[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61424-61425]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24162]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70544; File No. SR-NSCC-2013-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Decommission
Its Trade Risk Pro Service

September 27, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 16, 2013, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and
III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by NSCC. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Rules &
Procedures (``Rules'') of NSCC to decommission the DTCC Trade Risk Pro
service as more fully described below.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose. [sic]
    By this filing, NSCC proposes to decommission the DTCC Trade Risk
Pro service (``Trade Risk Pro''). Trade Risk Pro was designed to allow
Members to monitor intraday trading activity of their organizations
and/or their correspondent firms through review of post-trade data.\3\
While several firms participated in a pilot of Trade Risk Pro, no
Members are currently enrolled in Trade Risk Pro and it is not
currently cost-effective to maintain the service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66068 (Dec. 29,
2011), 77 FR 528 (Jan. 5, 2012) (File No. SR-DTC-2011-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pending approval by the Commission, NSCC will decommission Trade
Risk Pro and revise its Rules to delete the current Rule 54 (Trade Risk
Pro) and Procedure XVII (Trade Risk Pro). Rule 54 will be designated as
reserved for future use. The effective date of the proposed rule change
will be announced via an NSCC Important Notice.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\4\ as amended, and the rules and
regulations thereunder, because, by closing an underutilized service,
it allows for the allocation of resources among other clearing agency
functions, and therefore facilitates the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition, as there are no Members
that currently use Trade Risk Pro.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received with respect to this filing.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The clearing agency shall post notice on its Web site of proposed
changes that are implemented.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NSCC-2013-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSCC-2013-10. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on
NSCC's Web site at http://dtcc.com/legal/rule--filings/

nscc/2013.php. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSCC-2013-10 and should
be submitted on or before October 24, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24162 Filed 10-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 30900-30901]
[DOCID:fr04jn07-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55823; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Amendments to Interpretation to Rule 311(b)(5)
(``Co-Designation of Principal Executive Officers'') as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

 May 29, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On February 2, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a
proposed rule change to amend Interpretation .05 to NYSE Rule 311(b)(5)
regarding co-designation of principal executive officers. On April 16,
2007, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment
in the Federal Register on April 26, 2007.\4\ The Commission received
no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule
change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78(a) et seq.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55650 (April 19,
2007), 72 FR 20905.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    NYSE Rule 311 (``Formation and Approval of Member Organizations'')
and specifically Section (b)(5) thereof currently provide that
principal executive officers \5\ shall exercise principal executive
responsibility over the various areas of the business of the member
corporation. Interpretation .05 to Rule 311(b)(5) (the
``Interpretation'') sets forth the regulatory framework under which
member organizations may request approval for assigning two persons as
the principal executive officers for the same function pursuant to Rule
311(b)(5). The Rule currently provides that no understanding or
agreement purporting to limit or apportion the joint and several
responsibility of each such co-officer will be recognized by the
Exchange. The Exchange now believes, however, that there are situations
in which CCOs and COOs can exercise supervisory authority over discrete
and naturally separate business functions, consistent with the internal
corporate structure of the particular member organization. Accordingly,
the Exchange has proposed to permit co-CCOs and co-COOs to allocate
supervisory responsibility in a fashion acceptable to the Exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange recognizes four such principal executive
officers: chief executive officer (``CEO''), chief operations
officer (``COO''), chief finance officer (``CFO'') and chief
compliance officer (``CCO'').
    \6\ The Exchange continues to believe that the authority vested
in CEOs and CFOs is indivisible, thus the proposed amendments to the
Interpretation would not apply to these principal executive
officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, where a member organization seeks to divide
regulatory responsibility between more than one such principal
executive officer bearing the same or similar titles without the
assumption of joint and several responsibility, it must provide the
Exchange with a plan acceptable to the Exchange allocating specific
responsibility and making unambiguous provisions, especially for the
supervision of areas where the separate functions interact. Joint and
several responsibility would remain in effect for any area not
specifically included in the plan approved by the Exchange.

    In addition, because the CCO of a member organization has unique
responsibilities under NYSE Rule 342.30 (``Annual Reports''), the
revised Interpretation would also require a representation that the
certification required by Rule 342.30(e) will confirm the qualification
of each such co-CCO and that the responsibility of the co-CCOs
encompasses every aspect of the business of the member organization.
Each of the co-CCOs would be required to meet with and advise the CEO
as part of the Rule 342.30 certification process.

