Animal Feeding Operations Air Compliance Agreement Signup Period Extended Contact: Stacie Keller, 202 564 4355 / keller. stacie@ epa. gov ( 06/ 23/ 05) EPA is extending the deadline for the Animal Feeding Operations ( AFO) Air Compliance Agreement signup period to July 29, 2005, in order to provide more time for the AFOs operators to make informed decisions about participation. The deadline for operators to sign the agreement was previously extended to July 1, but will now close on July 29. The agency has not changed the agreement since it was published in the Federal Register Jan. 31, 2005.

The extension notice will be published in the Federal Register this month. For information about how to sign up, go to: http:// www. epa. gov/ compliance/ resources/ agreements/ caa/ cafo agrhowtosignup html The agreement is part of the agency's ongoing effort to minimize air emissions from AFOs and to ensure that they comply with the Clean Air Act and other laws. The period for public comment on the agreement ended May 2, 2005. To view public comments and EPA responses, go to: http:// www. epa. gov/ compliance/ resources/ agreements/ caa/ cafo agr response com. html The primary goals of the Air Quality Compliance Agreement with AFOs are to reduce air pollution, ensure compliance with applicable Clean Air Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ( CERCLA) and Environmental Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA) provisions, monitor and evaluate AFOs emissions, and promote a national consensus on methods for estimating emissions from AFOs. For more information on the agreement, go to: http:// www. epa. gov/ compliance/ resources/ agreements/ caa/ cafo agr 0501. html Release date: 06/ 23/ 2005


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53219-53221]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21670]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75768; File No. SR-NSCC-2015-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Enhance NSCC's
Margining Methodology as Applied to Family-Issued Securities of Certain
NSCC Members

August 27, 2015.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on August 14, 2015, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by NSCC.\3\ NSCC filed
the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(2) \4\ of the Act.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ On August 14, 2015, NSCC filed this proposed rule change as
an advance notice (SR-NSCC-2015-803) with the Commission pursuant to
section 806(e)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act''), 12 U.S.C.
5465(e)(1), and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) of the Act, 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(n)(1)(i). A copy of the advance notice is available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to NSCC's Rules &
Procedures (``Rules'') in order to enhance NSCC's margining methodology
as applied to family-issued securities of NSCC Members \5\ that are
placed on NSCC's ``Watch List'', i.e., those Members who present a
heightened credit risk to NSCC or have demonstrated higher risk related
to their ability to meet settlement, as more fully described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Terms not defined herein are defined in the Rules, available
at http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed

rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    As a central counterparty, NSCC occupies an important role in the
securities settlement system by interposing itself between
counterparties to financial transactions and thereby reducing the risk
faced by participants and contributing to global financial stability.
The effectiveness of a central counterparty's risk controls and the
adequacy of its financial resources are critical to achieving these
risk-reducing goals. In that context, NSCC continuously reviews its
margining methodology in order to ensure the reliability of its
margining in achieving the desired coverage. In order to be most
effective, NSCC must take into consideration the risk characteristics
specific to certain securities when margining those securities.
    Among the various risks that NSCC considers when evaluating the
effectiveness of its margining methodology are its counterparty risks
and identification and mitigation of ``wrong-way'' risk, particularly
specific wrong-way risk, defined as the risk that an exposure to a
counterparty is highly likely to increase when the creditworthiness of
that counterparty deteriorates.\6\ NSCC has identified an exposure to
wrong-way risk when it acts as central counterparty to a Member with
respect to positions in securities that are issued by that Member or
that Member's affiliate. These positions are referred to as ``family-
issued securities.'' In the event that a Member with unsettled long
positions in family-issued securities defaults, NSCC would close out
those positions following a likely drop in the credit-worthiness of the
issuer, possibly resulting in a loss to NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Principles for financial market infrastructures, issued
by the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems and the Technical
Committee of the International Organization of Securities
Commissions 47 n.65 (April 2012), available at http://www.bis.org/publ/cpss101a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC is proposing to address its exposure to this type of wrong-way
risk in two steps. First, NSCC proposes in this filing to enhance its
margin methodology as applied to the family-issued securities of its
Members that are on its Watch List \7\ by excluding these securities
from the volatility component, or ``VaR'' charge, and then charging an
amount calculated by multiplying the absolute value of the long net
unsettled positions in that Member's family-issued securities by a
percentage that is no less than 40%. The haircut rate to be charged
would be determined based on the Member's rating on the credit risk
rating matrix and the type of family-issued security submitted to NSCC.
Fixed income securities that are family-issued securities would be
charged a haircut rate of no less than 80% for firms that are rated 6
or 7 on the credit risk rating matrix, and no less than 40% for firms
that are rated 5 on the credit risk rating matrix; and equity
securities that are family-issued securities would be charged a haircut
rate of 100% for firms that are rated 6 or 7 on the credit risk rating
matrix, and no less than 50% for firms that are rated 5 on the credit
risk rating matrix. NSCC would have the authority to adjust these
haircut rates from time to time within these parameters as described in
Procedure XV of NSCC's Rules without filing a proposed rule change with
the Commission pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\8\ and the
rules thereunder, or an advance notice with the Commission pursuant to
section 806(e)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act,\9\ and the rules
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As part of its ongoing monitoring of its membership, NSCC
utilizes an internal credit risk rating matrix to rate its risk
exposures to its Members based on a scale from 1 (the strongest) to
7 (the weakest). Members that fall within the higher risk rating
categories (i.e. 5, 6, and 7) are considered on NSCC's ``Watch
List'', and may be subject to enhanced surveillance or additional
margin charges, as permitted under NSCC's Rules. See Section 4 of
Rule 2B and section I(B)(1) of Procedure XV of NSCC's Rules, supra
Note 5.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \9\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because NSCC Members that are on its Watch List present a
heightened credit risk to the clearing agency or have demonstrated
higher risk related to their ability to meet settlement, NSCC believes
that this charge would more effectively capture the risk
characteristics of these positions and can help mitigate NSCC's
exposure to wrong-way risk. NSCC proposes to amend section I(B)(1) of
Procedure XV of its Rules, as marked on Exhibit 5 hereto,\10\ to
enhance its margining methodology as described herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Commission notes that Exhibit 5 is attached to the
filing, not to this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, NSCC will continue to evaluate its exposures to wrong-way
risk, specifically wrong-way risk presented by family-issued
securities, including by reviewing the impact of expanding the
application of the proposed margining methodology to the family-issued
securities of those Members that are not on the Watch List. NSCC is
proposing to apply the enhanced margining methodology to the family-
issued securities of Members that are on the Watch List at this time
because, as stated above, these Members present a heightened credit
risk to the clearing agency or have demonstrated higher risk related to
their ability to meet settlement. As such, there is a clear and more
urgent need to address NSCC's exposure to wrong-way risk presented by
these firms' family-issued securities.
    However, any future change to the margining methodology as applied
to the family-issued securities of Members that are not on the Watch
List would be subject to a separate proposed rule change pursuant to
section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\11\ and the rules thereunder, and an
advance notice pursuant to section 806(e)(1) of the Clearing
Supervision Act,\12\ and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \12\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Implementation Timeframe. Subject to Commission approval of this
proposed rule change, Members would be advised of the implementation
date through issuance of an NSCC Important Notice. NSCC expects to run
these changes in a test environment for a three month parallel period
prior to implementation. Details and dates regarding this test would be
communicated to Members through an NSCC Important Notice. As stated
above, NSCC will conduct additional analysis of its exposure to wrong-
way risk, and, following implementation of this proposed rule change,
will engage in outreach to its membership when evaluating whether to
expand the application of the proposed enhanced margining methodology
to Members not on its Watch List.
2. Statutory Basis
    Pursuant to section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, NSCC's Rules must be
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions.\13\ Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1), promulgated under the
Act, requires NSCC to measure its credit exposures to its participants
at least once a day and limit its exposures to potential losses from
defaults by its participants under

normal market conditions so that the operations of the clearing agency
would not be disrupted and non-defaulting participants would not be
exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate or control.\14\ Rule
17Ad-22(b)(2), promulgated under the Act, requires NSCC to use risk-
based models for setting margin requirements.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 5 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By enhancing the margin methodology as applied to the family-issued
securities of its Members that are on its Watch List, the proposed rule
change would assist NSCC in collecting margin that more accurately
reflects the risk characteristics of these securities, thereby limiting
NSCC's exposures to potential losses from defaults by these Members
under normal market conditions. By more closely capturing the risk
characteristics of these positions, the proposed enhancement to the
margining methodology would also assist NSCC in its continuous efforts
to ensure the reliability and effectiveness of its risk-based margining
methodology. In this way, the proposed rule change would help NSCC, as
a central counterparty, maintain effective risk controls, contributing
to the goal of maintaining financial stability in the event of a Member
default.
    Therefore, NSCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder applicable to NSCC, in particular section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act and Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) and (2), promulgated
under the Act, cited above.

