[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