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange \7\ and, in particular, the requirements of Section
6 of the Act. \8\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal
is consistent with Section (b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in that the proposal
has been designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
and to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission
believes that the proposal should provide the Exchange with flexibility
in selecting, and offering positions to, qualified candidates to fill
CCO and COO positions, thus helping to ensure skilled management of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Commission has considered the amended proposed rule
change's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2007-10), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-10668 Filed 6-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 91)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27396-27405]
[DOCID:fr11my06-4]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[FRL-8167-7]

Ocean Dumping; De-Designation of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Site and Designation of New Site Near Coos Bay, OR

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its proposal to de-designate an existing
ocean dredged material disposal site and designate a new ocean dredged
material disposal site located offshore of Coos Bay, Oregon. EPA's
proposed rule was published March 31, 2000. The new site is needed for
long-term use by authorized Coos Bay navigation projects and may be
available for use by persons meeting the criteria for ocean disposal of
dredged material. The de-designation of the existing site allows for
its incorporation into the newly designated site. This will allow EPA
to manage the entire new site to avoid adverse mounding conditions and
will ensure site capacity is sufficient for total volumes of dredged
material. The newly designated site is necessary for current and future
dredged material ocean disposal needs and will be subject to ongoing
monitoring and management to ensure continued protection of the marine
environment so as to mitigate adverse impacts on the environment to the
greatest extent practicable.

DATES: This final rule will be effective on June 12, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this final action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OW-2006-0409. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. The documents are also

available for inspection at the Region 10 Library, 10th Floor, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. For access to the documents at
the Region 10 Library, contact the Region 10 Library Reference Desk at
(206) 553-1289, between 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, for an appointment or
contact John Malek, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop
ETPA-083, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Malek, Ocean Dumping Coordinator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (ETPA-083), 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-1128, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Potentially Affected Persons

    Persons potentially affected by this action include those who seek
or might seek permits or approval by EPA to dispose of dredged material
into ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1414, (``MPRSA''). EPA's
action would be relevant to persons, including organizations and
government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged material in ocean
waters offshore of Coos Bay, Oregon. Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) and other persons with permits to use designated
sites at Coos Bay would be most impacted by this final action.
Potentially affected categories and persons include:

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this
action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular person, please refer to the section of this action titled
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

2. Background

a. History of Disposal Site Designations Off of Coos Bay, OR

    Pursuant to the MPRSA, the Administrator of EPA, as delegated to
the Regional Administrator, designated three disposal sites (Site E,
original Site F and Site H) off of Coos Bay, Oregon in 1986. The
original Site F began to experience mounding that rendered it unable to
accept the total volume of dredged material generated on an annual
basis. In 1989, with EPA approval, the size of the original Site F was
roughly doubled by the Corps exercising its Section 103 authority to
select disposal sites under the MPRSA. In 1995, EPA approved a second
Corps expansion of the original Site F. On March 31, 2000, EPA
published in the Federal Register its proposal to de-designate the
original Site F and designate a new Site F that consisted of the 103
configured Site F and the original Site F (65 FR 17240). A forty-five
day public comment period, which closed on May 14, 2000, was provided.
EPA did not receive comments from the public on the proposed rule. The
coordinates of the proposed Site F (North American Datum 1983; NAD 83)
were:

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

The proposed site was rectangular with an east-west side length
dimension of 14,500 feet and a north-south side length dimension of
8,000 feet. Figure 1 is a diagram of the site EPA proposed in 2000.
    Subsequent to EPA's proposed designation, the North Jetty at Coos
Bay failed in December 2002, due in part to undermining. The Corps then
examined the potential for augmenting transport of disposed material
into the eddy created by the North Jetty itself. With EPA concurrence,
the Corps began making selected disposals in the southeastern corner of
the 103 Site F nearest the jetty. Monitoring indicated that some
material was captured by the eddy and augmented the substrate that the
jetty rests upon. This experience and the lessons learned during the
designations of ocean dredged material disposal sites near the Mouth of
the Columbia River in 2005, as well as increased public awareness of,
and attention to, coastal erosion processes and opportunities to manage
dredged material more beneficially led EPA to review its proposed site
designation near Coos Bay. The result of this review is a minor change
to the configuration of new Site F toward the North Jetty at the north
side of the mouth of Coos Bay. This reconfiguration could potentially
benefit the stabilization of the North Jetty and keep material in the
littoral zone. This

reconfiguration is expected to allow dredged material disposed in
shallower portions of the new Site F to naturally disperse into the
littoral zone without creation of mounding conditions that would
contribute to adverse impacts to navigation, including adverse wave
conditions.

