Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 2941

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the deletion

of no longer applicable TSP tables does

not include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector.

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order 12866.

Under section 307(b)(l) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this rule

must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit

within 60 days from date of publication.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This rule may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Particulate matter.

Dated: December 18, 1995.

Jeanne M. Fox,

Regional Administrator.

Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

§ 81.331 New Jersey

2. In § 81.331 the table entitled ‘‘New

Jersey—TSP’’ is removed.

§ 81.333 New York

3. In § 81.333 the table entitled ‘‘New

York—TSP’’ is removed.

§ 81.355 Puerto Rico

4. In § 81.355 the table entitled

‘‘Puerto Rico—TSP’’ is removed.

§ 81.356 Virgin Islands

5. In § 81.356 the table entitled

‘‘Virgin Islands—TSP’’ is removed.

[FR Doc. 96–1588 Filed 1–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 228

[FRL–5346–2]

Ocean Dumping; Final Site

Designation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA designates an Ocean

Dredged Material Disposal Site

(ODMDS) in the Atlantic Ocean offshore

Miami, Florida, as an EPA-approved

ocean dumping site for the disposal of

suitable dredged material. This action is

necessary to provide an acceptable

ocean disposal site for consideration as

an option for dredged material disposal

projects in the greater Miami, Florida

vicinity. This site designation is for an

indefinite period of time, but the site is

subject to continuing monitoring to

insure that unacceptable adverse

environmental impacts do not occur.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The supporting document

for this designation is the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for Designation of an Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site offshore Miami,

Florida, August 1995, which is available

for public inspection at the following

locations:

A. EPA/Region 4, Coastal Programs

Section, 345 Courtland Street, NE.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30365

B. Department of the Army, Jacksonville

District Corps of Engineers, Planning

Division, 400 West Bay Street,

Jacksonville, FL 32232–0019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher J. McArthur, 404/347–1740

ext. 4289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 102(c) of the Marine

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries

Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33

U.S.C. 1401 et seq., gives the

Administrator of EPA the authority to

designate sites where ocean disposal

may be permitted. On October 1, 1986,

the Administrator delegated the

authority to designate ocean disposal

sites to the Regional Administrator of

the Region in which the sites are

located. This designation of a site

offshore Miami, Florida, which is

within Region 4, is being made pursuant

to that authority.

The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations

promulgated under MPRSA (40 CFR ch.

I, subchapter H, § 228.4) state that ocean

dumping sites will be designated by

promulgation in this part 228. A list of

‘‘Approved Interim and Final Ocean

Dumping Sites’’ was published on

January 11, 1977 (42 FR 2461 (January

11, 1977)). The list established the

existing Miami (‘‘Miami Beach’’) site as

an interim site. The site is now listed in

40 CFR 228.14(h)(6).

B. EIS Development

Section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et

seq., requires that federal agencies

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) on proposals for

legislation and other major federal

actions significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment. The

object of NEPA is to build into the

Agency decision making process careful

consideration of all environmental

aspects of proposed actions. While

NEPA does not apply to EPA activities

of this type, EPA has voluntarily

committed to prepare EISs in

connection with ocean disposal site

designations such as this (see 39 FR

16186 (May 7, 1974).

EPA Region 4, in cooperation with the

Jacksonville District of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (COE), has prepared

a Final EIS entitled, ‘‘Final

Environmental Impact Statement for

Designation of An Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site Located Offshore

Miami, Florida.’’ On September 1, 1995,

the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the

FEIS for public review and comment

was published in the Federal Register

(60 FR 45717 (September 1, 1995)).

Anyone desiring a copy of the EIS may

obtain one from the address given

above. The public comment period on

the Final EIS was to have closed on

October 2, 1995. However, the closing

date was extended until October 17,

1995 due to a request by the State of

Florida.

One comment letter was received in

support of the Final EIS and no letters

were received critical of the Final EIS.

The letter of support endorsed the Site

Management and Monitoring Plan

(SMMP) and the SMMP team.

