[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 63 (Friday, March 31, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17240-17246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7734]
[[Page 17240]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 228
[FRL-6567-7]
Ocean Dumping; Proposed Designation of Site
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA today proposes to designate an ocean dredged material
disposal site located offshore of Coos Bay, Oregon, for the disposal of
dredged material removed from the federal navigation project at Coos
Bay, Oregon, and for materials dredged during other actions authorized
by, and in accordance with, section 103 of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA). This action is necessary
to provide a acceptable ocean dumping site for the current and future
disposal of this dredged material. This proposed site designation is
for an indefinite period of time, but the site is subject to continuing
monitoring to insure that unacceptable, adverse environmental impacts
do not occur.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 15, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule should be sent to: John
Malek, Dredging and Ocean Dumping Coordinator, EPA Region 10 MS: ECO-
083, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
The file supporting this proposed designation is available for
public inspection at the following locations:
EPA Public Information Reference Unit (PIRU), Room 2904 (rear), 401 M
Street Southwest, Washington, DC.
EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division, U.S. Customs
House, 220 Northwest Eighth, Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Robert Duncan Plaza,
333 S.W. First Avenue, Portland, Oregon.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Malek, Ocean Dumping Coordinator,
U.S. Environmental Agency, Region X (ECO-083), 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98191-1128, telephone (206) 553-1286, e-mail
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972 (MPRSA), as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1403 et seq., gives the
Administrator the authority to designate sites where ocean dumping may
be permitted. On October 1, 1986, the Administrator delegated the
authority to designate ocean dumping sites to the Regional
Administrator of the Region in which the site is located. This site
designation is being made persuant to that authority.
The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Chapter I, subchapter H,
section Sec. 228.4) state that ocean dumping sites will be designated
by publication in part 228. A list of ``Approved and Final Ocean
Dumping Sites'' was published on January 11, 1977 (42 FR 2461 et seq.)
and was last updated on July 1, 1999 (40 CFR 228.15(n)(2), (n)(3), and
(n)(4)). A total of three ocean dumping sites off of Coos Bay (Site E,
Site F, and site H) were designated in 1986 ( 51 FR 29927 et seq.).
This proposed rule designates a new Site F which incorporates the 1986-
designated Site F but appreciably expands it. Interested persons may
participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting written comments
within 45 days of the date of this publication to the address given
above.
B. EIS Development
Section 102(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq., (NEPA) requires that Federal agencies prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on proposals for legislation and
other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. The object of NEPA is to build into agency decision-
making processes careful consideration of all environmental aspects of
proposed actions.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has prepared the
Feasibility Report on Navigation Improvements with Environmental Impact
Statement (1994) (Channel Deepening) for Coos Bay, Oregon, with the EPA
Region 10 as a cooperating agency in the EIS preparation. The action
discussed in the EIS is the designation of a larger Site F for ocean
disposal of dredged material. The other two sites (E and H) are not
affected by this rule. The purpose of the designation is to provide an
environmentally acceptable location for ocean disposal of dredged
material. The appropriateness of ocean disposal is determined on a
case-by-case basis as part of the process of issuing permits for ocean
disposal.
Existing Site F was designated in 1986 and in 1989 the area
available for disposal of dredged material was doubled by the Corps
using its section 103 authority of the MPRSA. The expansion was to the
north to prevent excessive mounding and to reduce potential sediment
transport back into the entrance channel. In 1995 Site F was again
expanded by the Corps in order to accommodate less than anticipated
sediment dispersion and to prevent excessive mounding. The size and
location of Site F herein proposed for final designation is the same as
that established by the Corps 103 action in 1995.
The EIS provides documentation to support final designation of a
larger Site F as an ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) for
continuing use. Site designation studies were conducted by the Portland
District, Corps of Engineers, in consultation with EPA, Region 10. The
ODMDS site proposed for designation is located in the area best suited
for dredged material disposal in terms of environmental and
navigational safety factors. No significant or long-term adverse
environmental effects are predicted to result from the designation. The
designated ODMDS would continue to receive sediments dredged by the
Corps to maintain the federally authorized navigation project at Coos
Bay, Oregon, and for disposal of material dredged during other actions
authorized in accordance with section 103 of the MPRSA. Before any
disposal may occur, a specific evaluation by the Corps must be made
using EPA's ocean dumping criteria. EPA makes an independent evaluation
of the proposal and can disapprove the actual disposal.
The studies and final designation process are being conducted in
accordance with the MPRSA, the Ocean Dumping Regulations, and other
applicable federal environmental legislation.