b. Location and Configuration of New Site F

    Figure 2 is a diagram of the new Site F as EPA is finalizing the
site in today's rule. It also shows the other designated sites (E and
H), the de-designated Site F, the 103 configured Site F and the
proposed Site F. The shoremost side of the site has been extended
approximately 600 feet as compared to the site when proposed and the
southeastern corner has been located closer to the North Jetty at the
mouth of Coos Bay. This has resulted in an overall increase to the site
footprint of 399.8 acres bringing the total area of new Site F to
3,075.2 acres. This configuration will allow EPA to ensure that
disposal of dredged material into the site will be managed to retain
more of the material in the active littoral drift area to augment
shoreline building processes. The relocation of the corner of the site
closer to the jetty will allow dredged material to be more effectively
placed to continue augmentation toward the nearshore and toward the
North Jetty at the mouth of Coos Bay. This change, while minor, expands
sediment management opportunities that are beneficial to the coastal
environment in Coos Bay. The coordinates for the new Site F near Coos
Bay (NAD 83) as finalized today are:

43[deg]22'54.8887'' N, 124[deg]19'28.9905'' W
43[deg]21'32.8735'' N, 124[deg]20'37.7373'' W
43[deg]22'51.4004'' N, 124[deg]23'32.4318'' W
43[deg]23'58.4014'' N, 124[deg]22'35.4308'' W

    The new Site F is expected to accommodate the approximately 1.38
million cubic yards (mcy) of material dredged annually from the Coos
Bay estuary by the Corps to maintain the existing Federal navigation
channel. The nearshore boundary of the new site is within two thousand
feet of the shoreline. Sediments disposed near this boundary are
considered to be in the active transport zone and are expected to
disperse rapidly both onshore and alongshore. Limited onshore transport
is expected because of the nature of prevailing currents and wave
transport in the vicinity. Predicted material transport at the new site
is southward in the summer months and northward during the remainder of
the year.

BILLING CODE 6560-5-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY06.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11MY06.005

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

c. Management and Monitoring of New Site F

    The newly designated Site F will receive sediments dredged by the
Corps to maintain the federally authorized navigation project at Coos
Bay, Oregon and will be available to current permittees and for use by
others after obtaining the appropriate permits and approvals. Existing
permits issued pursuant to subchapter H of Title 40 of the CFR will not
need to be modified to use new Site F. The new Site F is designated
with restrictions with which all persons must comply. All persons using
the site are required to follow the final Site Management and
Monitoring Plan (SMMP) which is effective as of the effective date of
this action. The SMMP generally addresses managing new Site F to
minimize and avoid mounding and to ensure that dredged materials

disposed at the site are suitable for ocean disposal. The SMMP includes
management and monitoring requirements for all of the designated sites
near Coos Bay and addresses the timing of disposal into new Site F to
minimize interference with commercial crabbing in the nearshore zone.
Among other things, the SMMP sets out monitoring and management
requirements to ensure that dredged material disposed at the site is
suitable for disposal and will not lead to unacceptable impacts to
human health or the environment during the dredging process, during
transportation to the designated sites, during disposal or once
disposed or at the disposal sites.