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change may impose a burden on competition by
applying the enhanced margining methodology only to NSCC Members on
NSCC's Watch List. However, NSCC believes any related burden on
competition would be necessary and appropriate, as permitted by section
17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act for a number of reasons.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 5 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, while NSCC will continue to review its exposures to wrong-
way risk and will consider expanding the application of the proposed
margining methodology to additional Members, NSCC has determined to
initially limit the applicability of the proposed rule change to
Members on its Watch List because those Members present a heightened
credit risk to the clearing agency or have demonstrated a higher risk
in their ability to meet settlement. Second, by limiting NSCC's
exposures to losses that it may face in clearing family-issued
securities of such Members, the proposed rule change would contribute
to the goal of maintaining financial stability in the event of the
default of a Member on the Watch List, which would help facilitate the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
and protect investors and the public interest, in furtherance of the
requirements of the Act applicable to NSCC, as discussed above.
    As such, NSCC believes any burden on competition resulting from the
proposed rule change would be both necessary and appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, in particular section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act and Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) and (2), promulgated
under the Act, cited above.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    In November 2013, NSCC engaged in outreach to its Members by
providing those Members with a description of the proposed rule change
and the results of an impact study showing the potential impact of this
proposal on Members' Clearing Fund required deposits. NSCC did not
receive any written comments relating to this proposed rule change in
response to this outreach. NSCC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by NSCC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such a proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2015-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2015-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on
DTCC's Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2015-003 and should be
submitted on or before September 23, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21670 Filed 9-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44369-44375]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20326]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[EPA-R01-OW-2017-0528; FRL-9967-82-Region 1]

Ocean Disposal; Temporary Modification of an Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site in Massachusetts Bay

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a temporary modification of the currently-designated
Massachusetts Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site (MBDS) pursuant to the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA).
The purpose of this temporary site modification is to allow for the
environmental restoration of a particular area adjacent to the
currently-designated MBDS (Potential Restoration Area) by temporarily
expanding the boundaries of the existing MBDS. The temporary expansion
is a circular area that contains the Potential Restoration Area, which
includes most of the historic Industrial Waste Site (IWS). Decades ago,
the IWS was used for the disposal of barrels containing industrial,
chemical and radioactive waste, as well as for the disposal of
munitions, ordnance, construction equipment, and contaminated dredged
material. The proposed modification of the disposal site boundary will
enable the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to place suitable
dredged material from Boston Harbor generated during the Deep Draft
Navigation Project at the Potential Restoration Area in order to cover
the barrels and other wastes disposed there in the past. The Deep Draft
Navigation Project includes maintenance dredging in the inner harbor,
which includes the expansion of a confined aquatic disposal (CAD) cell
and will generate approximately 1 million cubic yards (cy) of dredged
material, as well as improvement dredging of the main ship channel,
which will generate approximately 11 million cy of dredged material.
The existing MBDS will continue to be used for disposal of other
dredging projects as usual. The expansion area would be permanently

closed upon completion of the Boston Harbor maintenance and improvement
projects, while the existing MBDS will remain open for the disposal of
suitable dredged material. Like the MBDS, however, the expansion would
be subject to ongoing monitoring and management to ensure continued
protection of the marine environment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OW-2017-0528, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: Publically available docket materials are available either
electronically at regulations.gov or on the EPA Region 1 Ocean Dumping
Web page at https://www.epa.gov/ocean-dumping/managing-ocean-dumping-epa-region-1. They are also available in hard copy during normal
business hours at the EPA Region 1 Library, 5 Post Office Square,
Boston, MA 02109.
    The supporting document for this site modification is the Draft
Environmental Assessment on the Expansion of the Massachusetts Bay
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS), September 2017, which was
prepared by EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alicia Grimaldi, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail
Code: OEP 6-1, Boston, MA 02109; telephone--(617) 918-1806; fax--(617)
918-0806; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Potentially Affected Persons

    The expansion of the MBDS is a temporary modification made in order
to improve environmental conditions at the Potential Restoration Area
by allowing suitable dredged material from the USACE Boston Harbor
maintenance and improvement projects only to be placed over wastes
dumped in the past at the historic IWS. Therefore, the persons
potentially affected by this action would be limited to the USACE, who
are responsible for the Boston Harbor Deep Draft Navigation Project and
the disposal of dredged material into ocean waters under MPRSA. The
existing MBDS will continue to be used for the disposal of dredged
material suitable for ocean disposal pursuant to the MPRSA.