C. Proposed Site Description
The center of the proposed site is located approximately 1.6 miles
offshore with an east-west site dimension of 14,500 feet and a north-
south site dimension of 8,000 feet (Figure 1.) The coordinates of the
site are as follows (NAD 83):
43 deg.22'58'' N, 124 deg.19'32'' W
43 deg.21'50'' N, 124 deg.20'29'' W
43 deg.22'52'' N, 124 deg.23'28'' W
43 deg.23'59'' N, 124 deg.22'31'' W
If at any time disposal operations at the site cause unacceptable
adverse impacts, further use of the site will be restricted or
terminated.
D. Regulatory Requirements
Five general criteria are used in the selection and approval of
ocean disposal sites for continuing use. Sites are
[[Page 17241]]
selected so as to minimize interference with other marine activities,
to keep any temporary perturbations from the dumping from causing
impacts outside the disposal site, and to permit effective monitoring
to detect any adverse impacts at an early stage. Where feasible,
locations off the Continental Shelf are chosen. If at any time disposal
operations at a site cause unacceptable adverse impacts, the use of
that site will be terminated as soon as suitable alternate sites can be
designated. The general criteria are given in 40 CFR 228.5 of the EPA
Ocean Dumping Regulations. Eleven specific criteria, given in 40 CFR
228.6, are used in evaluating a proposed disposal site to assure that
the general criteria are met. The evaluations of the general and
specific criteria, given below, are based on information published in
the site designation EIS, monitoring studies, and the Channel Deepening
EIS.
General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)
1. Minimal Interference With Other Activities
The location of proposed ODMDS F is based on reasonable distance
from the Coos Bay entrance, depth of water, biological conditions,
historical use, and estimated amount and type of dredged material.
Disposal activities are not expected to result in more than minimal
interference with the typical marine activities such as navigation and
commercial and recreational fishing. Use of the nearshore portion could
conflict with crab fishing, but timing of disposal to occur after the
season closes minimizes interference.
2. Minimize Changes in Water Quality
The material to be disposed consists of clean sand and silt. As
described in the EIS, sediment test results indicate this material is
suitable for ocean disposal. Testing and evaluation of material
proposed for disposal would occur as necessary to insure suitability.
3. Interim Sites Which Do Not Meet Criteria
Not applicable; the existing Site F was designated on an interim
basis in 1977 and received final designation status in 1986. The site
did not have sufficient capacity to meet long-term need without
mounding, leading to the need for an expanded site.
4. Size of Sites
The size of the designated Site F has proven to be inadequate. By
the Corps' Section 103 authority, Site F was twice expanded (1989 and
1995) to its presently proposed dimensions to limit mound development
caused by inadequate sediment dispersion. The enlarged Site F proposed
for designation is anticipated to adequately accommodate disposal of
current and future maintenance dredging by using a larger placement
area and by using the more active nearshore dispersal areas.
5. Sites Off the Continental Shelf
Such sites were eliminated during site evaluation for the 1986 site
designation EIS. Conditions have not changed to offer any environmental
advantage to the use of a site off the continental shelf.
Transportation costs, sampling and testing costs, and post-disposal
monitoring costs associated with disposal at a continental shelf site
would greatly increase over present costs. In addition, there is
greater uncertainty over impacts associated with continental shelf
disposal, compared to disposal at existing sites which are known low
impact areas. Therefore, disposal at a site off the continental shelf
is not considered necessary or practical.
Transporting dredged material off the continental shelf presents
potentially significant environmental concerns. Benthic and pelagic
ecosystems near the shelf contain important fishery resources and the
effects of disposal operations on them are not well understood. Fine-
grained sediment and rocky habitats would be directly impacted by
disposal. These deep-water areas are stable and generally not disturbed
by wave action or sediment movement. Consequently, the benthic
invertebrate communities in these deep, offshore environments are
adapted to very stable conditions and would be less able to survive
disturbance from the immediate impact of disposal and the long-term
alteration of substrate type. Little is known of the ecology of benthic
communities on the continental slope; however, disposal onto those
communities would cause severe and long-term impacts. Bottom gradients
can be 5 to 25 percent on the continental slope, making accumulated
unconsolidated sediments susceptible to slumping. Deposited sediments
could be transported long distances downslope as turbidity currents and
offshore by near-bottom currents, potentially affecting organisms
outside of any designated site.