d. MPRSA

    EPA finds that today's final action satisfies the site designation
criteria of the MPRSA and the regulatory criteria of 40 CFR part 228.
The assessment of the statutory criteria and general and specific
regulatory criteria presented in the proposed rule has been examined in
response to the slight reconfiguration of the new Site F. Moving the
corner of the new Site F to the southeast and closer to the North Jetty
based on EPA's increased understanding of coastal erosion issues will
allow EPA to manage disposal at the new Site to retain material in the
active littoral zone to augment shoreline building processes. This
meets the statutory and regulatory criteria to use an appropriate
location based on considerations affecting the public interest and to
locate the site to minimize interference with other activities in the
marine environment. New data collected since the proposed rule has been
included in the discussion of the general and specific site designation
criteria.
General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)
    1. Sites must be selected to minimize interference with other
activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of
existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial
or recreational navigation (40 CFR 228.5(a)).
    EPA's assessment of information available at the time of the
proposed rule demonstrated that new Site F as proposed would cause only
minimal interference with fisheries and shellfisheries and with
navigation notwithstanding the location of the site in the Coos Bay
navigation channel. This assessment has not changed with the minor
reconfiguration of the site toward the North Jetty. Most of new Site F
has been used over the past decade for dredged material disposal
pursuant to section 103 authority exercised by the Corps with EPA
concurrence and mariners in this area are accustomed to the site use.
In addition, based on a conservation recommendation from the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) resulting from an EPA consultation on
essential fish habitat, EPA will impose use restrictions at the site to
minimize the use of the site before June 1 of any year to essential
work and will encourage staggering of disposal events when juvenile
coho and Chinook salmon are holding in nearshore habitats.
    2. Sites must be situated such that temporary perturbations to
water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing
caused by disposal operations would be reduced to normal ambient levels
or undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching
any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited
fishery or shellfishery (40 CFR 228.5(b)).
    EPA's analysis at the time of the proposed rule concluded that the
new Site F would satisfy this criterion. EPA's understanding of the
nearshore processes near the North Jetty indicates that this criterion
will continue to be met with the reconfiguration of new Site F as
finalized today. Although EPA expects some material disposed at new
Site F to reach the base of the North Jetty, normal ambient levels and
undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects would be expected
before any material reached any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary or
known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery because of the
existing high currents and wave energy.
    3. If site designation studies show that any interim disposal sites
do not meet the site selection criteria, use of such sites shall be
terminated as soon as any alternate site can be designated (40 CFR
228.5(c)).
    There are no interim disposal sites near Coos Bay as defined under
the Ocean Dumping regulations. This criterion is not applicable to
today's action de-designating existing Site F and designating new Site
F.
    4. The sizes of disposal sites will be limited in order to localize
for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts, and to
permit the implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance to
prevent adverse long-range impacts. Size, configuration, and location
are to be determined as part of the disposal site evaluation (40 CFR
228.5(d)).
    EPA sized the proposed site to meet this criterion. The site, as
finalized in today's action, continues to meet this criterion. The
total area of new Site F is approximately 3,075.2 acres or 3.63 nm\2\.
The site tends to be moderately dispersive in the nearshore area and
tends to be less dispersive in other parts of the site. The overall
stability of the site is a significant part of the justification for
the size of the site. The original Site F experienced significant
mounding and lead to the selection of the larger site designated today.
Data collected by the Corps through bathymetric monitoring shows the
spread and movement of material placed at original Site F and suggests
that material from the original Site F did eventually disperse over the
footprint of the 103-selected site. This data also indicates that
effective monitoring and surveillance of the site has been performed
for many years. The SMMP describes the plan for management and
monitoring of the site.
    5. EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites where
historical disposal has occurred (40 CFR 228.5(e)).
    EPA's evaluation at the time of the proposed rule concluded that
long distances and travel times between the dredging locations near
Coos Bay and the continental shelf posed significant environmental,
operational, safety and environmental concerns, including risk of
encounter with endangered species and increased air emissions. This
conclusion is unchanged and new Site F, finalized by today's rule, is
consistent with this criterion.
Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)
1. Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography and
Distance From Coast (40 CFR 228.6(a)(1))
    Based on the data available at the time EPA proposed the
designation of Site F and data available from bathymetric surveys
conducted by the Corps, EPA has concluded that the geographical
position, depth of water, bottom topography and distance from the coast
of new Site F will avoid adverse effects to the marine environment.
Near the North Jetty, the new site will allow for the placement of
material that is expected to contribute material to the littoral zone
and may help decrease erosion of the jetty. Throughout most of the
shallow portions of the new site the area is dispersive. Based on EPA's
understanding of currents at the site and their influence on the
movement of material in the area this means there is a high likelihood
that material will be transported to the adjacent seafloor. The site is
located and sized to allow for long-term disposal without creation of
adverse mounding conditions.

