[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61591-61595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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

[[Page 61592]]

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 reiss.mark@epa.gov.
     Fax: Mr. Mark Reiss, Dredging Sediment and Oceans Section 
(CWD) at fax number 212-637-3887.
     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 (212) 637-3799, electronic mail: 
reiss.mark@epa.gov.

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

[[Page 61593]]

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

[[Page 61594]]

(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

[[Page 61595]]

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