II. Background

A. History of Disposal Sites in Massachusetts Bay

    The IWS is a disposal site in Massachusetts Bay approximately 20
nautical miles (nmi) east of Boston that was used in the past for
disposal of a variety of wastes that would not be permitted for
disposal today. The IWS is a circular cite with a center of
42[deg]25.7' N., 70[deg]35.0' W. and a radius of 1 nmi. It is believed
that disposal of derelict vessels, construction debris, commercial
waste, and dredged material at the area may have begun as early as the
early 1900s. There are records dating back to the 1940s for the
disposal of radioactive, chemical and hospital waste, ordnance,
munitions, etc. Use of the IWS was discontinued in 1977 and the site
was officially de-designated in 1990 (55 FR 3688). From 1977 through
1993, there was an Interim Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site for dredged
material disposal with a center 1 nmi east of the IWS at 42[deg]25.7'
N., 70[deg]34.0' W. and a radius of 1 nmi. In 1993, the existing MBDS
was designated by EPA with a center at 42[deg]25.1' N., 70[deg]35.0' W.
and a radius of 1 nmi, an area of 3.14 nmi\2\, and depth ranges from 82
to 92 m. The MBDS overlaps the IWS to the south, but avoids the known
densest concentration of barrels, also known as the barrel field. The
MBDS is used solely for the disposal of dredged material, primarily
from Boston Harbor.
    The USACE will begin the Boston Harbor maintenance and improvement
dredging projects in the fall of 2017. The project is expected to
generate approximately 12 million cubic yards of dredged material
consisting primarily of Boston blue clay. EPA and USACE are proposing
to use this dredged material beneficially by covering the area in and
around the historic IWS barrel field. This will be accomplished
utilizing a method of disposal developed and tested by the USACE, which
is designed to prevent direct impact of sediment onto waste containers,
which could potentially break them or cause the resuspension of
potentially contaminated sediment on the seafloor.
    Before any entity can dispose of dredged material at the MBDS, EPA
and the USACE must evaluate the project according to the ocean dumping
regulatory criteria (40 CFR 227) and determine whether to authorize the
disposal. EPA independently evaluates proposed disposal projects and
has the right to restrict and/or reject the disposal of dredged
material if it determines that the environmental protection
requirements under the MPRSA have not been met. This proposed
modification to the MBDS site boundaries does not constitute an
approval by EPA or USACE for open water disposal of dredged material
from any specific project.

B. Location and Configuration of Modified Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site

    EPA proposes the temporary expansion of the MBDS boundaries to
include the Potential Restoration Area, which encompasses the IWS
barrel field. The expansion will be temporary, opening upon the
effective date of the Final Rule and closing upon completion of the
Boston Harbor maintenance and improvement dredging projects. The
temporarily expanded site will consist of two overlapping circles:

 Center 1--42[deg]25.1' N., 70[deg]35.0' W., 1 nautical mile
radius (existing MBDS)
 Center 2--42[deg]26.417' N., 70[deg]35.373' W., 0.75 nautical
mile radius (temporary expansion)

    The area of the temporarily modified MBDS is 4.60 nmi\2\ and the
western edge is approximately 19 nmi east of Boston. Water depths at
the modified site range from 70 to 91m. Like the existing MBDS, the
modified MBDS will not overlap, and is not expected to impact, the
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS).

C. Management and Monitoring of the Site

    Under the proposal, there would be two distinct areas of the
modified MBDS: The existing MBDS and the temporary expansion. The
existing MBDS will continue to be utilized as a dredged material
disposal site for those projects generating dredged material suitable
for open water disposal under the MPRSA. The temporary expansion will
solely be used for the disposal of

suitable material generated during the Boston Harbor maintenance and
improvement dredging projects. Disposal of dredged material in both the
existing MBDS and temporary expansion would be required to abide by the
Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the MBDS. The SMMP
includes management and monitoring requirements to ensure that the any
dredged material placed at the sites is suitable for ocean disposal and
that the adverse impacts of disposal, if any, are addressed to the
maximum extent practicable. The SMMP for the MBDS includes restrictions
on time-of-year for disposal and disposal vessel speeds, requirements
for the presence of a marine mammal observer for each disposal event,
and other guidelines to minimize any potential conflicts with
threatened or endangered species.

