persons to obtain, maintain, retain, report or publicly disclose information to or for a federal agency.
        3. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

        This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The amended restrictions in this proposed rule are only relevant for dredged material disposal projects subject to the MPRSA. Non-federal projects involving 25,000 cubic yards or less of material are not subject to the MPRSA and, instead, are regulated under CWA section 404. This action will, therefore, have no effect on such projects. “Small entities” under the RFA are most likely to be involved with smaller projects not covered by the MPRSA. Therefore, EPA does not believe a substantial number of small entities will be affected by today's rule. Furthermore, the proposed amendments to the restrictions also will not have significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities because they primarily will create requirements to be followed by regulatory agencies rather than small entities, and will create requirements (i.e., the standards and procedures) intended to help ensure that the existing regulatory requirement (see 40 CFR 227.16) that practicable alternatives to the ocean dumping of dredged material be utilized.
        4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
        This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
        5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
        6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 because the proposed restrictions will not have substantial direct effects on Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian Tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian Tribes. EPA consulted with the affected Indian tribes in making this determination.
        7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
        This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
        8. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
        This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
        This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
        10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
        The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations.
        11. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas

        Executive Order 13158 (65 FR 34909, May 31, 2000) requires EPA to “expeditiously propose new science-based regulations, as necessary, to ensure appropriate levels of protection for the marine environment.” EPA may take action to enhance or expand protection of existing marine protected areas and to establish or recommend, as appropriate, new marine protected areas. The purpose of the Executive Order is to protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment, which means, “those areas of coastal and ocean waters, the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, and submerged lands thereunder, over which the United States exercises jurisdiction, consistent with international law.”
        The EPA expects that this proposed rule will afford additional protection to the waters of Long Island Sound and organisms that inhabit them. Building on the existing protections of the MPRSA and the ocean dumping regulations, the proposed regulatory amendments are designed to promote the reduction of open-water disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound.
        12. Executive Order 13547: Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes
        Section 6(a)(i) of Executive Order 13547, (75 FR 43023, July 19, 2010) requires, among other things, that EPA and certain other agencies “. . . to the fullest extent consistent with applicable law [to] . . . take such action as necessary to implement the policy set forth in section 2 of this order and the stewardship principles and national priority objectives as set forth in the Final Recommendations and subsequent guidance from the Council.” The policies in section 2 of Executive Order 13547 include, among other things, the following: “. . . it is the policy of the United States to: (i) Protect, maintain, and restore the health and biological diversity of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources; (ii) improve the resiliency of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, communities, and economies. . . .” As with Executive Order 13158 (Marine Protected Areas), the overall purpose of the Executive Order is to promote protection of ocean and coastal environmental resources.
        The EPA expects that this proposed rule will afford additional protection to the waters of Long Island Sound and organisms that inhabit them. Building on the existing protections of the MPRSA and the ocean dumping regulations, the proposed regulatory amendments are designed to promote the reduction or elimination of open-water disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228
          Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

          Dated: February 1, 2016.
          H. Curtis Spalding,
          Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1-New England.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as set forth below.

          PART 228—CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN DUMPING

        1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. Section 228.15(b) is amended by:
        a. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) introductory text and (b)(4)(i) and (v) and (b)(4)(vi) introductory text;
        b. Removing paragraphs (b)(4)(vi)(C) through (F);
        c. Adding new paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(D);
        d. Adding new paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(E);
        e. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(G) as (b)(4)(vi)(F) and revising it;
        f. Removing paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(H);
        g. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(I) as (b)(4)(vi)(C) and revising it;
        h. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(J) through (L) as (b)(4)(vi)(G) through (I), respectively;
        i. Removing paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(M);
        j. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(N) as (b)(4)(vi)(J); and
        k. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) introductory text and (b)(5)(v).
        The revisions and additions read as follows:

          § 228.15
          Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

          (b) * * *
          (4) Central Long Island Sound Dredged Material Disposal Site (CLDS).
          (i) Location: Corner Coordinates (NAD 1983) 41°9.5′ N., 72°54.4′ W.; 41°9.5′ N., 72°51.5′ W.; 41°08.4′ N., 72°54.4′ W.; 41°08.4′ N., 72°51.5′ W.

          (v) Period of use: Continuing use.
          (vi) Restrictions: The designation in this paragraph (b)(4) sets forth conditions for the use of Central Long Island Sound (CLDS) and Western Long Island Sound (WLDS) Dredged Material Disposal Sites. These conditions apply to all disposal subject to the MPRSA, namely, all federal projects and nonfederal projects greater than 25,000 cubic yards. All references to “permittees” shall be deemed to include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) when it is authorizing its own dredged material disposal from a USACE dredging project. The conditions for this designation are as follows:

          (C) Disposal of dredged material at the designated sites pursuant to the designation in this paragraph (b)(4) shall be allowed only if, after full consideration of recommendations provided by the Long Island Sound Regional Dredging Team (LIS RDT), the USACE finds (and the EPA does not object to such finding), based on a fully documented analysis, that for a given dredging project:
          (1) There are no practicable alternatives (as defined in 40 CFR 227.16(b)) to open-water disposal in Long Island Sound. Any available practicable alternative to open-water disposal will be fully utilized for the maximum volume of dredged material practicable;
          (2) Determinations relating to paragraph (b)(4)(vi)(C)(1) of this section will recognize that any alternative to open-water disposal may add additional costs. Disposal of dredged material at the designated sites pursuant to this paragraph (b)(4) shall not be allowed to the extent that a practicable alternative is available.
          (3) The following standards for different dredged material types have been appropriately considered:
          (i) Unsuitable material. Any materials proposed for dredging that have been determined by physical, chemical and biological testing to be unsuitable for open-water placement shall not be disposed of at the designated sites.
          (ii) Suitable sandy material. Coarse-grained material, which generally may include up to 20 percent fines when used for direct beach placement, or up to 40 percent fines when used for nearshore bar/berm nourishment, should be used for beach or nearshore bar/berm nourishment or other beneficial use whenever practicable.
          (iii) Suitable fine-grained material. This material has typically greater than 20 to 40 percent fine content and, therefore, is not typically considered appropriate for beach or nearshore placement, but has been determined to be suitable for open-water placement by testing and analysis. Materials dredged from upper river channels in the Connecticut, Housatonic and Thames Rivers, whenever possible, should be disposed of at existing Confined Open Water sites, on-shore or through in-river placement. Other beneficial uses such as marsh creation, should be examined and used whenever practicable. If no other alternative is determined to be practicable, suitable fine-grained material may be placed at the designated sites.

          (D) Source reduction. Efforts to control sediment entering waterways can reduce the need for maintenance dredging of harbor features and facilities by reducing shoaling rates. Federal, state and local agencies tasked with regulating discharges into the watershed should continue to exercise their authorities under various statues and regulations in a continuing effort to reduce the flow of sediments into state waterways and harbors.
          (E) The goal of the Long Island Sound Regional Dredging Team (LIS RDT) is to reduce or eliminate wherever practicable the open-water disposal of dredged material. The LIS RDT's purpose, geographic scope, membership, organization and procedures are provided as follows:
          (1) Purpose. The LIS RDT's primary purpose is to conduct the review of dredging projects and make recommendations as described in paragraph (vi)(C) above. The LIS RDT shall also: Serve as a forum for continuing exploration of new beneficial use alternatives to open-water disposal; promote the use of such alternatives; and suggest approaches for cost-sharing opportunities. The LIS RDT and its member agencies should also assist USACE and EPA in continuing long term activities intended to track disposal of dredged material and monitor dredging impacts in Long Island Sound. These activities include supporting USACE's dredged material tracking system, supporting USACE's DAMOS (Disposal Area Monitoring System) program and related efforts to study the long-term impacts of open-water placement, and promoting opportunities for beneficial use of clean, parent marine sediments often generated in the development of CAD cells.
          (2) Geographic scope. The geographic scope of the LIS RDT includes all of Long Island Sound and adjacent waters landward of the seaward boundary of the territorial sea (three-mile limit) or, in other words, from Throgs Neck to a line three miles seaward of the baseline across western Block Island Sound.
          (3) Membership. The LIS RDT shall be comprised of representatives from affected federal and state government organizations.
          (4) Organization and procedures. Specific details regarding structure (e.g., chair, committees, working groups) and process shall be determined by the RDT and may be revised as necessary to best accomplish the team's purpose.
          (F) If any party is not satisfied that EPA's 2016 amendments to this rule adopt procedures and standards to reduce or eliminate wherever practicable disposal of dredged material in Long Island Sound to the greatest extent practicable, the party may petition the EPA to do a rulemaking to amend the designation to establish different or additional procedures and standards. The EPA will act on any such petition within 120 days by either, granting the petition (and proposing a rule change) or denying the petition.
          (5) Western Long Island Sound Dredged Material Disposal Site (WLDS).

          (v) Period of use: Continuing use.

      [FR Doc. 2016-02585 Filed 2-9-16; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 07-3559; MB Docket No. 07-164; RM-11386]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Peach Springs, Arizona

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Smoke and Mirrors LLC, requesting the substitution Channel 268C3 for vacant Channel 285C3 at Peach Springs, Arizona, and to amend the reference coordinates for that allotment. Channel 268C3 can be allotted at reference coordinates 35-29-35 NL and 113-35-17 WL.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before October 1, 2007, and reply comments on or before October 16, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel as follows: Robert L. Olender, Esq., Koerner & Olender, P.C., 11913 Grey Hollow Court, North Bethesda, Maryland 20852.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 418-7072.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 07-164, adopted August 8, 2007, and released August 10, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or www.BCPIWEB.com.

        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 l980 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
          Radio, Radio 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.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Arizona is amended by removing Channel 285C3 and adding Channel 268C3 at Peach Springs.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

       [FR Doc. E7-17014 Filed 8-28-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P