[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55770-55774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19063]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 228
[FRL-7973-8]
Ocean Dumping; Site Designation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA today designates a new Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site (ODMDS) in the Atlantic Ocean offshore Port Royal, South Carolina,
as an EPA-approved ocean dumping site for the disposal of suitable
dredged material. This action is necessary to provide an acceptable
ocean disposal site for consideration as an option for dredged material
disposal projects in the greater Port Royal, South Carolina, vicinity.
This 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: This rule is effective on October 24, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The file supporting this designation is available for public
inspection at the following location: EPA Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary W. Collins, (404) 562-9395.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. 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.
This designation is being made pursuant to that authority.
The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations promulgated under MPRSA (40 CFR
Chapter I, Subchapter H, Sec. 228.4) state that ocean dumping sites
will be designated by promulgation in this part 228. This site
designation is being published as final rulemaking in accordance with
Sec. 228.4(e) of the Ocean Dumping Regulations, which permits the
designation of ocean disposal sites for dredged material.
B. Regulated Entities
Entities potentially affected by this action are persons,
organizations, or government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged
material into ocean waters offshore Port Royal, South Carolina, under
the MPRSA and its implementing regulations. This final rule is expected
to be primarily of relevance to parties seeking permits from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to transport dredged material for the
purpose of disposal into ocean waters and to the COE itself for its own
dredged material disposal projects. Potentially regulated categories
and entities that may seek to use the proposed dredged material
disposal site may include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government..................... U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Civil Works Projects, U.S.
Marine Corps, 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.... Governments owning and/or
responsible for 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 entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your organization is affected by this
action, you should carefully consider whether your organization is
subject to the requirement to obtain an MPRSA permit in accordance with
Section 103 of the MPRSA and the applicable regulations at 40 CFR Parts
220 and 225, and whether you wish to use the site subject to today's
action. EPA notes that nothing in this final rule alters the
jurisdiction or authority of EPA or the types of entities regulated
under the MPRSA. Questions regarding the applicability of this final
rule to a particular entity should be directed to the contact person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
C. EIS Development
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 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 the agency decision making process careful consideration of all
environmental aspects of proposed actions. While NEPA does not apply to
EPA activities of this type, EPA has voluntarily committed to prepare
NEPA documents in connection with ocean disposal site designations.
(See 63 FR 58045 [October 29, 1998], ``Notice of Policy and Procedures
for Voluntary Preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Documents.'')
EPA, in cooperation with the Charleston District COE, has prepared
a Final EIS (FEIS) entitled ``Final Environmental Impact Statement for
the Port Royal Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation.'' On
June 25, 2004, the Notice of Availability of the FEIS for public review
and comment was published in the Federal Register (69 FR 35597 [June
25, 2004]). Anyone desiring a copy of the EIS may obtain one from the
address given above. The public comment period on the FEIS closed on
July 26, 2004.
EPA received one comment letter on the FEIS from the South Carolina
[[Page 55771]]
Department of Health and Environmental Control. This letter states the
Department's findings that the proposed ODMDS would be consistent with
the State's Coastal Zone Management Program.
Pursuant to an Office of Water policy memorandum dated October 23,
1989, EPA has evaluated the proposed site designation for consistency
with the State of South Carolina's (the State) approved coastal
management program. EPA has determined that the designation of the
proposed site is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
State coastal management program, and submitted this determination to
the State for review in accordance with EPA policy. As stated above,
the State agrees with this determination.
The action discussed in the FEIS is the permanent designation for
continuing use of an ODMDS near Port Royal, South Carolina. The purpose
of this action is to provide an environmentally acceptable option for
the continued ocean disposal of dredged material. The need for the
permanent designation of a Port Royal ODMDS is based on a demonstrated
COE need for ocean disposal of maintenance dredged material from the
Federal navigation projects in the greater Port Royal Sound area.