D. MPRSA Criteria

    EPA has assessed the proposed temporary modification to the MBDS
according to the criteria of the MPRSA, with particular emphasis on the
general and specific regulatory criteria of 40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6, to
determine whether the proposed site modification satisfied those
criteria. The Draft Environmental Assessment of the Expansion of the
Massachusetts Bay Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) provides
an extensive evaluation of the site selection criteria and other
related factors considered in deciding to propose the modification of
the MBDS.
1. General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)
    (a) The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only
at sites or in areas selected to minimize the interference of disposal
activities with other activities in the marine environment,
particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shellfisheries,
and regions of heavy commercial or recreational navigation.
    Since it's designation in 1993, disposal at the MBDS has not
interfered with other activities in the marine environment. It is
anticipated that this will also be the case for the temporarily
modified MBDS. The IWS has been closed by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) since 1980 to the harvesting of surf clams and ocean quahogs.
There is also a warning from NOAA and the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) on all nautical charts against harvesting fish and shellfish in
the area. The expanded MBDS area has low recreational boater density
and does not overlap with the shipping lanes into and out of Boston
Harbor.
    (b) Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen
that temporary perturbations in water quality or other environmental
conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal operations anywhere
within the site can be expected to be reduced to normal ambient
seawater levels or to undetectable contaminant concentrations or
effects before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or
known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery.
    The modified MBDS will be used only for dredged material suitable
for ocean disposal under the MPRSA. USACE also models disposal projects
to evaluate their potential to violate water quality standards. The
nearest shoreline to the modified MBDS is approximately 8 nmi to the
north. The prevailing current is not expected to transport dredged
material to surrounding beaches or shores. Temporary changes caused by
the physical movement of sediment through the water column will be
reduced to ambient conditions before reaching any environmentally
sensitive area. SBNMS is immediately east of the site, but a steep
bathymetric rise between the two features provides containment of
dredged material in the deeper area containing the modified MBDS, known
as Stellwagen Basin. There are no known geographically-limited
fisheries or shellfisheries in the project area.
    (d) The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts
and permit the implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance
programs to prevent adverse long-range impacts. The size,
configuration, and location of any disposal site will be determined as
a part of the disposal site evaluation or designation study.
    The size and configuration of the temporarily modified MBDS is
specifically designed to allow for the IWS barrel field to be covered
by suitable dredged material generated during the USACE Boston Harbor
maintenance and improvement projects. The MBDS area has been monitored
under the USACE Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) program since
the late 1970s. Monitoring will continue at the MBDS and temporary
expansion to prevent adverse long-range impacts.
    (e) EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites that have
been historically used.
    The continental shelf is over 220 nmi east of Boston. Therefore,
transporting material to, and performing long-term monitoring at, a
site located off the continental shelf is not economically or
operationally feasible. The project area has been used for ocean
disposal since at least the early 1900s.
2. Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6(a))
    (1) Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography and
distance from coast.
    The temporarily expanded MBDS is located in an area of
Massachusetts Bay known as Stellwagen Basin and is approximately 8 nmi
from the nearest coastline in Gloucester, MA. The depth of the
temporarily expanded site ranges from 70-91 meters. The seafloor in the
area is primarily flat and primarily made up of silt and clay. There
are two glacial knolls included within the boundaries of the temporary
expansion, both roughly 20 m high. These knolls are not included in the
Potential Restoration Area and, therefore, no disposal will take place
on them.
    (2) Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding,
or passage areas of living resources in adult or juvenile phases.
    The MBDS area contains Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for various
fish species, and certain threatened and endangered species of whale
and sea turtle have been sighted in the vicinity of the MBDS.
Furthermore, the entirety of Massachusetts Bay, and most of the larger
Gulf of Maine, are designated as a critical foraging habitat for the
North Atlantic Right Whale by NMFS. At the same time, NMFS has
previously determined that dredged material disposal at the MBDS would
not impact any of these species and restrictions are in place to ensure
their safety, including vessel speed and disposal time-of-year
limitations and the requirement that marine mammal observers accompany
the USACE on vessels during disposal operations. Furthermore, any risk
of contaminants entering the food web is expected to be minimized by
the covering of the IWS barrel field.
    (3) Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas.
    The closest beach to the temporarily expanded MBDS is 10 nmi away.
The SBNMS is just east of the MBDS. Past dredged material disposal has
not impacted the SBNMS and no impact to the SBNMS is expected with the
temporary expansion of the MBDS.
    (4) Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of, and
proposed methods of release, including methods of packing the waste, if
any.