The EIS has served as a Biological

Assessment for purposes of Section 7 of

the Endangered Species Act

coordination. By itself, site designation

of the Miami ODMDS will not adversely

impact any threatened or endangered

species under the purview of the

National Marine Fisheries Service
2942 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS). Use of the ODMDS is not

expected to adversely impact any

threatened or endangered species.

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act, the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been

asked by EPA to concur with EPA’s

conclusion that this site designation

will not affect the endangered species

under their jurisdictions. The National

Marine Fisheries Service determined

that populations of endangered/

threatened species under their purview

would not be adversely affected by the

designation and use of the proposed

ODMDS. This consultation process has

been fully documented in the Final EIS.

EPA has evaluated the site

designation for consistency with the

State of Florida’s (the State) approved

coastal management program. EPA

determined that the designation of the

site is consistent to the maximum extent

practicable with the State coastal

management program, and submitted

this determination to the State for

review in accordance with EPA policy.

The State has concurred with this

determination. In addition, as part of the

NEPA process, EPA has consulted with

the State regarding the effects of the

dumping at the proposed site on the

State coastal zone. There were three

main concerns raised by the State

during consultation: (1) placement of

beach quality sand in the ODMDS; (2)

potential for movement of silt and clay

sized particles out of the disposal area

and onto environmentally sensitive

hardbottoms and coral reefs to the west

during the occurrence of Gulf Stream

frontal eddies; and (3) disposal of

contaminated sediments from locations

such as the Miami River. Concerns

raised by the State of Florida, regarding

use of suitable material for beach

nourishment, were addressed in the

Final EIS. EPA concurs with the State of

Florida regarding the use of suitable

material for beach nourishment, in

circumstances where this use is

practical. To address the concern

regarding movement of material, a realtime monitoring system has been

instituted by the Army Corps of

Engineers to identify the occurrence of

Gulf Stream frontal eddies. During the

occurrence of such eddies, disposal at

the ODMDS will discontinue. Details of

the monitoring plan and protocol has

been included in the Site Management

and Monitoring Plan as part of the Final

EIS. With regard to contaminated

materials, before any material can be

placed within an ODMDS, it must be

evaluated and shown to be acceptable

for ocean disposal in accordance with

ocean dumping regulations (40 CFR

227.13). Certain portions of the

sediments proposed to be dredged from

the Miami River have been found to be

unacceptable for ocean disposal.

In a letter dated September 13, 1990,

the Florida Department of State agreed

that the designation will have no effect

on any archaeological or historic sites or

properties listed, or eligible for listing,

in the National Register of Historic

Places in accordance with the National

Preservation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

6654), as amended.

The action discussed in the EIS is the

permanent designation for continuing

use of the existing interim ocean

disposal site near Miami, Florida. The

purpose of the action is to provide an

environmentally acceptable option for

the ocean disposal of dredged material.

The need for the permanent designation

of the Miami ODMDS is based on a

demonstrated COE need for ocean

disposal of maintenance dredged

material from the Federal navigation

projects in the greater Miami area.

However, every disposal activity by the

COE is evaluated on a case-by-case basis

to determine the need for ocean disposal

for that particular case. The need for

ocean disposal for other projects, and

the suitability of the material for ocean

disposal, will be determined on a caseby-case basis as part of the COE’s

process of issuing permits for ocean

disposal for private/federal actions and

a public review process for their own

actions.

For the Miami ODMDS, the COE and

EPA would evaluate all federal dredged

material disposal projects pursuant to

the EPA criteria given in the Ocean

Dumping Regulations (40 CFR parts

220–229) and the COE regulations (33

CFR 209.120 and 335–338). The COE

also issues Marine Protection, Research,

and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) permits

to private applicants for the transport of

dredged material intended for disposal

after compliance with regulations is

determined. EPA has the right to

disapprove any ocean disposal project

if, in its judgment, all provisions of

MPRSA and the associated

implementing regulations have not been

met.

The EIS discusses the need for this

site designation and examines ocean

disposal site alternatives to the final

action. Non-ocean disposal options have

been examined in the previously

published Feasibility Report and EIS for

the Miami Harbor Channel Project.