However, every disposal activity by the COE is evaluated on a case-by-
case basis to determine the need for ocean disposal for that particular
case. The need for ocean disposal for other projects, and the
suitability of the material for ocean disposal, will be determined on a
case-by-case basis as part of the COE's process of issuing permits for
ocean disposal for private/federal actions and a public review process
for its own actions.
For the Port Royal ODMDS, the COE and EPA would evaluate all
federal dredged material disposal projects pursuant to the EPA criteria
given in the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 220-229) and the COE
regulations (33 CFR 209.120 and 335-338). The COE issues MPRSA permits
to private applicants for the transport of dredged material intended
for ocean disposal after compliance with regulations has been
determined. EPA has the right to disapprove any ocean disposal project
if, in its judgment, the MPRSA environmental criteria [Section 102(a)]
or conditions of designation [Section 102(c)] are not met.
The FEIS discusses the need for this site designation and examines
ocean and non-ocean disposal site alternatives to the proposed action.
Specific alternatives considered were the two interim ocean sites,
sites off the continental shelf, land disposal sites, and sites that
might be used for shore protection.
D. Site Designation
On February 24, 2005, EPA proposed designation of an ODMDS for
continuing disposal of dredged material from the Port Royal Sound area.
The period on this proposal closed on April 11, 2005. One e-mail letter
of comment was received opposing not only the designation of this site,
but all ocean disposal in principle. In response to this letter, EPA
reiterates its support of beneficial uses of dredged material, when
appropriate, and that this action is in accordance with MPRSA and the
EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations promulgated under MPRSA. In addition, any
project which proposes to dispose of dredged material within this site
must evaluate the material to determine its suitability for ocean
disposal. Only dredged material which has been shown to meet the ocean
dumping criteria would be permitted to be placed in this site.
The site is located approximately 7 nautical miles offshore Bay
Point Island, South Carolina. The proposed ODMDS occupies an area of
about 1.0 square nautical miles (nmi2). Water depths within
the area average 36 feet (ft.). The coordinates of the New Port Royal
site proposed for final designation are as follows:
Latitude Longitude
32[deg]05.00' N 80[deg]36.47' W
32[deg]05.00' N 80[deg]35.30' W
32[deg]04.00' N 80[deg]35.30' W
32[deg]04.00' N 80[deg]36.47' W
E. Regulatory Requirements
Pursuant to the Ocean Dumping Regulations, 40 CFR 228.5, five
general criteria are used in the selection and approval for continuing
use of ocean disposal sites. Sites are selected so as to minimize
interference with other marine activities, to prevent any temporary
perturbations associated with the disposal 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 and other sites that have been historically used are
to be chosen. In this case, locations off the Continental Shelf are not
feasible and no environmental benefit would be obtained by selecting
such a site. Historical use of this site has not resulted in
substantial adverse effects to living resources of the ocean or to
other uses of the marine environment. If, at any time, disposal
operations at a site cause unacceptable adverse impacts, further use of
the site can be restricted or terminated by EPA. The site conforms to
the five general criteria.
In addition to these general criteria in Sec. 228.5, Sec. 228.6
lists the 11 specific criteria used in evaluating a disposal site to
assure that the general criteria are met. Application of these 11
criteria constitutes an environmental assessment of the impact of
disposal at the site. The characteristics of the site are reviewed
below in terms of these 11 criteria (the EIS may be consulted for
additional information).
1. Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography, and
Distance From Coast (40 CFR 228.6(a)(1))
The boundary of the site is given above. The northern boundary of
the site is located about 7 nmi offshore of Bay Point Island, South
Carolina. The site is approximatelty 1.0 nmi\2\ in area. The bottom
topography is relatively flat and featureless, with water depths
averaging 36 ft.
2. Location In Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or
Passage Areas of Living Resources in Adult or Juvenile Phases (40 CFR
228.6(a)(2))
Many of the area's species spend their adult lives in the offshore
region, but are estuary-dependent because their juvenile stages use a
low salinity estuarine nursery region. Specific migration routes are
not known to occur within the site. The site is not known to include
any major breeding or spawning area. Due to the motility of finfish, it
is unlikely that disposal activities will have any significant impact
on any of the species found in the area. In a letter dated October 23,
2003, the Habitat Conservation Division of National Marine Fisheries
Service concurred with our assessment that this designation would not
have a substantial individual or cumulative adverse impact on essential
fish habitat, or fishery resources.
3. Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR
228.6(a)(3))
The site is located approximately 7 nmi from the coast. Considering
the previous disposal activities of the existing ODMDS (designated by
the COE under Section 103 authority), dredged material disposal at the
site is not expected to have an effect on the recreational uses of
these beaches.
[[Page 55772]]
4. Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed To Be Disposed of, and
Proposed Methods of Release, Including Methods of Packing the Waste, If
Any (40 CFR 228(a)(4))
The types of materials to be disposed of within this site are
dredged materials as described in type and quantity by Section 2 of the
FEIS. Between the years 1992 and 2003, approximately 200,000 cubic
yards (annual average) have been ocean disposed within this area,
typically once every two years. To date, the material from the Federal
navigation project has been excluded from testing. Future disposal,
which would be by hopper dredge or dump scow, should not change
significantly by either volume or frequency. All disposals shall be in
accordance with the approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP)
developed for this site (FEIS, Appendix B).
5. Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring (40 CFR 228.6(a)(5))
Due to the relative proximity of the site to shore and its depth,
surveillance will not be difficult. The SMMP for the Port Royal ODMDS
has been developed and was included as an appendix in the FEIS. This
SMMP establishes a sequence of monitoring surveys to be undertaken to
determine any impacts resulting from disposal activities. The SMMP may
be reviewed and revised by EPA. A copy of the SMMP may be obtained at
the address given above.
6. Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing Characteristics
of the Area Including Prevailing Current Direction and Velocity, If Any
(40 CFR 228.6(a)(6))
A detailed current study, along with fate modelling of dredged
material, was not deemed necessary because almost all of the material
historically placed in the ocean has been sand. Therefore, a site-
specific current study was not conducted within the site. Transport of
disposed material should not present any adverse impacts. In summary,
littoral drift is reported to be predominantly southwestward, while
nearshore surface currents are derived primarily from wind stress, and
are subject to extreme variability.
7. Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and Dumping
in the Area (Including Cumulative Effects) (40 CFR 228.6(a)(7))
This site, as well as past interim sites nearby, has been used to
dispose of the material from the Port Royal Sound area since 1956.
Subsequent monitoring of these disposals and the long-term effects show
that no adverse impacts have, or are likely to occur to the area.
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 (40 CFR 228.6(a)(8))
The location of the ODMDS was selected to avoid interference with
commercial shipping. It is not anticipated that the site would
interfere with any recreational activity. In addition, mineral
extraction, fish and shellfish culture, and desalination activities do
not occur in the area.
9. The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Site as Determined by
Available Data or by Trend Assessment or Baseline Surveys (40 CFR
228.6(a)(9))
Appropriate water quality and ecological assessments have been
performed at the site. The most abundant benthic invertebrates found
within the site were the annelid Polygrodius sp., the bivalve Ervilia
concentrica, the polychaete Prionospio cristata, annelids in the class
Oligochaeta, and the bivalve Crassinella lunulata. These five taxa
accounted for more than 40 percent of total number of individuals
collected. More detailed information concerning the water quality and
ecology at the ODMDS is presented in the FEIS. A copy of the FEIS may
be obtained at any of the addresses given above.
10. Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance Species
in the Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10))
The disposal of dredged materials should not attract or promote the
development of nuisance species. No nuisance species have been reported
to occur at previously utilized disposal sites in the vicinity.
11. Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of Any Significant
Natural or Cultural Features of Historical Importance (40 CFR
228.6(a)(11))
There are no known such natural or cultural features of historical
importance. As stated in the FEIS, this action has fully complied with
both the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act and the National
Historic Preservation Act, as amended.