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))
    New Site F is not located in breeding, spawning, nursery or feeding
areas for adult or juvenile phases of living resources. The site is, or
may be, a passage area for living resources during adult or juvenile
phases. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), during
consultations with EPA in 2005 and 2006 for endangered species and for
essential fish habitat, requested that disposal at new Site F be
restricted to stagger disposal events at the new site, particularly in
the nearshore zone, to avoid continuous disposal while juveniles,
including salmon and groundfish species, are outmigrating or holding in
nearshore environments. EPA agreed to include staggered disposal in its
final SMMP. This will benefit the juveniles of concern to NMFS and will
also minimize any potential short-term localized effects to marine
organisms in the immediate vicinity of disposal events by minimizing
the creation of mounds at the site.
3. Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR
228.6(a)(3))
    EPA's proposed rule concluded that the proposed site met this
criterion and EPA's conclusion is not changed today notwithstanding the
minor reconfiguration of the site toward the North Jetty. The site,
although located in the navigation channel and close to the North Jetty
is located to avoid adverse impacts to beaches and other amenity areas.
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 228.6(a)(4))
    The new Site F is being designated today for the disposal of
dredged material. Disposal of other types of material will not be
allowed at this site or at any of the ocean dredged material disposal
sites at Coos Bay. Dredged material to be disposed at the new Site F
will be predominantly sand and fine-grained material. Data collected
subsequent to EPA's proposed rule included seventeen sediment samples
collected from along the length of the federal navigation channel in
Coos Bay, Isthmus Slough, and Charleston Channel in 2004 (Coos Bay
Sediment Quality Evaluation Report, March 2005). These samples were
subjected to physical and chemical analyses, which included analyses
for metals, total organic carbon, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), phenols, phthalates, miscellaneous extractables, polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and total and pore water organotin (TBT).
    The physical analyses resulted in mean values of 1.6% gravel (0%-
10.0% range), 69.6% sand (4.0%-98.8% range), and 28.8% silt/clay (1.2%-
96.0% range) with 4.5% volatile solids (0.2%-16.7% range). The chemical
analyses indicated low levels of chemicals in some of the samples. The
results were compared with results from previous Corps sampling efforts
in 1980, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1998. All the data are
consistent in showing that material below river mile (RM) 12 of the
Coos Bay channel is typically sand, while material above RM 12 is
typically silt. With only a few exceptions (where adjacent sources are
obvious) the sand matrix is considered low risk for contamination. The
silty areas of the estuary and river typically contain low levels of
contaminants-of-concern that have remained unchanged for many years or
appear to be improving slightly (i.e. concentrations are dropping).
Materials to be disposed of at the site must be suitable for ocean
disposal.
    With respect to proposed methods of releasing material at the new
site, material will be released just below the surface from dredges
while the dredges are under power and slowly transit the site. This
method of release is expected to minimize mounding at the site and to
minimize impacts to the benthic community.
5. Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring (40 CFR 228.6(a)(5))
    Monitoring and surveillance at new Site F is expected to be
feasible. The site is accessible for bathymetric and side-scan sonar
surveys. Most of the site has been successfully monitored by the Corps
during the Corps's use of the 103 site. It is also expected to be
feasible to monitor and survey the minor addition made to the site
through the reconfiguration toward the North Jetty. The Corps has
monitored the base of the jetty on a routine basis and during emergency
repairs made in 2002 after a failure of the jetty. The final SMMP
requires monitoring and surveillance of the new site. At a minimum,
annual bathymetric surveys will be conducted at new Site F and more
frequent surveys will be required in areas of the site that receive
dredged material. Off-site beach monitoring will also be required.
Routine monitoring will concentrate on determining how to ensure the
distribution of material in the nearshore portions of the site to
augment littoral processes and in the deeper portions of the site to
avoid or minimize mounding.
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))
    At the time EPA proposed the designation of the new site, EPA
understood the dispersal patterns along the Oregon coast to generally
flow parallel to the bathymetric contours of the bottom. Local wave and
current strength and direction are impacted by the variability of the
local winds, especially in shallower water. During summer months which
make up the normal dredge and disposal season, material transport
trends southward. The trend at other times of the year is north and
northwest for currents and material transport. Re-suspension and
transport of material disposed at the site would be expected to be at a
maximum during winter months when winter storms occur and when no
active disposal is taking place at the site. Throughout the year,
material disposed in the nearshore and shallower portions of new Site F
are expected to be redistributed by existing littoral processes.
    Mounding at originally designated Site F led the Corps to exercise
its authorities pursuant to Section 103 of the MPRSA to select a
significant expansion of the site and to use modeling techniques to
model placement of material within the site to avoid excessive
mounding. The originally designated Site F was generally not used for
disposal after 1989. However, it was thought that material at that
location was eroding toward the 103 selected Site F. For this reason,
the original Site F, although proposed for de-designation as a stand-
alone site, was to be incorporated into the new Site F. The movement of
material was considered to be most dispersive in the shallower zones of
the 103 site but material disposed in the deeper and less dynamic
portions of the site are redistributed across the site. Eventually, the
redistribution is expected to move the material disposed at the site to
the north and east.
    Subsequent to publication of the proposed Rule in 2000, the Corps
continued to conduct annual bathymetric surveys at the 103 Site F and
to share the data collected with EPA to assess capacity at the site for
the coming year's anticipated dredging. This data tended to show that
the mound at the 1986-designated Site F was slowly eroding to its
present