Alternatives to ocean disposal may

include upland disposal within the port

area, disposal in Biscayne Bay, and

beach disposal. Upland disposal in the

intensively developed Port of MiamiBiscayne Bay area has not been found

feasible. The Port of Miami itself is built

partially on fill in Biscayne Bay.

Undeveloped areas within cost-effective

haul distances are environmentally

valuable in their own right.

Almost all inshore waters of the

Biscayne Bay area are part of the

Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. The

waters of the southern portion of

Biscayne Bay, now included in the

Aquatic Preserve, are to be incorporated,

along with some offshore waters, into

the Biscayne National Park in the near

future. The Florida Department of

Environmental Regulation (DER) has

afforded the waters of these areas

special protection as Outstanding

Florida Waters. This effectively removes

virtually all of the Biscayne Bay area

from consideration for disposal of

dredged material.

Dredged sand might be placed on

beaches in the Miami Beach area.

Suitable rock might be placed in

nearshore waters. These options may be

feasible where a substantial quantity of

the desired type of material is separable

from silt or other undesirable material.

Such usage will be considered on a case

by case basis.

The COE has been authorized to

deepen Miami Harbor. For that project,

environmental and economic analyses

were performed and an EIS was

prepared. The COE examined and

documented the feasibility of each of

the above-described disposal options

and found none to be feasible.

The following ocean disposal

alternatives were evaluated in the EIS:

1. Alternative Sites on the Continental

Shelf

In the Miami nearshore area,

hardgrounds supporting coral and algal

communities are concentrated on the

continental shelf. Disposal operations

on the shelf could adversely impact this

reef habitat. Because the shelf is narrow,

about 3.3 nmi (6 km) off Government

Cut, the transport of dredged materials

for disposal beyond the shelf is both

practical and economically feasible.

Therefore, alternative sites on the

continental shelf are not desirable.

2. Designated Interim Site (Candidate

Site)

The preferred alternative considered

in this document is the final designation

of an ODMDS. This site is an area of

approximately one square nautical mile

with the following corner coordinates:

25°45′30′′ N, 80°03′54′′ W; 25°45′30′′ N,

80°02′50′′ W; 25°44′30′′ N, 80°02′50′′ W;

25°44′30′′ N, 80°03′54′′ W. The site is

centered at: 25°45′00′′ N and 80°03′22′′

W. This site is considered suitable in
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 2943

terms of practicality and economic

feasibility. Sections 228.5 and 228.6 of

EPA’s Ocean Dumping Regulations and

Criteria 40 CFR establish criteria for the

evaluation of ocean disposal sites.

3. Alternative Sites Beyond the

Continental Shelf

The candidate site is beyond the

continental shelf. The western edge of

the Gulf Stream meanders about one

mile east of the candidate site. Dumping

in the Gulf Stream was considered, but

the enormous task and expense of

monitoring disposal under such

conditions caused sufficient concern to

eliminate that option. Therefore,

additional sites beyond the continental

shelf and beyond the candidate site are

not desirable.

4. No Action

Under the ‘‘no action’’ alternative, the

interim site would not receive final

designation. The Water Resources Act of

1992, title V, section 506(a) prohibits

the continued use of ocean dump sites

which have not been designated by EPA

as section 102 dump sites after January

1, 1997. If EPA fails to designate the

Miami ODMDS by that date, the

continued foreseeable need to have an

appropriate site for disposal of suitable

sediments from dredging projects in the

Miami area would place pressure on the

Corps and EPA to approve on a projectby-project basis the use of temporary

ocean dumping locations pursuant to

either Clean Water Act section 404 or

MPRSA section 103.

The EIS presents the information

needed to evaluate the suitability of

ocean disposal areas for final

designation use and is based on one of

a series of disposal site environmental

studies. The environmental studies and

final designation are being conducted in

accordance with the requirements of

MPRSA, the Ocean Dumping

Regulations, and other applicable

Federal environmental legislation.

This final rulemaking notice fills the

same role as the Record of Decision

required under regulations promulgated

by the Council on Environmental

Quality for agencies subject to NEPA.