    The MBDS is only to be used for the disposal of dredged material
that is suitable for ocean disposal under the MPRSA. The temporary
expansion of the MBDS will only be used for suitable dredged material
generated during the USACE Boston Harbor maintenance and navigation
projects. Disposal within the temporary expansion will utilize a berm-
building technique devised by the USACE in order to minimize the risk
of barrel breakage or resuspension of potentially contaminated seafloor
sediment.
    (5) Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
    The MBDS is monitored through the DAMOS program under the guidance
of the SMMP. Disposal is also monitored through the National Dredging
Quality Management Program to confirm accurate placement of dredged
material. The area of temporary expansion will be included in the
monitoring of the MBDS under the DAMOS program from the time of first
disposal for as long as MBDS monitoring continues.
    (6) Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing
characteristics of the area, including prevailing current direction and
velocity, if any.
    Current velocities range from 0-30 cm/s in the MBDS area. Currents
are influenced by tides in a rotational manner, but net water movement
is to the southeast. Regional dredged material is primarily made up of
fine sand, silt, and clay. Dredged material generated during the USACE
Boston Harbor maintenance and improvement projects is primarily Boston
blue clay, which is cohesive and, therefore, settles rapidly. Minimal
horizontal mixing or vertical stratification of dredged material
occurs, resulting in low suspended sediment concentrations. Previous
modeling of initial disposal indicates no adverse impacts in the water
column or violations of water quality criteria. Previous studies have
demonstrated the relative immobility of dredged material at the MBDS.
Storms with the potential to cause sediment resuspension are rare in
Massachusetts Bay.
    (7) Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and
dumping in the area (including cumulative effects).
    Beginning in the early 1900s, the historic IWS was used for the
disposal of industrial, chemical, medical, low-level radioactive, and
other hazardous wastes, in addition to contaminated dredged material,
construction debris, derelict vessels, etc. An Interim MBDS was
designated in 1977 for the disposal of dredged material and it was
closed in 1993, which is when the existing MBDS was designated. Studies
and monitoring of the area have shown no significant impacts on water
quality, sediment quality, or marine resources. More information
regarding the effects of disposal in the area can be found in the Draft
Environmental Assessment on the Expansion of the Massachusetts Bay
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site. The berm-building disposal
technique designed by USACE is intended to limit the resuspension of
potentially contaminated seafloor sediment or hazardous materials in
the area. Furthermore, placing dredged material generated during the
USACE Boston Harbor maintenance and improvement projects on top of
potentially contaminated materials dumped at the IWS in the past will
isolate these potential contaminants under a protective layer of
suitable sediments, consisting primarily of clay.
    (8) Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas of special
scientific importance and other legitimate uses of the ocean.
    Extensive shipping, fishing, recreational, and scientific research
activities take place in Massachusetts Bay throughout the year. Dredged
material disposal operations at the MBDS have not interfered with these
activities and the temporary expansion of the MBDS would also not
interfere with these activities. Due to the hazardous nature of
material historically disposed in the IWS, a warning to fishermen
against fishing and shellfishing in the area is already included on all
nautical charts and the area is closed for the harvesting of ocean
quahogs and surf clams. Therefore, disposal operations in the area
would not interfere with any existing fishing activity.
    (9) The existing water quality and ecology of the site as
determined by available data or by trend assessment or baseline
surveys.
    Monitoring at the disposal area has taken place since the late
1970s under the DAMOS program. Surveys at the MBDS have detected no
significant differences in water quality or biological characteristics
in the disposal site and adjacent reference areas. A Baseline Seafloor
Assessment Survey for the Proposed Expansion of the MBDS was completed
by the USACE in anticipation of this project and it is available on the
USACE DAMOS site at http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Disposal-Area-Monitoring-System-DAMOS/.
    (10) Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance
species in the disposal site.
    There are no known components of dredged material or consequences
of its disposal that would attract or result in the recruitment or
development of nuisance species at the expanded MBDS. Nuisance species
have not been detected in any survey of the area.
    (11) Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any
significant natural or cultural features of historical importance.
    There are two known shipwrecks within the boundaries of the
existing MBDS: A Coast Guard vessel and a 55-foot fishing boat. Both
were intentionally sunk in 1981 and are not considered to be
historically significant. Additional shipwrecks have been revealed in
the area during subsequent surveys, although there are no identified
shipwrecks within the Potential Restoration Area. Disposal operations
have avoided and will continue to avoid any shipwrecks in the project
area by implementing a fifty-meter buffer around known shipwrecks
within which no disposal will occur.

III. Environmental Statutory Review

A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 4370f, requires Federal agencies to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for major federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
NEPA does not apply to EPA designations of ocean disposal sites under
the MPRSA because EPA's actions under the MPRSA are exempt from the
procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional equivalence
doctrine. Nevertheless, as a matter of policy, EPA undertakes a NEPA
review for certain of its regulatory actions, including the designation
of dredged material disposal sites under Section 102 of the MPRSA. The
EPA's ``Notice of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of
NEPA Documents'' (Voluntary NEPA Policy), 63 FR 58045 (October 29,
1998), sets out both the policy and procedures the EPA uses when
preparing such environmental review documents.
    The EPA's primary voluntary NEPA document addressing the proposed
temporary expansion of the MBDS is the Draft Environmental Assessment
on the Expansion of the Massachusetts Bay Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site (ODMDS) [September 2017] (Draft EA), prepared by EPA in
cooperation with USACE. Anyone desiring a copy of the Draft EA may
obtain one using the methods provided above in the Docket