average at below minus 60 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). This
indicates a minimum of 10 feet of material having eroded out of 1986-
designated Site F. Dredged material was placed at various locations
within the 103 Site F and monitored. Computer modeling of disposal
operations was used to determine short-term and long-term sediment fate
to design disposal units or cells. Bathymetric surveys during and
following disposals were conducted. Initial work was focused on
confirming accuracy of the models. Bathymetric changes measured by the
monitoring compared well with the changes predicted by the model. For
example, the model predicted a 2.9 foot change and monitoring measured
the actual change at 3.0 feet. The model was used to predict disposal
results in the nearshore area (i.e., along the innermost edge of the
103 Site F) and field monitoring was conducted to verify the modeled
predictions. Placement height was managed to a maximum of 3 feet during
initial disposal into 180 separate cells each sized as a 200 foot by
500 foot cell.
    These bathymetric surveys show that the shallow water portion of
the site has accumulated about 1 foot of material on the bottom, with
small areas of accumulation of up to 5 feet. In the deeper portion of
the 103 site, disposals were conducted to dispose of up to 24 feet of
material at specific locations. Bathymetric monitoring indicates these
thicker disposals had eroded down to 19 feet of accumulated material on
the bottom. The surveys further show that this accumulated material is
dispersing in a northeasterly direction.
7. Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and Dumping
in the Area (Including Cumulative Effects) (40 CFR 228.6(a)(7))
    Annually, approximately 1.3 million cubic yards (mcy) of material
has been disposed of at the Coos Bay designated sites, Sites E, F and
H, from dredging undertaken by the Corps to maintain the navigation
channel. The Coos Bay sites were used consistently prior to their
designations in 1986. Sites E and F were not used after the late
eighties because of mounding concerns. As discussed above, the mounds
at those sites have been eroding over time. Originally designated Site
F was recently used by the Corps for the disposal of dredged material
to maintain safe navigation in the navigation channel. This site, which
is de-designated by today's rule as a stand-alone site, is incorporated
into the footprint of the new Site F. EPA's evaluation of data and
modeling results indicates that past disposal operations at these sites
and current operations have not resulted in unacceptable environmental
degradation. Adverse effects are not expected to result from the minor
reconfiguration of the site toward the North Jetty. EPA expects that
portion of the site to benefit the nearshore environment.
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 site is not expected to interfere with shipping, fishing,
recreation or other legitimate uses of the ocean. Commercial crabbing,
which was referenced in EPA's proposed rule as an activity occurring in
the nearshore, is not expected to be impacted by the minor
reconfiguration of new Site F. Disposals at the new site will be
managed through the SMMP to minimize interference with other legitimate
uses of the ocean through careful timing and staggering of disposals in
the nearshore portion of the new site.
9. The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Sites as Determined by
Available Data or Trend Assessment of Baseline Surveys (40 CFR
228.6(a)(9))
    At the time of EPA's proposed rule in 2000, EPA had not identified
any adverse water quality impacts from ocean disposal of dredged
material at originally designated Site F or at 103 selected Site F. In
2004, the Corps released a report titled ``Comparison of SPI Data and
STFATE Simulation Results at Coos Bay, OR ODMDS Site `F','' which
provided some verification of numerical models used to predict the
behavior of disposed material on water quality and ecology of the site.
The samples, i.e. sediment profile images, indicated some important
characteristics about the native sediments and dredged sediments
disposed of at the site. Native sediment in the shallow and
intermediate water portions of the site did not show a layer of fine
grained material at the sediment-water interface. This absence
indicates that burrowing infauna were absent or extremely limited in
the area. This finding was not unexpected because the intermediate/
shallow water locations within the site are heavily dominated by wave-
current action which forces repeated and routine resuspension of
sediment. The report found that ``the effects on initial disposal on
benthic marine life in these areas are likely minimal.'' By contrast,
the deeper portion of the site did indicate the presence of benthic
infaunal activity. In addition to the sediment profile imaging (SPI), a
plan-view video was also produced. Crabs, shrimp, and flatfish were all
seen on the video; however, no inferences were made as to population.
Biological activity and reworking of the surface sediments by natural
forces was indicated in the imaging but it was not possible to
penetrate the sandy substrate to measure the full thickness of the
deposited material at the site.
10. Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance Species
in the Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10))
    In its proposed rule, EPA stated that nuisance species had not been
observed at the existing Coos Bay sites in over ten years of monitoring
and that EPA did not expect there to be a significant potential for the
development or recruitment of nuisance species in the proposed site.
That statement was based in part on the lack of organic material
disposed at the site. Subsequent to EPA's proposed rule, however,
circumstances at designated Site H have caused that site to be closed
at present and the potential for organic material to be disposed of at
new Site F has increased. Organic material is generally found above RM
12 in the Coos Bay Channel and is likelier than material below RM12 to
be more attractive to nuisance species. While there is the potential
for the development or recruitment of nuisance species where dredged
material from above RM12 might be disposed of at the new Site F, this
potential remains low. The SMMP will provide for monitoring of the new
site to help ensure that nuisance species are not recruited to and do
not develop at the new site.
11. Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of Any Significant
Natural or Cultural Feature of Historical Importance (40 CFR
228.6(a)(11))
    EPA stated in its proposed rule that no cultural features of
historical importance had been identified at or near the proposed site.
This continues to be the case. The new Site F is located over 7 statute
miles southwest of the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, a
significant natural feature, but is not considered to be in close
proximity to that feature. The new site is located approximately 3
statute miles northeast of three Oregon state parks: Shore Acres State
Park, Cape Arago State Park and Sunset Bay State Park. The new site is
not considered to be in proximity to these areas. The national historic
landmark, located near Cape Arago State Park, over 4 statute miles
south of the new site, is not within the proximity of