C. Site Designation

On October 27, 1994, EPA proposed

designation of this site for the

continueing disposal of dredged

materials from the greater Miami,

Florida vicinity. The public comment

period on this proposed action closed

on December 12, 1994. EPA received 1

letter regarding the proposed rule. The

letter—s comments are listed and

addressed below.

1. Dredged Material Evaluation

The commentor was concerned as to

whether EPA will evaluate the contents

of the dredged material for toxins and

make them public.

Response. The suitability of dredged

material for ocean disposal must be

verified by the COE and agreed to by

EPA prior to disposal. Verification will

be valid for 3 years from the time last

verified with the option of a 2-year

extension. Verification will involve: (1)

A case-specific evaluation against the

exclusion criteria (40 CFR 227.13(b)), (2)

A determination of the necessity for

bioassay (toxicity and bioaccumulation)

testing for non-excluded material based

on the potential for contamination of the

sediment since last tested, and (3)

Carrying out the testing and determining

that the non-excluded, tested material is

suitable for ocean disposal.

Documentation of verification will be

completed prior to use of the site.

Documentation for material suitability

for dredging events proposed for ocean

disposal more than 5 years since last

verified will be a new 103 evaluation

and public notice. Documentation for

material suitability for dredging events

proposed for ocean disposal less than 5

years but more than 3 years since last

verified will be an exchange of letters

between the COE and EPA.

Should EPA conclude that reasonable

potential exists for contamination to

have occurred, acceptable testing will be

completed prior to use of the site.

Testing procedures to be used will be

those delineated in the 1991 EPA/COE

Dredged Material Testing Manual and

1992 Regional Implementation Manual.

Only material determined to be suitable

through the verification process by the

COE and EPA will be placed at the

designated ocean disposal site.

Verification documentation will be

provided to the public in one of two

ways. For federal dredged material

disposal projects, verification

documentation will be provided to the

public by the COE through the NEPA

process, either in the form of an EIS or

an Environmental Assessment. The COE

also issues MPRSA permits to private

applicants for the transport of dredged

material intended for disposal. In this

case verification documentation will be

made available to the public by the COE

through the Public Notice process.

2. Sources of Dredged Material

The commentor was concerned as to

what regions the greater Miami, Florida

vicinity include and whether or not

other sources besides the Miami Harbor

Channel Project may use the site.

Response. The primary need for

designation of the Miami ODMDS was

for disposal of dredged material from

the Miami Harbor Channel and the

Federal Miami Harbor Deepening

Project.

However, other projects such as the

maintenance dredging of that portion of

the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway

(AIWW) in the vicinity of Miami Harbor

and locally constructed channels within

an economic haul distance of the Miami

ODMDS can use the site provided the

material is suitable for ocean disposal.

Restrictions of use of the site to specific

projects has not been deemed necessary

at this time. If in the future, it is

determined that use of the site should

be restricted to a specific project,

appropriate changes will be made to the

Site Management and Monitoring Plan.

3. Period of Use

The commentor was concerned as to

why a closing date of the site had not

been determined.

Response. The period of use of the

Miami ODMDS has been designated as

continueing. Because the site is located

in deep water, no restrictions are

presently placed on disposal volumes.

Future disposal of unrestricted volumes

is dependent upon results from future

monitoring surveys. If future surveys

indicate that capacity of the site is being

reached or unacceptable adverse

environmental impacts are occurring,

then either the ODMDS Management

and Monitoring Plan will be modified or

use of the site will be modified or

discontinued.

4. Long-term Movement of Dredged

Material

The commentor was concerned about

movement of disposed dredged material

moving to more environmentally

sensitive areas in the event of an

extreme storm event.

Response. Long-term modeling efforts

were conducted to determine whether a

disposal mound is stable over long

periods of time. A 24-hour sustained

storm surge simulation showed that

essentially no material would be

transported as a result of the surge. A

second study investigated the potential

for moving material other than

uniformly graded, non-cohesive

sediments by calculating shear stress

values on the mound and in the

surrounding area. Under normal

environmental conditions, shear stress

values at the ODMDS are low, and little

movement is anticipated for either

cohesive or non-cohesive material.