section. The comment period for the Draft EA runs concurrently with the
comment period for this Proposed Rule. The Draft EA provides the
threshold environmental review for the temporary modification of the
MBDS. Information from the Draft EA is used in the above discussion of
the ocean dumping criteria.
    The proposed action discussed in the Draft EA is the temporary
modification of the MBDS. The purpose of this proposed action is to
physically isolate potentially contaminated material dumped at the IWS
in the past by placing suitable dredged material generated during the
USACE's Boston Harbor maintenance and navigation projects. By covering
much or all of the barrel field in and around the historic IWS,
environmental conditions at the site will be improved.
    USACE and EPA will continue to evaluate all federal dredged
material disposal projects in the MBDS pursuant to the EPA criteria set
forth in the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 220-229) and the USACE
regulations (33 CFR 209.129 and 335-338). After compliance with
regulations is determined, USACE issues MPRSA permits to applicants for
the transport of dredged material intended for disposal. Under Section
103(c) of the MPRSA, EPA can disapprove or add conditions to a project
proposing the ocean disposal of dredged material if, in its judgement,
the relevant regulatory criteria would not be met.
    The following alternatives were considered, but eliminated from
detailed evaluation, in the Draft EA:
1. Geographic Alternative 2: Expansion Into Historic IWS
    This Geographic Alternative would have expanded the MBDS only to
the legal boundaries of the historic IWS. The modified site would
consist of two overlapping circles, both with a radius of 1 nmi
centered at 42[deg]25.1' N., 70[deg]35.0' W. (MBDS) and 42[deg]25.7'
N., 70[deg]35.0' W. (IWS). This Alternative would have increased the
size of the MBDS from 3.14 nmi\2\ to 4.13 nmi\2\. The western boundary
of the modified site would have been only 0.02 nmi from the SBNMS. It
also would not have included a large portion of the barrel field
located just north of its boundaries, leaving part of the Potential
Restoration Area with its waste barrels and potentially contaminated
sediment exposed on the seafloor. As a result, EPA rejected this
alternative.
2. Temporal Alternative 2: Expansion for Three Years
    This Temporal Alternative would have limited the expansion of the
MBDS to a three-year period, opening with the publication of the Final
Rule for the site modification and closing exactly three years later.
The Boston Harbor Deep Draft Navigation Project is contingent on the
availability of funding, various approvals, technical planning,
weather, etc., making it difficult to estimate the duration of the
project. This uncertainty could lead to delays in the maintenance and
improvement dredging and cause the MBDS expansion to close before the
dredging project is complete. This could leave a portion of the
Potential Restoration Area uncovered. The remaining dredged material
would be disposed in the existing MBDS instead of being used
beneficially. For these reasons, EPA rejected this option.
3. Temporal Alternative 3: Permanent Expansion
    This Temporal Alternative would permanently expand the boundaries
of the MBDS. The dredged material from the Boston Harbor maintenance
and navigation projects would be disposed in the expansion, covering
the Potential Restoration Area. Once that disposal is complete, the
expansion could be used in the future for dredged material generated in
other projects. Careful planning to ensure dredged material is not
disposed directly onto waste containers or potentially contaminated
seafloor sediment is necessary. In order to limit this risk, it would
be preferable to cease disposal in the expansion after the restoration
project in the event that individual barrels remain exposed. In
addition, EPA site selection criteria favor minimizing the size of
disposal sites, in general. See 40 CFR 228.5(d). Therefore, once the
potentially contaminated materials are covered, EPA favors changing
MBDS site boundaries back to their earlier configuration.
4. No Action Alternative
    Under the No Action Alternative, the dredged material generated
during the Boston Harbor maintenance and improvement projects would not
be used beneficially to cover the barrel field in and around the
historic IWS. It would, instead, continue to be disposed in the
existing MBDS in multiple mounds.
5. Preferred Alternative
    The Preferred Geographic and Temporal Alternative would expand the
boundaries of the MBDS for the entire duration of the Boston Harbor
Deep Draft Navigation Project. This temporary expansion consists of two
overlapping circles: 42[deg]25.1' N., 70[deg]35.0' W. with a 1 nautical
mile radius (MBDS) and 42[deg]26.417' N., 70[deg]35.373' W. with a 0.75
nautical mile radius (expansion). This area contains the entirety of
the Potential Restoration Area, which means that the barrel field can
be covered. Keeping the expansion open only during the Boston Harbor
maintenance and improvement projects ensures that all of the suitable
dredged material can be used beneficially over the Potential
Restoration Area and the area will not be subject to future disposal
with the potential to disturb potentially contaminated areas outside
the Potential Restoration Area. For these reasons, a site restriction
is being put in place directing that the expansion only be used for the
disposal of suitable dredged material from the Boston Harbor Deep Draft
Navigation Project using the berm-building technique designed by the
Corps and will automatically close upon the completion of that Project.
    The Draft EA presents the information needed to evaluate the
suitability of the proposed modification and is based on a series of
disposal site environmental studies. The environmental studies and
final designation were and are being conducted in accordance with the
requirements of MPRSA, the Ocean Dumping Regulations, and other
applicable Federal environmental legislation.

B. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act (MSA)

    EPA has integrated the EFH assessment into the Draft EA, pursuant
to Section 305(b), 16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2), of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
as amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801-1891d. EPA is coordinating with NMFS
to ensure compliance with EFH provisions and will attempt to
incorporate any conservation recommendations from NMFS.

C. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

    EPA has determined that the proposed modification of the MBDS is
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable
policies of the Massachusetts coastal management program and has
submitted this determination to the State for review in accordance with
the CZMA.

D. Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    The Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to
1544, requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS and the Fish &
Wildlife

Service (FWS) to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried
out by the Federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat. The
EPA incorporated an assessment of the potential effects of temporarily
modifying the MBDS on aquatic and wildlife species, including any
species listed under the ESA, into the Draft EA, and EPA has submitted
that document to NMFS and FWS. EPA concluded that the proposed action
would not affect any threatened or endangered species, nor would it
adversely modify any designated critical habitat. EPA is coordinating
with NMFS and FWS to ensure compliance with the ESA.

E. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

    The National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), 16
U.S.C. 470 to 470a-2, requires Federal agencies to take into account
the effect of their actions on districts, sites, buildings, structures,
or objects, included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National
Register of Historical Places. EPA is coordinating with the
Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to ensure
compliance with NHPA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This rulemaking proposes the modification of an ODMDS pursuant to
Section 102 of the MPRSA. This proposed action complies with applicable
Executive Orders and statutory provisions as follows:

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 3, 1993)
and is, therefore, not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This proposed site modification does not require persons to obtain,
maintain, retain, report, or publically disclose information to or for
a Federal agency.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires Federal
agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities (businesses, organizations, or
jurisdictions). EPA has determined that this proposed action will not
have a significant economic impact on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed action contains no Federal mandates under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of
1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531 to 1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any
State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore,
this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205
of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities.
Those entities are already subject to existing permitting requirements
for the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA
and State and local governments, EPA has coordinated with, and
specifically solicited comments from, State and local officials with
regard to this proposed action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. The modification of the MBDS will
not have a direct effect on Indian Tribes, on the relationship between
the federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian
Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & 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.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355) because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272),
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies.
The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed action includes
environmental monitoring and measurement as described in the MBDS SMMP.
The EPA will not require the use of specific, prescribed analytic
methods for monitoring and managing the MBDS. EPA plans to allow the
use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus
standard or not, that meets the monitoring and measurement criteria
discussed in the SMMP.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) establishes federal executive
policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA
determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations. This action is expected to be protective of
human health because the potential contaminants within the Potential
Restoration Area will be isolated under a protective layer of sediment.
This should help prevent any accidental recovery of barrels by
fishermen and prevent contaminants from the historic disposal from
entering the food web. The EPA has assessed the overall protectiveness
of modifying the MBDS against the criteria established pursuant to the
MPRSA to ensure that any adverse impact to the environment will be
mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. Indeed, no adverse
impacts are expected. The proposed action is expected to improve
environmental conditions in Massachusetts Bay by enabling contaminated
material dumped at the IWS in the past to be covered with suitable
dredged material so as to isolate the former from the environment.

K. 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 with the marine
environment, which includes, ``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.''
    EPA anticipates that the proposed action will afford additional
protection to the waters of Massachusetts Bay and organisms that
inhabit them. By covering the barrel field and surrounding seafloor
sediment of the historic IWS, potential contaminants should be
prevented from entering the water column or food web in Massachusetts
Bay.

L. 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, 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; [and] (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.
    EPA anticipates that the proposed action will afford additional
protection to the waters of Massachusetts Bay and organisms that
inhabit them. By covering the barrel field and surrounding seafloor
sediment of the historic IWS, potential contaminants should be
prevented from entering the water column or food web in Massachusetts
Bay.

M. Executive Order 13771 Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs

    This proposed action would not be a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October
3, 1993) and is, therefore, not subject to review under Executive Order
13771. See OMB, ``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (M-17-21)
(April 5, 2017), p. 3 (``An `EO 13771 Regulatory Action' is: (i) A
significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of EO 12866
that has been finalized and that imposes total costs greater than zero
. . . .'').

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Dated: September 6, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    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

0
1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  228.15 by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i),)(ii), (iii),
and (vi) to read as follows:

Sec.  228.15  Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Location: Two overlapping circles: Center of existing MBDS:
42[deg]25.1' N., 70[deg]35.0' W., 1 nautical mile radius; Center of
temporary expansion: 42[deg]26.417' N., 70[deg]35.373' W., 0.75
nautical mile radius (NAD 1983).
    (ii) Size: 4.60 sq. nautical miles.
    (iii) Depth: Range from 70 to 91 meters.
* * * * *
    (vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
which meets the requirements of the MPRSA and its accompanying
regulations. Disposal-and-capping is prohibited at the MBDS until its
efficacy can be effectively demonstrated. The temporary expansion of
the MBDS shall be used solely for the disposal of suitable dredged
material generated during the Boston Harbor Deep Draft Navigation
Project using the berm-building method devised and tested by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The temporary expansion will automatically
close upon completion of the Boston Harbor Deep Draft Navigation
Project.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2017-20326 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P