the site. Impacts to significant natural or cultural features have not
been identified.

e. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Magnuson-Stevens Act
(MSA); Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA); Endangered Species Act (ESA)

1. NEPA
    Section 102 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. NEPA does not apply to EPA designations of ocean
disposal sites under the MPRSA as EPA has made clear in EPA's ``Notice
of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of NEPA Documents,''
63 FR 58045 (October 29, 1998). EPA did voluntarily cooperate with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) as a cooperating agency on the
Feasibility Report on Navigation Improvements with Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) prepared in 1994. As discussed in the proposed rule, 63
FR 17240 (March 31, 2000), the EIS provided documentation to support
the final designation of the proposed Site F. EPA did not see a need to
supplement the EIS to address the minor reconfiguration of the new Site
F which is finalized in today's designation.
2. MSA
    In the fall of 2005, EPA consulted with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) concerning essential fish habitat. EPA
prepared an essential fish habitat (EFH) assessment pursuant to section
305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C.
1855(b). NMFS reviewed EPA's action and issued six non-binding
conservation recommendations. EPA accepted three of the
recommendations. The three accepted by EPA included: Using the best
relevant analytical methods in sampling and analysis plans included in
the final SMMP; limiting site use before June 1 and staggering disposal
events during nearshore holding and outmigration of juvenile salmon;
and provisions to provide the results of bathymetric monitoring to
NMFS. EPA incorporated these recommendations into the final SMMP.
    EPA did not accept the remaining three recommendations. These
recommendations asked EPA to develop and implement studies to collect
information to better inform agencies on species presence and use in
the disposal area, in areas that might be designated in the future, and
for all existing ocean disposal sites in Oregon. EPA did not accept
these recommendations because EPA did not find that the collection of
information as recommended by NMFS constituted measures for ``avoiding,
mitigating, or offsetting the impact'' of the Federal action on
essential fish habitat.
3. CZMA
    EPA consulted with the state of Oregon on coastal zone management
issues. EPA prepared a consistency determination for the Oregon Ocean
and Coastal Management Program (OCMP) to address consistency
determinations required by the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C.
1446. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
reviewed the consistency determination and concurred with EPA that the
action is consistent with the OCMP to the maximum extent practicable
basing its findings on the certification EPA provided.
4. ESA
    EPA also consulted with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
on its action to de-designate existing Site F and to designate new Site
F finding that the action would not be likely to adversely affect
aquatic or wildlife species listed as endangered pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1544, (ESA), or the critical
habitat of such species. EPA found that site designation does not have
a direct impact on any of the identified ESA species but also found
that indirect impacts had to be considered. These indirect impacts
included a short-term increase in suspended solids and turbidity in the
water column when dredged material was disposed at the new site and an
accumulation of material on the ocean floor when material was disposed
at the site. EPA concluded that while its action may affect ESA-listed
species, the action would not be likely to adversely affect ESA-listed
species.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with EPA's conclusion
based on its finding that ``abundant suitable foraging habitat
throughout the area'' for birds of concern would be available during
disposal activities, i.e. site use, and that minor behavioral changes,
such as foraging in areas other than the designated site, would be
temporary. NMFS concurred with EPA's findings for ESA-listed marine
mammals, sea turtles, and southern Oregon/northern California coho
salmon, finding that the new site was not designated as critical
habitat for any of those species. NMFS did not agree with EPA's
conclusions for Oregon Coast coho salmon and requested additional
consultation. Subsequent to that request, NMFS announced that it was
withdrawing its proposal to list Oregon Coast coho salmon as
endangered. The ESA consultation concluded with the withdrawal of the
NMFS proposal to list Oregon Coast coho salmon and NMFS addressed
Oregon Coast coho salmon in the EFH consultation.