During storm events, the shear stress

values increase by an order of

magnitude. However, the shear stress on

the dredged material disposal mound

increases by less than 2 dynes/cm2
2944 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

above the shear stress of the

surrounding area. When subjected to

storms, material is anticipated to move

from the mound for short periods of

time but large dispersion of the mound

is not predicted. For the proposed

Miami ODMDS, simulations show that

local velocity fields are simply not

adequate to move material in 600 feet or

more of water. Both the short-term

disposal and long-term erosion

simulations of sediment transport as a

function of local velocity fields indicate

little possibility of affecting reefs as a

direct result of use of the disposal site.

In addition, should the results of the

monitoring surveys indicate that

continuing use of the site would lead to

unacceptable impacts, then either the

ODMDS Management and Monitoring

Plan will be modified to alleviate the

impacts, or the location or use of the

ODMDS would be modified.

5. Availability of Monitoring Results

The commentor asked if the

monitoring results of the site will be

made public.

Response. Monitoring results will be

available to the public upon request. As

discussed in the Final EIS, monitoring

data will be provided to the ODMDS

Site Management and Monitoring team

members for review. Data will be

provided to other interested parties

requesting such data to the extent

possible.

The site is located east of Miami,

Florida, the western boundary being 3.6

nautical miles (nmi) offshore. The

ODMDS occupies an area of about 1

square nautical mile (nmi2), in the

configuration of an approximate 1 nmi

by 1 nmi square. Water depths within

the area range from 130 to 240 meters

(427 to 785 feet). The coordinates of the

Miami site for designation are as

follows:

25°45′30′′ N 80°03′54′′ W;

25°45′30′′ N 80°02′50′′ W;

25°44′30′′ N 80°03′54′′ W; and

25°44′30′′ N 80°02′50′′ W.

Center coordinates are 25°45′00′′ N and

80°03′22′′ 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

Pursuant to the Ocean Dumping

Regulations, 40 CFR § 228.5, five general

criteria are used in the selection and

approval for continuing use of ocean

disposal sites. Sites are selected so as to

minimize interference with other

marine activities, to prevent any

temporary perturbations associated with

the disposal from causing impacts

outside the disposal site, and to permit

effective monitoring to detect any

adverse impacts at an early stage. Where

feasible, locations off the Continental

Shelf and other sites that have been

historically used are to be chosen. The

site conforms to the five general criteria.

In addition to these general criteria in

§§ 228.5, 228.6 lists the 11 specific

criteria used in evaluating a proposed

disposal site to assure that the general

criteria are met. Application of these 11

criteria constitutes an environmental

assessment of the impact of disposal at

the site. The characteristics of the

proposed site are reviewed below in

terms of these 11 criteria (the EIS may

be consulted for additional

information).

1. Geographical Position, Depth of

Water, Bottom Topography, and

Distance From Coast (40 CFR

228.6(a)(1))

The boundary and center coordinates

of the site are given above. The western

boundary of the site is located about 3.6

nmi offshore of Miami, Florida. The site

is an approximate 1 nmi by 1 nmi

square configuration. Water depth in the

area ranges from 427 to 785 feet.

2. Location in Relation to Breeding,

Spawning, Nursery, Feeding, or Passage

Areas of Living Resources in Adult or

Juvenile Phases (40 CFR 228.6(a)(2))

Many of the area’s species spend their

adult lives in the offshore region, but are

estuary-dependent because their

juvenile stages use a low salinity

estuarine nursery region. Specific

migration routes are not known in the

Miami area. The site is not known to

include any major breeding or spawning

area, except for sea turtles which use the

entire beach area of eastern Florida as

nesting habitat. Due to the motility of

finfish, it is unlikely that disposal

activities will have any significant

impact on any of the species found in

the area.