F. Site Management
Site management of the Port Royal ODMDS is the responsibility of
EPA, in cooperation with the COE. The COE issues permits to private
applicants for ocean disposal; however, EPA/Region 4 assumes overall
responsibility for site management.
The SMMP for the Port Royal ODMDS was developed as a part of the
process of completing the EIS. This plan provides procedures for both
site management and for the monitoring of effects of disposal
activities. This SMMP is intended to be flexible and may be reviewed
and revised by the EPA.
G. Proposed Action
The EIS concludes that the site may be appropriately designated for
use. The site is compatible with the 11 specific and five general
criteria used for site evaluation.
The designation of the Port Royal site as an EPA-approved ODMDS is
being published as final rulemaking. Overall management of this site is
the responsibility of the Regional Administrator of EPA/Region 4.
It should be emphasized that, if an ODMDS is designated, such a
site designation does not constitute EPA's approval of actual disposal
of material at sea. Before ocean disposal of dredged material at the
site may commence, the COE must evaluate a permit application according
to EPA's Ocean Dumping Criteria. EPA has the right to disapprove the
actual disposal, if it determines that environmental concerns under
MPRSA have not been met.
The Port Royal ODMDS is not restricted to disposal use by federal
projects; private applicants may also dispose suitable dredged material
at the ODMDS once relevant regulations have been satisfied. This site
is restricted, however, to suitable dredged material from the greater
Port Royal, South Carolina, vicinity.
H. Regulatory Assessments
1. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA 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 entitlements, grants,
user fees,
[[Page 55773]]
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.
EPA has determined that this action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
This 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
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA is required to perform a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for all rules that may have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA has
determined that this action will not have a significant impact on small
entities since the designation will only have the effect of providing
an environmentally acceptable disposal option for dredged material on a
continued basis. Consequently, by publication of this Rule, the
Regional Administrator certifies that this action will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and
therefore does not necessitate preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law
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 one
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 of why that
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 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.
EPA has determined that this action contains no Federal mandates
(under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State,
local and tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. Thus, the requirements of section 202 and section 205
of the UMRA do not apply to this proposed rule. Similarly, EPA has also
determined that this action 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 final
rule.
5. Executive Order 13132
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'' is 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 final 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. As described elsewhere in this
preamble, today's action would only have the effect of providing a
continual use of an ocean disposal site pursuant to section 102(c) of
MPRSA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this final rule.
Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply, EPA did
consult with State officials in developing this action and no concerns
were raised.
6. Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 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.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. As
described elsewhere in this preamble, today's action would only have
the effect of providing continual use of an ocean disposal site
pursuant to section 102(c) of MPRSA. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this final rule.
7. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) applies to any rule that: (a) Is determined to be ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866 and (b) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health
or 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 EPA.
This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because EPA does not have any reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. As described elsewhere in this
preamble, today's action would only have the effect of providing
continual use of an ocean disposal site pursuant to section 102(c) of
MPRSA.
8. Executive Order 13211
This final 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.
[[Page 55774]]
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 doing 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
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This final rule
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider
the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
10. Executive Order 12898
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. Executive Order
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 final 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.
11. The Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 12898 do not
apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228
Environmental protection, Water pollution control.
Dated: September 14, 2005.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator for Region 4.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, Subchapter H of Chapter I of Title
40 is amended as follows:
PART 228--[AMENDED]
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 adding (h)(23) to read as follows:
Sec. 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a final basis.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(23) Port Royal, SC; Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site.
(i) Location (NAD83): 32[deg]05.00' N., 80[deg]36.47' W.;
32[deg]05.00' N., 80[deg]35.30' W.; 32[deg]04.00' N., 80[deg]35.30' W.;
32[deg]04.00' N., 80[deg]36.47' W.
(ii) Size: Approximately 1.0 square nautical miles.
(iii) Depth: Averages 36 feet.
(iv) Primary use: Dredged material.
(v) Period of use: Continuing use.
(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to suitable dredged
material from the greater Port Royal, South Carolina, vicinity.
Disposal shall comply with conditions set forth in the most recent
approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-19063 9-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P