[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61591-61595]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24348]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[EPA-R02-OW-2014-0587, FRL-9917-51-Region-2]

Modification of the Designations of the Caribbean Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Sites (San Juan Harbor, PR; Yabucoa Harbor, PR; Ponce
Harbor, PR; Mayaguez Harbor, PR; Arecibo Harbor, PR)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
modify the designations for the five Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Sites (ODMDS) around Puerto Rico (San Juan Harbor, PR ODMDS; Yabucoa
Harbor, PR ODMDS; Ponce Harbor, PR ODMDS; Mayaguez Harbor, PR ODMDS;
Arecibo Harbor, PR ODMDS). Currently, each of the ODMDS is restricted
to only allow disposal of dredged material from the specific harbor for
which it is named. The proposed modification would remove the
restriction that limits eligibility for disposal at each of the
disposal sites based solely on the geographic origin of the dredged
material. The proposed modifications to the site designations do not
actually authorize the disposal of any particular dredged material at
any site. All proposals to dispose of dredged material at any of the
designated sites will continue to be subject to project--specific
reviews and must still be demonstrated to satisfy the criteria for
ocean dumping before any material is authorized for disposal. This
action is necessary to provide long-term flexibility for management of
any dredged material that may potentially be derived from maintenance,
development, or emergency activities in areas outside those harbors
currently

provided for in the designations. The proposed modifications to the
site designations are for an indefinite period of time. Each ODMDS will
continue to be monitored to ensure that significant unacceptable,
adverse environmental impacts do not occur as a result of dredged
material disposal at the site.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R02-OW-
2014-0587, by one of the following methods:
    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov; follow the
online instruction for submitting comments.
     Email: Mr. Mark Reiss at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: Mr. Mark Reiss, Dredging Sediment and Oceans Section
(CWD) at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Mark Reiss, Dredging Sediment and Oceans Section
(CWD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway,
New York NY 10007.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R02-OW-2014-
0587. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII or Microsoft Word
file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption,
and that are free of any defects or viruses. Comments will also be
accepted on disks in Microsoft Word or ASCII file format sent or
delivered to the address above. All comments and data in electronic
form must be identified by the name, date and Federal Register citation
of this notice. No confidential business information should be sent via
email.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Dredging, Sediment and
Oceans Section (CWD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2,
290 Broadway, New York NY 10007 or at the Caribbean Environmental
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
City View Plaza II--Suite 7000 #48 Rd. 165 km 1.2. Guaynabo, PR 00968-
8069. The file will be made available by appointment for public
inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except
for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below. If possible, please make the
appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Reiss, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor (CWD), New York, NY
10007-1866, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, electronic mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Potentially Affected Persons
II. Background
III. Proposed Action
IV. Administrative Review
    1. Executive Order 12886
    2. Paperwork Reduction Act
    3. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
    4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income
Populations
    11. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    12. The Endangered Species Act
    13. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
    14. Plain Language Directive
    15. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas

I. Potentially Affected Persons

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are persons,
organizations, or government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged
material into Caribbean ocean waters, under the Marine Protection
Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. (hereinafter
referred to as the MPRSA) and its implementing regulations. This
proposed rule is expected to be primarily of relevance to (a)
parties seeking permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
transport dredged material for the purpose of disposal into
Caribbean ocean waters and (b) to the Corps itself for its own
dredged material disposal projects. Potentially regulated categories
and entities that may seek to use the Caribbean ODMDS may include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Examples of potentially regulated
           Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government...........  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
                                Projects, and Other Federal Agencies.
Industry and General Public..  Port Authorities, Marinas and Harbors,
                                Shipyards, and Marine Repair Facilities,
                                Berth Owners.
State, local and tribal        Governments owning and/or responsible for
 governments.                   ports, harbors, and/or berths,
                                Government agencies requiring disposal
                                of dredged material associated with
                                public works projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding the types of entities that could
potentially be affected should the proposed rule become a final
rule. To determine whether your organization is affected by this
action, you should carefully consider whether your organization is
subject to the requirement to obtain a MPRSA permit in accordance
with the Purpose and Scope of 40 CFR 220.1, and you wish to use the
sites subject to today's proposal. EPA notes that

nothing in this proposed rule alters the jurisdiction or authority
of EPA or the types of entities regulated under the MPRSA. Questions
regarding the applicability of this proposed rule to a particular
entity should be directed to the contact person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background

    Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.,
gives the Administrator of EPA the authority to designate sites
where ocean disposal may be permitted. On October 1, 1986, the
Administrator delegated the authority to designate ocean disposal
sites to the Regional Administrator of the Region in which the sites
are located. These proposed modifications are being made pursuant to
that authority.
    The ODMDS herein specified are located within Region 2;
therefore, this action is being taken pursuant to the Regional
Administrator's delegated authority. EPA's ocean dumping regulations
(40 CFR 228.4(e)(1)) promulgated under the MPRSA require, among
other things, that EPA designate ocean dumping sites (ODMDS) by
promulgation of a site designation in 40 CFR Part 228. Designated
ocean dumping sites are codified at 40 CFR 228.15. This rule
proposes to modify the site designations for the five open water
dredged material disposal sites around the Caribbean. These sites
are located in ocean waters off Puerto Rico. Arecibo Harbor, PR
ODMDS and San Juan Harbor, PR ODMDS are closest to shore, lying 1.5
nautical miles and 1.4 nautical miles north of the respective
harbors for which they are named; all of the others are at least 4
nautical miles from the respective harbors for which they are named.
    The site modifications are being proposed in this action to
provide the Corps, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, municipal, and
private entities with greater long term flexibility in managing
dredged materials outside the specific harbors currently provided
for in the designations. The modifications would also allow for
management of dredged materials associated with any eventual
development, re-development or emergency (i.e., post-hurricane)
needs in those areas. Each ODMDS will be subject to continuing site
management and monitoring to ensure that unacceptable, adverse
environmental impacts do not occur. The management of each ODMDS is
further described in the Site Monitoring and Management Plans
(SMMPs) for the sites (to date, SMMPs have been prepared for the
Arecibo Harbor, PR, Yabucoa Harbor, PR, Ponce Harbor, PR, and San
Juan Harbor, PR ODMDS; a SMMP will be prepared for the Mayaguez
Harbor, PR ODMDS before it is used for dredged material disposal).
This proposed rule is the only document being made available for
public comment by EPA at this time. The modification of the
designations is being proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 228.3(b) of
the Ocean Dumping Regulations, which allows EPA to modify the use
and designation of ocean dredged material disposal sites.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is publishing this Proposed Rule to propose the removal of
the geographic restrictions on the origin of the dredged material
that can be disposed from the designations of the San Juan Harbor,
PR Ponce Harbor, PR, Yabucoa Harbor, PR, Mayaguez Harbor, PR and
Arecibo Harbor, PR ODMDSs. The monitoring and management of
requirements that will apply to each site are to be described in the
SMMP prepared for the site before its use. Management and monitoring
will be carried out by EPA Region 2 in conjunction with the Corps'
Jacksonville District.
    Modification of the designation of ocean disposal sites under 40
CFR part 228 is essentially a preliminary, planning measure. The
practical effect of such a designation is only to require that if
future ocean disposal activity is permitted and/or authorized (in
the case of Corps projects) under 40 CFR Part 227, then such
disposal should normally be consolidated at the designated sites
(See 33 U.S.C. 1413(b).) Designation of an ocean disposal site does
not authorize any actual disposal and does not preclude EPA or the
Corps from finding available and environmentally preferable
alternative means of managing dredged materials, or from finding
that certain dredged material is not suitable for ocean disposal
under the applicable regulatory criteria.
    This modification will provide flexibility for management of
dredged material from areas outside the harbors currently provided
for in the designations. However, it should be emphasized that
modification of the designations of the ODMDS does not constitute or
imply Corps' or EPA's approval of open water disposal of dredged
material from any specific project. Before disposal of dredged
material at any site may commence, Essential Fish Habitat and
Endangered Species Act consultations must be completed, and EPA and
the Corps must evaluate the proposal and authorize disposal
according to the ocean dumping regulatory criteria (40 CFR Part
227). All projects proposed for disposal at the ODMDS will be
subject to review and comment by the relevant resource agencies and
the public to ensure that any concerns regarding potential impacts
associated with transport of material from the project area to the
ODMDS are addressed before they are authorized for disposal.
    EPA has the right to disapprove the actual disposal, if it
determines that environmental requirements under the MPRSA
(including required Essential Fish Habitat and Endangered Species
Act consultations) have not been met.