3. Location in Relation to Beaches and

Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR

228.6(a)(3))

The western edge of the candidate site

is located 3.6 nautical miles from the

coast. Shore-related amenities include

Virginia Key, the Biscayne Bay Aquatic

Preserve, Biscayne National Park, and

the Bill Baggs Cape Florida State

Recreational Area. Currents in the

vicinity trend alongshore in a general

north-south orientation. It is not

expected that detectable quantities of

dredged material will be transported

onto beaches. Considering the distance

that the disposal site is offshore of beach

areas, dredged material disposal at the

site is not expected to have an effect on

the recreational uses of these beaches.

Modelling performed by the COE

indicates that disposed material will not

impact these 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(a)(4))

It is anticipated that the candidate site

will be used primarily for disposal of

maintenance material from the Port of

Miami. Maintenance dredging has only

occurred four times since 1957. Another

use of the site would be the Miami

Harbor Deepening Project. Estimated

volume for this project is expected to be

6 million cubic yards. For each future

dredging project, each disposal plan

must be evaluated on a case-by-case

basis to ensure that ocean disposal is the

best alternative and that the material

meets the Ocean Dumping Criteria in 40

CFR part 227.

5. Feasibility of Surveillance and

Monitoring (40 CFR 228.6(a)(5))

Due to the proximity of the site to

shore, surveillance will not be difficult.

Survey vessels, dredges or aircraft

overflights are feasible surveillance

methods. However, the depths at this

site make conventional ODMDS

monitoring techniques difficult to

utilize. An interagency Site

Management and Monitoring Team was

established to assist EPA in the

development and implementation of a

Site Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the

Miami ODMDS. The SMMP has been

developed and was included as an

appendix in the Final EIS. This SMMP

establishes a sequence of monitoring

surveys to be undertaken to determine

any impacts resulting from disposal

activities. The SMMP may be modified

for cause by the responsible agencies.

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))

Prevailing currents parallel the coast

and are generally oriented along a northsouth axis. Northerly flow

predominates. Mean surface currents

range from 62 to 95 cm/sec with

maximum velocities of about 150 cm/

sec. Current speeds are lower and

current reversals more common in nearbottom waters. Mean velocities of 3.5

cm/sec and maximum velocities of 27

cm/sec have been reported for nearbottom waters in the area. A pycnocline

occurs in site waters throughout the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 2945

year at reported depths ranging from

about 60 feet in the summer to 325 feet

in the winter. A dredged material

dispersion study conducted by the COE

for both the short- and long-term fate of

material disposed at the site indicates

little possibility of disposed material

affecting near-shore reefs. Measures as

discussed in the Site Management and

Monitoring Plan will be instituted

during disposal operations to minimize

the possibility of material being

transported to the near-shore reefs.

7. Existence and Effects of Current and

Previous Discharges and Dumping in

the Area (Including Cumulative Effects)

(40 CFR 228.6(a)(7))

The ODMDS was used for the first

time in April 1990. Only 225,000 cubic

yards of maintenance material was

disposed in the ODMDS. In conjunction

with this use of the site, the Corps of

Engineers in cooperation with the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) monitored the

physical processes and the dispersive

characteristics of the dredged material

plume. Monitoring results indicated that

the material discharged, except for a low

concentration residual remaining within

the water column, reached the bottom

within the designated site boundaries.

During the monitoring, the resulting

plumes were observed to be transported

in a north to northeast direction. The

full monitoring report has been

included as part of the Final EIS. Effects

monitoring is discussed in the Site

Management and Monitoring Plan as

part of the Final EIS.

No other discharges or dumping

occurs in the site. The Miami-Dade

Central publicly owned treatment plant

outfall discharges approximately 1.2

nmiles west of the site. The effects from

this discharge are local and

predominately in a north-south

direction due to prevailing currents and

should not have any effect within the

site.

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))

While shipping is heavy at the Port of

Miami, the infrequent use of this site

should not significantly disrupt either

commercial shipping or recreational

boating. Commercial and recreational

fishing activities are concentrated in

inshore and nearshore waters. No

mineral extraction, desalination, or

mariculture activities occur in the

immediate area. Scientific resources

present throughout this area are not

geographically limited to the Miami

ODMDS or nearby waters.