The cost for site evaluation necessary to designate a site and
subsequent baseline and monitoring, along with unanswered environmental
concerns about the effects of disposal in such areas, makes off-shelf
disposal undesirable as well as infeasible. Further, disposal off the
continental shelf would remove natural sediments from the nearshore
littoral transport system, a system that functions with largely non-
renewable quantities of sand.
Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)
1. Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography, and
Distance From Coast
The proposed site lies in 20 to 160 feet (6 to 51 m) of water,
approximately 1.6 miles offshore with an east-west dimension of 14,500
feet and a north-south dimension of 8,000 feet. Coordinates are (NAD
83):
43 deg.22'58'' N, 124 deg.19'32'' W
43 deg.21'50'' N, 124 deg.20'29'' W
43 deg.22'52'' N, 124 deg.23'28'' W
43 deg.23'59'' N, 124 deg.22'31'' W
In general, bottom contours of the proposed site slope at a rate of
10/1000 feet to the WNW.
Sediments in proposed Site F and adjoining areas are clean fine
sands of marine origin with median grain diameters of 0.15 to 0.20
millimeters.
2. Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or
Passage Area of Living Resources in Adult and Juvenile Phases
Aquatic resources of the proposed Site F are described in detail in
the EISs (1986, 1994). The inshore high-dispersive area (depth to 15
meters) are populated by species tolerant of a high energy wave
environment that are adapted to continued disturbance. Deeper areas are
generally less dispersive and are populated by species generally less
adapted to continued disturbance. Most organisms display seasonal
changes of abundance typical of coastal Oregon and Pacific Northwest
waters.
Based on analyses of benthic samples, proposed Site F and vicinity
contains benthic fauna characteristic of oceanic coastal Pacific
Northwest environs. By utilizing the more dispersive shallower areas
and, when appropriate, deeper areas of the proposed site, the
disturbance or burial of benthic organisms would be minimized. Various
management options described in the site Management and Monitoring plan
(SMMP) over a larger site area would further avoid or minimize these
impacts. Most organisms and communities which are adapted to a higher
energy environment tend to recolonize quickly following the disposal
operation. No unique biological communities would be impacted.
The dominant commercially and recreationally important
macroinvertebrate species in the coastal area are shellfish, Dungeness
crab and
[[Page 17242]]
shrimp. A variety of demersal and pelagic fish species are present.
Common demersal fish are flatfish, sole, and smelt. Anadromous salmon,
herring, and anchovy are representative of pelagic fishes present in
the coastal waters.
The proposed Site F is in an area where numerous species of birds
and marine animals occur in the pelagic nearshore and shoreline
habitats.
In summary, the proposed ODMDS contains living resources that could
be affected by disposal activities. However, evaluation of past
disposal activities does not indicate that unacceptable adverse effects
to these resources have occurred. Appropriate future management should
minimize the potential of adverse impacts and make this proposed site
acceptable for final designation.
3. Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas
The nearshore limit of proposed Site F is located within 2000 feet
of the shoreline. Sediments disposed near that site boundary would be
in an active transport zone and would disperse rapidly both onshore and
alongshore. Limited onshore transport would be expected due to the
nature of currents and wave transport in that vicinity. Proper
management could detect any onshore effects and modify disposal actions
accordingly. Placement in the nearshore could help to reduce erosion on
the beach near the Coos Bay North Jetty.
4. Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed To Be Disposed of, and
Proposed Methods of Release, Including Methods of Packing the Waste, if
Any
For purposes of maintaining the existing federal channel, an
average of approximately 1.38 million cubic yards (cy) of sediment is
annually dredged from the estuary and placed in designated ODMDSs
(Sites F and H) offshore of the entrance to Coos Bay. About half is
classified as sand and the remainder as fine-grained material (silt).
In the recent past the fine-grained material has been disposed at Site
H and the sand at Site F although both sites have been designated to
receive sand and silt. Since the recent channel deepening, Site H has
shown evidence of mounding and its long-term viability to receive
significant disposal volumes, without exceeding site boundaries, is
being analyzed. Whether expansion of Site H, a shift to greater
reliance on proposed Site F, or another management option is
appropriate, is presently being studied.
For the present, proposed disposal site F will receive dredged
materials transported by either government or private contractor hopper
dredges or ocean-going barges. The dredges typically release dredged
material while moving slowly through the disposal site. Mounding should
be minimized by dispersing the disposal in such a manner and by placing
material in both the nearshore and the offshore part of the proposed
site, as appropriate.
Small quantities of non-Federal material are annually disposed at
site F or H in accordance with Department of the Army permits. These
disposals are determined to comply with the ocean dumping criteria.
5. Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring
Surveillance of the proposed disposal site can be made from shore
facilities or vessels. Approaches to the Coos Bay entrance, including
the disposal area, are surveyed annually by the Corps. Surveillance
during heavy weather conditions is expected to be unnecessary since
heavy sea conditions curtail ocean disposal operations.
The Corps and EPA have developed a site management plan which
addresses post-disposal monitoring.
6. Disposal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing Characteristics
of the Area, Including Prevailing Current Direction, and Velocity
Average currents in the region generally flow parallel to the
bathymetric contours with downslope components predominating over
upslope components near the bottom. Local current strength and
direction, however, reflect the variability of local winds. During
disposal operations in the summer months the predominant direction of
material transport is southward, but with a stronger northward
component the remainder of the year. At proposed site F dispersal
characteristics range greatly depending on depth; the nearshore areas
are very dispersive whereas dispersion in the offshore areas is
minimal.
7. Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and Dumping
in the Area (Including Cumulative Effects)
Disposal at designated Site F has resulted in significant mounding,
as much as 20 feet by 1989, and in the Corps' 103 expanded Site F
(1989) as much as 24 feet by 1994. No material from the Federal
navigation project has been disposed in the designated Site F and the
1989 expansion area since 1994. Dredged material from other dredging
has been placed at the EPA designated site under Department of the Army
permits. Material dredged from the Federal navigation project has been
managed since 1995 by placement further offshore, nearshore, and to the
north within the area of the presently proposed for designation.
Material placed into the nearshore portion of the proposed site has
moved out between dredging cycles.
No significant biological impacts have been associated with any
disposal at the Coos Bay sites.
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
The only known commercial and recreational uses occurring in the
vicinity of proposed Site F are fishing and marine navigation. No
significant impact to these activities has occurred in the past or is
anticipated for the future. Commercial crabbing occurs in the area,
especially in the nearshore portion. Timing of disposal in that portion
has been scheduled to occur after the crabbing season has closed to
minimize interference.
9. The Existing Water Quality of the Site as Determined by Available
Data or Trend Assessment of Baseline Survey
Water and sediment quality analyses conducted in the study area and
experience with past disposals in this region have not identified any
adverse water quality impacts from ocean disposal of dredged material.
The ecology of the offshore area is a Northeast Pacific mobile sand
community. This determination is based mainly on fisheries and benthic
data. Neither the pelagic or benthic communities should sustain
irreparable harm due to their mobility and widespread occurrence off
the Oregon coast.
10. Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance Species
in the Disposal Site
Nuisance species are considered as any undesirable organism not
previously existing at the disposal site. They are either transported
to or recruited to the site because the disposal of dredged material
created an environment where they could establish. The major component
of dredged material which might attract nuisance species is the organic
material. The only material containing any appreciable amounts of
organic material is that dredged between RM 12 and 15. This material
has historically been
[[Page 17243]]
disposed at Site H. No nuisance species have been observed at this site
in more than 10 years of monitoring.
11. Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of any Significant
Natural or Cultural Features of Historical Significance
The cutural resource most likely to be directly impacted by the
proposed project would be submerged shipwrecks at or near proposed Site
F. Potential impacts may include exposure and destruction of remnants
of shipwrecks if present in the location of areas scheduled for
dredging or impacts from disposal at the disposal site. Proposed Site F
and vicinity has been investigated and no shipwrecks have been found.
E. Proposed Action
The 1994 EIS concluded that the proposed site may be appropriately
designated for use. The proposed site is compatible with the general
criteria and specific factors used for site evaluation.
The designation of the larger Coos Bay Site F as approved Ocean
Dumping Site is being published as proposed rulemaking. Management of
this site will be delegated to the Regional Administrator of EPA Region
10.
It should be emphasized that, if an ocean dumping site is
designated, such a designation does not constitute or imply EPA's
approval of actual disposal of material at sea. Before ocean dumping of
dredged material at the site may commence, the Corps of Engineers must
evaluate the proposed Corps action or a permit application according to
EPA's ocean dumping criteria. EPA has the right to disapprove the
actual dumping, if it determines that environmental concerns under
MPRSA have not been met.
F. Regulatory Assessment
1. Consistency With the Coastal Zone Management Act
The designation of proposed Site F has been determined by the Corps
and EPA to be consistent with the acknowledged local comprehensive
plans and the State of Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program. The
State of Oregon, Department of Land Conservation and Development,
reviewed this consistency determination and concurred (1994 EIS).