IV. Administrative Review

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that
may:
    (A) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or
communities;
    (B) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
    (C) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
    (D) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this proposed action is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866 and is therefore
not subject to OMB review.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule would not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) 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, as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    The RFA generally requires an agency 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. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule
on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business based on the Small Business Administration's (SBA) size
standards; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
EPA has determined that this action will not have a significant
adverse economic impact on small entities because the proposed ocean
disposal site designation does not regulate small entities. The site
designation will only have the effect of providing a long term
environmentally acceptable disposal option for dredged materials in
areas outside the harbors currently provided for in the
designations. This action will help to facilitate the maintenance of
safe navigation on a continuing basis. After considering the
economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, it has
been determined that this action will not have a significant adverse
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

4. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector that may result in estimated costs
of $100 million or more in any year. It imposes no new enforceable
duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector
nor does it contain any regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus,
the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA do not apply to this
Proposed Rule.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' are
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This
proposed rule addresses the modification of the existing site
designations of ocean disposal sites in the Caribbean for the
potential disposal of dredged materials. This proposed action
neither creates new obligations nor alters existing authorizations
of any state, local or governmental entities. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule. Although Section 6 of the
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule, EPA did
consult with representatives of State and local governments in
developing this rule.
    In addition, and consistent with Executive Order 13132 and EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development
of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.'' ``Policies
that have Tribal implications'' are defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one
or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian
Tribes.''
    The proposed action does not have Tribal implications. If
finalized, the proposed action would not have substantial direct
effects on Tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule
designates an ocean dredged material disposal site and does not
establish any regulatory policy with tribal implications. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to
any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
might have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health and safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not an economically
significant rule as defined under Executive Order 12866 and does not
concern an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason
to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
Therefore, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because
it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.

9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards
in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA
directs EPA to provide to Congress, through OMB, explanations when
the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards. This proposed rule does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 requires that, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, each Federal agency must make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission. E.O. 12898
provides that each Federal agency must conduct its programs,
policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or
the environment in a manner that ensures that such programs,
policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons
(including populations) from participation in, denying persons
(including populations) the benefits of, or subjecting persons
(including populations) to discrimination under such programs,
policies, and activities because of their race, color, or national
origin.
    No action from this proposed rule would have a
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effect on any particular segment of the population. In addition,
this rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on
those communities. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order
12898 do not apply.

11. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332, requires that Federal agencies
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on proposals for
major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. The objective of NEPA is to build into the agency
decision-making process careful consideration of all environmental
aspects of proposed actions, including evaluation of reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action. Although EPA ocean dumping
program activities have been determined to be ``functionally
equivalent'' to NEPA, EPA has a voluntarily policy to follow NEPA
procedures when designating ocean dumping sites. See, 63 FR 58045
(Oct. 29, 1998). The final EISs for the San Juan Harbor, PR ODMDS
and the other Caribbean ODMDS were published before the above
policy; the modification proposed in this rule is consistent with
the NEPA evaluations performed at that time as it will not cause the
volumes projected to be disposed to be exceeded at the sites.
    In addition, the Corps will submit Coastal Zone Consistency
determinations to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for individual
projects proposing to dispose at the ODMDS. Coordination efforts
with NMFS and USFWS for ESA and EFH consultation were completed on
April 22, 2005 and May 16, 2005.

12. The Endangered Species Act

    Under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C.
1536(a)(2), federal agencies are required to ``insure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried on by such agency . . . is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of habitat of such species. . . .'' Under regulations

implementing the Endangered Species Act, a federal agency is
required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the
National Marine Fisheries Service (depending on the species
involved) if the agency's action ``may affect'' endangered or
threatened species or their critical habitat. See, 50 CFR 402.14(a).
    On April 22, 2005 and May 9, 2005, EPA sent coordination letters
to USFWS and NMFS in which the modification was described and which
requested the concurrence of those two Services with EPA's
determination that threatened and endangered species and their
critical habitat would not be adversely affected by the proposed
action. NMFS concurred by undated letter in June 2005 and USFWS
concurred on May 16, 2005.

13. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

    The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) require the
designation of essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally managed
species of fish and shellfish. Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the
MSFCMA, federal agencies are required to consult with the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding any action they authorize,
fund, or undertake that may adversely affect EFH. An adverse effect
has been defined by the Act as follows: ``Any impact which reduces
the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include
direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g.,
loss of prey, reduction in species' fecundity), site-specific or
habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or
synergistic consequences of actions.'' On April 22, 2005, EPA
requested NMFS concurrence with its determination that the proposed
modification was not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of categories of essential fish habitat designated by
the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. NMFS concurred with this
determination in a letter dated May 13, 2005 and recommended mapping
of potential shelf edge reef habitat to select transit routes for
laden barges as part of the permitting process for individual
projects located in areas outside the currently authorized harbors.
EPA agreed to require these studies for specific projects, as
necessary, as part of the permitting process.

14. Plain Language Directive

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. EPA has written this proposed rule in plain language
in order to make it easier to understand.

15. 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.''
    Today's proposed rule implements Section 103 of the MPRSA, which
requires that permits for dredged material be subject to EPA review
and concurrence. The proposed rule would amend 40 CFR 228.15 by
removing the geographic restrictions on use of the ODMDS. Enabling
management of the additional dredged materials at monitored
designated sites restricts impacts to those areas and minimizes the
potential for using other near shore discharge strategies with
potentially greater impacts to the marine environment. As such, this
proposed rule would afford additional protection of aquatic
organisms at individual, population, community, or ecosystem levels
of ecological structures. Therefore, EPA expects today's proposed
rule would advance the objective of the Executive Order to protect
marine areas.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

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

    Dated: September 3, 2014.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 2.
    In consideration of the foregoing, EPA is proposing to amend part
228, chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:

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. Section 228.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(10)(vi),
(d)(11)(vi), (d)(12)(vi), (d)(13)(vi), and (d)(14)(vi) to read as
follows:

Sec.  228.15  Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material.
    (11) * * *
    (vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material.
    (12) * * *
    (vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material.
    (13) * * *
    (vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material.
    (14) * * *
    (vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-24348 Filed 10-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29930-29931]
[DOCID:fr24my06-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP06-275-000]

Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Application

May 18, 2006.
    Take notice that on May 10, 2006, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans); 225
North Shore Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15212, filed an application pursuant
to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) of the Commission's
regulations, as amended, for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity authorizing the construction and operation of interstate
natural gas pipeline facilities necessary to provide up to130, 000
Dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of firm transportation service. This
application is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll

free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, Equitrans proposes to construct and operate 69.9
miles of new 20-inch diameter pipeline and related facilities (the Big
Sandy Pipeline Project) that will provide a direct connection between
the Big Sandy Compression Station in Langley, Kentucky, and a proposed
new interconnection with Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company's Broad Run
Lateral in Carter County, Kentucky. Equitrans also proposes to install
three (3) 3,000 horsepower (hp) electrically-driven compressor units at
the outlet of the existing Kentucky Hydrocarbon Compressor Station in
Langley. In addition, Equitrans proposes to install a meter station and
launcher, pressure regulation facilities and a receiver at the terminus
of the pipeline. Equitrans estimates that the proposed facilities will
cost $150,371,210.
    Any questions about this application should be directed to David K.
Dewey, Vice President & General Counsel, Equitrans, L.P., 225 North
Shore Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15212, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date listed below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of this filing and all subsequent filings made with
the Commission and must mail a copy of all filings to the applicant and
to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding
can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, other persons do not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to this
project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties
directly involved in the protest.
    Persons may also wish to comment further only on the environmental
review of this project. Environmental commenters will be placed on the
Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of
environmental documents issued by the Commission, and will be notified
of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review
process. Those persons, organizations, and agencies who submitted
comments during the NEPA Pre-Filing Process in Docket No. PF06-12-000
are already on the Commission staff's environmental mailing list for
the proceeding in the above dockets and may file additional comments on
or before the below listed comment date. Environmental commenters will
not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other
parties. However, environmental commenters are also not parties to the
proceeding and will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or non-environmental documents issued by the Commission.
Further, they will not have the right to seek court review of any final
order by Commission in this proceeding.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Comment Date: June 8, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-7957 Filed 5-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P