9. The Existing Water Quality and

Ecology of the Site as Determined by

Available Data or by Trend Assessment

or Baseline Surveys (40 CFR 228.6(a)(9))

Water quality at the ODMDS is

variable and is influenced by discharges

from inshore systems, frequent oceanic

intrusions, and periodic upwelling. The

disposal site lies on the continental

slope in an area traversed by the

western edge of the Florida Current. The

location of the western edge of the

current determines to a large extent

whether waters at the site are

predominantly coastal or oceanic.

Frequent intrusions or eddies of the

Florida Current transport oceanic waters

over the continental slope in the

ODMDS vicinity. Periodic upwelling/

downwelling events associated with

wind stress also influence waters in the

area.

No critical habitat or unique

ecological communities have been

identified at the candidate site. Buffer

zone protection has been applied to any

existing fish havens, artificial reef

communities, turtle nesting areas, and

onshore amenities in the general region

of the site.

10. Potentiality for the Development or

Recruitment of Nuisance Species in the

Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10))

The disposal of dredged materials

should not attract or promote the

development of nuisance species. No

nuisance species have been reported to

occur at previously utilized disposal

sites in the vicinity.

11. Existence at or in Close Proximity to

the Site of any Significant Natural or

Cultural Features of Historical

Importance (40 CFR 228.6(a)(11))

No known natural or cultural features

of historical importance occur at or in

close proximity to the site. No such

features were noted in a video survey of

the disposal area.

E. Site Management

Site management of the Miami

ODMDS is the responsibility of EPA as

well as the COE. The COE issues

permits to private applicants for ocean

disposal; however, EPA/Region 4

assumes overall responsibility for site

management.

The Site Management and Monitoring

Plan (SMMP) for the Miami ODMDS

was developed as a part of the process

of completing the EIS. The plan was

developed with the assistance of an

interagency Site Management and

Monitoring team. The Team will also

provide assistance during the

implementation of the plan. This plan

provides procedures for both site

management and for the monitoring of

effects of disposal activities. This SMMP

is intended to be flexible and may be

modified by the responsible agencies for

cause.

F. Final Action

The EIS concludes that the site may

appropriately be designated for use. The

site is compatible with the 11 specific

and 5 general criteria used for site

evaluation.

The designation of the Miami site as

an EPA-approved ODMDS is being

published as Final Rulemaking. Overall

management of this site is the

responsibility of the Regional

Administrator of EPA/Region 4.

It should be emphasized that, if an

ODMDS is designated, such a site

designation does not constitute EPA’s

approval of actual disposal of material

at sea. Before ocean disposal of dredged

material at the site may commence, the

COE must evaluate a permit application

according to EPA’s Ocean Dumping

Criteria. EPA has the right to disapprove

the actual disposal if it determines that

environmental concerns under MPRSA

have not been met.

The Miami ODMDS is not restricted

to disposal use by federal projects;

private applicants may also dispose

suitable dredged material at the ODMDS

once relevant regulations have been

satisfied. This site is restricted,

however, to suitable dredged material

from the greater Miami, Florida vicinity.

G. Regulatory Assessments

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

EPA is required to perform a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis for all rules that

may have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

EPA has determined that this action will

not have a significant impact on small

entities since the designation will only

have the effect of providing a disposal

option for dredged material.

Consequently, this Rule does not

necessitate preparation of a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis.

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA

must judge whether a regulation is

‘‘major’’ and therefore subject to the

requirement of a Regulatory Impact

Analysis. This action will not result in

an annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or cause any of the

other effects which would result in its

being classified by the Executive Order

as a ‘‘major’’ rule. Consequently, this

Rule does not necessitate preparation of

a Regulatory Impact Analysis.
2946 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

This Final Rule does not contain any

information collection requirements

subject to Office Management and

Budget review under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

Water Pollution Control.

Dated: November 2, 1995.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

In consideration of the foregoing, 40

CFR Chap. I, Subchapter H 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. Sections 1412 and

1418.

2. Section 228.14 is amended by

removing paragraph (h)(6).

3. Section 228.15 is amended by

adding paragraph (h)(19) to read as

follows:

§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a

final basis

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(19) Miami, Florida; Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site.