2. Endangered Species Act Consultation
Federally listed species, under the administration of the National
Marine Fishery Service (NMFS), which may occur in or near the proposed
disposal site include: gray, fin, humpback, blue, sei, sperm and right
whales, Steller sea lions, leatherback, loggerhead and green sea
turtles, Snake River sockeye salmon, Snake River fall and spring/summer
chinook salmon and Sacramanto River winter-run chinook salmon. They are
normally present in offshore waters and occur in limited numbers on a
seasonal basis. Biological Assessments have been prepared and
concurrence letters from NMFS received.
Five Federally listed species administered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) occur in the coastal area. Species present are
the brown pelican, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, western snowy plover,
and the marbled murrelet. The peregrine falcon and the bald eagle are
proposed for de-listing. Biological Assessments have been prepared and
concurrence received.
G. Administrative Review
1. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,1993), EPA must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'', and
therefore subject to OMB review and other requirements of the Executive
Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to lead to a rule that may:
(a) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more, or adversely affect in a material way, the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or
communities;
(b) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
(c) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations
of recipients thereof; or
(d) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
This proposed rule does not entail ``significant regulatory
action'' as defined. Consequently EPA has determined that this proposed
rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of
Executive Order 12866.
2. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13083 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities''.
This proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. Tribal governments are not
affected in any fashion. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b)
of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
3. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA), federal agencies generally are required to conduct an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the impact of the
regulatory action on small entities as part of a proposed rulemaking.
However, under section 605(b) of the RFA, if the Administrator for the
agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the agency
is not required to prepare an IRFA. The Administrator certifies,
pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, the agency did not prepare an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis.
The RFA requires analysis of the impacts of a rule on the small
entities subject to the rule's requirements. See United States
Distribution Companies v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
Today's proposed rule establishes no requirements applicable to small
entities, and so is not susceptible to regulatory flexibility analysis
as described by the RFA. (``No [regulatory flexibility] analysis is
necessary when an agency determines that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
that are subject to the requirements of the rule,'' United Distribution
at 1170,
[[Page 17244]]
quoting Mid-Tex Elec. Co-op v. FERC, 773 F. 2d. 327, 342 (D.C. Cir.
1985) (emphasis added by United Distribution court).) The Agency is
thus certifying that today's proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on substantial number of small entities, within the
meaning of the RFA.
4. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to
minimize the reporting and record-keeping burden on the regulated
community, as well as to minimize the cost of Federal information
collection and dissemination. In general, the Act requires that
information requests and record-keeping requirements affecting ten or
more non-Federal respondents be approved by OPM. Since the proposed
Rule does not establish or modify any information or record-keeping
requirements, but only clarifies existing requirements, it is not
subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
5. Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, the provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why the
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable
duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
Similarly, EPA has also determined that this Rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small government entities. Thus, the requirements of section 203 of the
UMRA do not apply to this rule.
6. Executive Order 12875
Today's proposed rule does not create a mandate on State, local or
tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on
these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of the
Executive Order do not apply to this Rule.
7. Executive Order 13045
The Executive Order applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to
be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2)
Concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to
believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
EPA interprets E.O. as applying only to those regulatory actions
that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis
required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to E.O.
13045 because it is not economically significant as defined under E.O.
12866 and, further, it does not establish an environmental standard
intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
8. Executive Order 12898
To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and
consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National
Performance Review, each Federal agency must make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States and its territories and possessions, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the
Mariana Islands.
Because this proposed rule addresses ocean dumping (away from
inhabited land areas), with no anticipated significant adverse human
health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive
Order 12898.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 17245]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR00.002
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 17246]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228.
Environmental protection, Water pollution control.
Dated: March 15, 2000.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator for Region X.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Chapter I of title 40 is
amended as set forth below:
PART 228--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 228 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
2. Section 228.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (n) (4) (i),
(ii), (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) to read as follows:
Sec. 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a final basis.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Location: 43 deg.22'58" N., 124 deg.19'32" W.; 43 deg.21'50"
N., 124 deg.20'29" W.; 43 deg.22'52" N., 124 deg.23'28" W.;
43 deg.23'59" N., 124 deg.22'31" W. (NAD 83)
(ii) Size: 4.42 kilometers long and 2.44 kilometers wide.
(iii) Depth: Ranges from 6 to 51 meters.
(iv) Primary Use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of Use: Continuing Use.
(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
determined to be suitable for unconfined disposal and any other
restrictions contained in the then-currently approved site monitoring
and management plan.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-7734 Filed 3-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P