3. Response to Comment

    No public comments on the proposed designation were received;
however, a letter from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) pointed out the need for improved coordination procedures
between the EPA, the Corps, ODEQ's central office and ODEQ's Coos Bay
field office for dredging projects in the vicinity of Coos Bay. EPA
generally supports improved coordination between federal and state
agencies. Coordination will be a priority for EPA at the new site to
ensure that disposal activities by the Corps and by local port
authorities are aware of site restrictions and are adhering to the
SMMP.

4. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This rule finalizes the de-designation of an existing ocean dredged
material disposal site, existing Site F, and designates a new ocean
dredged material disposal site, new Site F. This rule complies with
applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

a. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) 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; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined
that this final action, which simultaneously de-designates an existing
ocean dredged material disposal site and designates a new site, Site F,
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and
is therefore not subject to OMB review.

b. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.,
because this final action does not establish or modify any information
or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

c. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq., generally requires federal agencies to prepare a final regulatory
flexibility analysis whenever the agency promulgates a final rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by
the Small Business Administration's Size Regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. EPA has determined that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on small entities because the final
action regulates the location of sites to be used for the disposal of
dredged materials in ocean waters. After considering the economic
impacts of today's final action on small entities, I certify that this
action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities directly regulated by this action.

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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. Today's action 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 action contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small government entities. Thus, today's action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 203 of the UMRA.

e. 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
action 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). This action will be effective June 12, 2006.

f. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government.'' This action 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 various levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This action addresses the designation and de-
designation of sites near the mouth of Coos Bay, Oregon. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 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 action does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined
to be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency 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 the Agency. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866 and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The action concerns the designation
and de-designation of ocean disposal sites and would only have the
effect of providing designated locations to use for ocean disposal of
dredged material pursuant to section 102(c) of the MPRSA.

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

    This action 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'' as defined under Executive Order
12866.

j. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide to
Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to
use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. Although
EPA stated that the proposed action did not directly involve technical
standards, the proposed action and today's final action include
environmental monitoring and measurement as described in EPA's SMMP.
EPA will not require the use of specific, prescribed analytic methods
for monitoring and managing the designated sites. Rather, the Agency
plans to allow the use of any method, whether it constitutes a
voluntary consensus standard or not, that meets the monitoring and
measurement criteria discussed in the final SMMP.

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

    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 action addresses ocean disposal site
designations (away from inhabited land areas), no significant adverse
human health or environmental effects are anticipated. The action is
not subject to Executive Order 12898 because there are no anticipated
significant adverse human health or environmental effects.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of section
102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412.

    Dated: April 28, 2006.
L. Michael Bogert,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Chapter I of title 40 is
amended as set forth below:

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 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]22'54.8887'' N, 124[deg]19'28.9905'' W;
43[deg]21'32.8735'' N, 124[deg]20'37.7373'' W; 43[deg]22'51.4004'' N,
124[deg]23'32.4318'' W; 43[deg]23'58.4014'' N, 124[deg]22'35.4308'' W
(NAD 83).
    (ii) Size: 4.45 kilometers long and 2.45 kilometers wide.
    (iii) Depth: Ranges from 6 to 51 meters.
    (iv) Primary Use: Dredged material determined to be suitable for
ocean disposal.
    (v) Period of Use: Continuing Use.
    (vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
determined to be suitable for unconfined disposal; Disposal shall be
managed by the restrictions and requirements contained in the
currently-approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP);
Monitoring, as specified in the SMMP, is required.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-4286 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P