(i) Location:

25°45′30′′ N 80°03′54′′ W;

25°45′30′′ N 80°02′50′′ W;

25°44′30′′ N 80°03′54′′ W;

25°44′30′′ N 80°02′50′′ W.

Center coordinates are 25°45′00′′ N and

80°03′22′′ W.

(ii) Size: Approximately 1 square

nautical mile.

(iii) Depth: Ranges from 130 to 240

meters.

(iv) Primary use: Dredged material.

(v) Period of use: Continuing use.

(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be

limited to suitable dredged material

from the greater Miami, Florida vicinity.

Disposal shall comply with conditions

set forth in the most recent approved

Site Management and Monitoring Plan.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–1709 Filed 1–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[Docket No. 92–65; Notice 3]

RIN 2127–AE61

Consumer Information Regulations;

Vehicle Stopping Distance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Response to petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: In response to a petition for

reconsideration submitted by Advocates

for Highway and Auto Safety, this

document reaffirms NHTSA’s decision

to rescind the requirement that motor

vehicle manufacturers provide

consumers with information about

vehicle stopping distance. The agency is

taking this action because the

information provided pursuant to that

requirement did not permit consumers

to distinguish between many of the new

vehicles and was not used by consumers

in their vehicle purchasing decisions.

Further, upgrading the requirement

would be unduly burdensome on

manufacturers and could actually be

counterproductive since it might

mislead consumers about the ability of

their vehicles to stop under varied

circumstances.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For non-legal issues: Ms. Henrietta

Spinner, NPS–21, Office of Market

Incentives, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, DC 20590

(202–366–4802).

For legal issues: Mr. Marvin L. Shaw,

NCC–20, Rulemaking Division, Office of

Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street SW., Washington, DC 20590

(202–366–2992).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. June 1995 Final Rule

On June 26, 1995, the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) published a final rule that

rescinded the stopping distance

information requirements in § 575.101

of Title 49 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (60 FR 32918). The agency

explained that it reached this decision

after concluding that the stopping

distance requirement was not resulting

in the provision of meaningful

information to consumers about the

differences between vehicle models in

stopping distance and that an upgraded

requirement to mandate model specific

stopping distance information would

have been costly and might not have

provided significant safety benefits. The

agency stated that mandating model

specific stopping distance information

might not reveal sufficiently large

differences between vehicles in

stopping distance to affect vehicle

purchasing decisions. Further, such

information might mislead some vehicle

owners about their vehicle’s braking

ability under varied circumstances. The

stopping distance measurements reflect

the ability of a vehicle to stop only

under optimum conditions of vehicle

loading, tire-to-road peak friction

coefficient, environment, and driver

braking skills.

In considering whether to rescind

§ 575.101, NHTSA analyzed several

alternatives to rescission, including the

alternative of requiring manufacturers to

provide model-specific stopping

information. NHTSA concluded that

generating such stopping distance

information would be unduly

burdensome for manufacturers to

obtain, based on its assessment of the

costs of such a program and the small

safety benefits, if any, that might result.

NHTSA also explained its decision

not to adopt more stringent

requirements for stopping distance

information because it did not appear

that consumers would use the

information in making their vehicle

purchasing decisions. The agency stated

that consumers typically consider and

value such attributes as reliability,

styling, price, reputation, roominess,

and safety. While stopping distance

relates to safety, NHTSA believed that

the upgraded information would not

impact purchasing decisions because

precise stopping distance information

would not yield differences sufficiently

large to make stopping distance a factor

in consumers’ selections among similar

vehicle models.

NHTSA stated that it remained

committed to ensuring that consumers

received appropriate safety information

and noted that the agency is working

with the National Academy of Sciences

(NAS) to review and possibly expand

the agency’s consumer information

efforts. According to the House

Appropriations Committee report

addressing the NAS study:

The study should focus on the validity of

current programs, public and private, in

providing accurate information to consumers

on the real-world safety of vehicles, the

possibility of improving the system in a cost

effective and realistic manner, and the best