327 
p. 4, lines 5-6: Revise to read-—"to impede any reasonable or customary 
use of the marine environment". 
Dumping Permit Program 
pp. 4-5: The prohibitions of paragraphs (B) through (F) might be best 
incorporated in section 101 (where "prohibited acts" are dealt with currently). 
This would make clear that applicability of these prohibitions to all of Title I, 
without the need for repetitive references within sections 102 and 103. Paragraph 
(A), which is intended simply to indicate that dredged material is regulated 
under section 103 rather than 102, is confusing as drafted, and could be deleted 
entirely if the proposed relocation is adopted. 
p-_5, lines 6-10: Persistent floatable materials; dealt with in this paragraph, 
are of far lesser environmental significance than the persistent toxic materials 
dealt with in the remainder of the subsection. Although derived from the LDC, this 
paragraph probably need not be singled out in the Act for prohibition. 
p-_5, lines 4-5: Change "contain more than trace amounts of" to “contain, 
as other than trace contaminants...". This is necessary to conform to the 
"words-of-art" utilized in the LDC and in EPA's regulations. 
p- 6, lines 14-15: Delete "or", in line 14. This is a significant typographical 
error. This change is necessary to properly reflect the intent that, for dumping by 
"an agency or ecru ey of the United States", transportation from the U.S. 
is sufficient to make an ocean dumping permit necessary. (For dumping by private 
parties, it is necessary to have transported the material "for the purpose of 
dumping it into ocean waters"). Actually, it would be preferable to deal with 
jurisdictional matters of this a in § 101(a), with this privision simply cross- 
referencing that subsection. 
p- 6, lines 10-21: Revise to read as follows: "The Administrator may, after 
notice and opportunity for public hearings and after consultation with the Adminis- 
