[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 35309]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13942]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4116-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Illinois; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Illinois (FEMA-4116-DR), dated May 10, 2013, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 6, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Illinois is hereby amended to include the Public
Assistance program for the following areas among those areas determined
to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster
by the President in his declaration of May 10, 2013.

    Bureau, Clark, Crawford, DuPage, Fulton, Grundy, Henderson,
Kendall, Knox, Lake, LaSalle, Livingston, Marshall, Mason, McHenry,
Pike, Rock Island, Stark, and Woodford Counties for Public
Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).
    Adams, Mercer, Ogle, Putnam, and Warren Counties for Public
Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-13942 Filed 6-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


1 GENERAL COMMENTS On June 29, 2004, U. S. EPA responded to states on recommendations made in February for designations of areas under the new fine particulate standards. In that response, EPA states that:   Consistent with the Clean Air Act, this letter is to notify you that based on the information contained in your submittal, EPA intends to make modifications to recommended designations and boundaries in your State.  Although U. S. EPA had previously issued specific guidance on information and documentation that was expected in states  first round submittals, EPA did not use information provided by states in developing its June 29 response. In fact, EPA used very different information and methodologies in developing those proposals.

In its April and June 2003 guidance on methodologies and emissions data used in making recommendations under the PM2.5 standard, EPA outlined the importance of having    an available emissions data set that can be shared and used by all parties involved in the process of defining boundaries.  In order to have comparable emissions data for all areas under review, the 1999 National Emissions Inventory ( NEI) was used in developing Kentucky s February 2004 submittal, as recommended by EPA. However, in EPA s June 2004 response back to states, EPA stated it had used the 2001 NEI data. This dataset has still not been made available to states for review. States have had no opportunity to review the emissions data, nor the methodology by which EPA   grew  the emissions from the 1999 NEI. Despite EPA s inconsistent approach, Kentucky took the initiative and used the most recent emissions inventory available in order to show changes in emissions levels in specific areas. This was very important in showing where additional emissions reductions had occurred within a specific geographic region.

Two of the components EPA used in their analysis of areas were county level emissions estimates for carbon and crustal emissions. EPA used the SMOKE model information from the Clear Skies modeling that was based on the 1996 NEI to generate this data. Using this modeled data, especially with 1996 information as the basis, is questionable at best and should not be used in this analysis.

Weighted Emissions Score The Commonwealth was surprised to learn that EPA had employed the use of a   weighted emissions scoring  process to evaluate counties for emissions contributions to an area attainment problem. At no time did U. S. EPA offer information concerning this methodology. Further, EPA did not afford the states the opportunity to provide input on the appropriateness of or the science behind this methodology. This approach was revealed in late May 2004, a full three months after states had been required to submit boundary recommendations to EPA. Taking this approach, especially at such a late date, is not only contrary to boundary guidance provided to states by U. S. EPA, but insults the established designation process which allows states to use their thorough knowledge of the monitoring network and local and regional circumstances to make those designations. A full detailed explanation of the origin 2 of the data and how EPA has used the scoring methodology has still not been released for review.

Given the facts presented above, the Commonwealth must go on record as being strongly opposed to the use of this process.

However, since EPA has utilized the weighted emission scores in its PM2.5 response letter to the states, it still remains important to document the problems that exist with the methodology used by EPA in determining those weighted emission scores:

  EPA did not include adjacent county ( i. e., county outside the MSA) emissions into the total emissions for an area when calculating the weighted emissions score. The weighted emissions score, in some instances for counties within the MSA, would have been drastically different if all counties emissions had been included in calculating the weighted emissions scores.

  EPA s choice of regional speciation monitors must be questioned. EPA, has provided no explanation how it determined   appropriate  regional monitoring sites to use in the weighted emissions scoring process. This eliminates states air quality agencies from having any input on the appropriateness of those sites. States have   background  monitors located to determine background pollutant levels. For EPA to ignore the availability of area specific information, or request input from states on the appropriateness of using one site versus another, is shortsighted. It stands to reason that an in state regional background monitor would have been more representative of the area than a monitor located in another state. This could have drastic impacts on the results obtained from the analysis.

  EPA used the SMOKE model information from the Clear Skies modeling that was based on the 1996 NEI to generate the total carbon and crustal components of the emissions data used in their analyses. This data was used in an attempt to generate urban excess in the weighted emissions score calculation. This approach is subjective at best.

  The use of a cumulative percentage roll up of the weighted emissions scores is inherently flawed since it causes the inclusion of counties that have scores that are significantly lower than the top scoring counties in an area. The cumulative roll up is purely an arbitrary mathematical exercise that does not take into account important information ( e. g. geographic location, predominant wind patterns, future national control measures, etc.) that should be considered in making PM2.5 nonattainment designations.

  EPA has still not supplied the speciation data nor the timeframes used in their analysis for the background monitor sites used in the regional analysis. 3   Other national studies performed have taken a different approach in determining source apportionment. Of particular note are conclusions contained in 2003 National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report that compares the percent difference in PM constituency from regionally representative monitors and urban monitors. While this approach on the front end is similar to the methodology EPA used, EPA went a step further in attempting to use that data to correlate with actual emissions within a set geographic area. Of a more specific concern, when reviewing regional background PM constituency compared with urban data, sulfates appear to make up a small percentage of urban excess. We believe this shows that sulfates are a regional problem and that the proposed regional controls of SO2 should alleviate the problem. The second concern is that carbon mass seems to make up the largest percentage of the urban excess and it appears that mobile sources are a major contributor to PM2.5 levels in our urban areas. With the proposed federal changes to fuels and engine requirements, contributions from this sector will also be lowered within the next few years.

Additional Regional/ National Controls EPA has finalized or is in the process of finalizing several new control initiatives that are designed to lower emissions that contribute to PM2.5 levels. The implementation dates for many of these initiatives will begin within the next two years and in many instances, will be in place well before control plan submittal deadlines or attainment dates. This fact should lead to the conclusion that greater caution should be exercised before saddling an area with a nonattainment designation when no local control strategies will be available or required.

Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR)/ BART In the June 29, 2004, response to Kentucky, EPA has proposed nonattainment designations for several counties, either within the MSA or adjacent to an MSA, due to the location of a power plant within their borders.

The May 5, 2004, proposed BART rule states on page 25204 that   Based on our current evaluation, we believe the IAQR rule, as proposed, is clearly better than BART for those affected EGUs in the affected States which we propose to cover under the IAQR. We thus expect that the final IAQR would satisfy the BART requirements for affected EGUs that are covered pursuant to the final IAQR . Per this EPA finding regarding PM and EGUs under the IAQR/ BART, EPA should not include counties in PM2.5 nonattainment areas because they contain a power plant. EPA has determined that the IAQR ( i. e., CAIR) will achieve the necessary PM air quality improvements. 4 Upon implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) SO2 emissions from power plants will be reduced nationwide by 3.6 million tons in 2010 ( approximately 40 percent below current levels) and by another 2 million tons per year when the rules are fully implemented ( approximately 70 percent below current levels). NOx emissions would be cut by 1.5 million tons nationwide in 2010 and 1.8 million tons annually in 2015 ( about 65 percent below today s levels).

To designate counties nonattainment because they have a power plant in them would place additional hardships on the county and would be counterproductive since the EGUs in the entire region will be mandated by EPA s CAIR rule to significantly control their PM precursor emissions without being designated nonattainment. In addition, Non EGUs in Kentucky will also be required to put on BART controls, which will further achieve PM air quality improvements.

Mobile Controls In many areas, EPA based potential nonattainment designations on the supposition that population, commuter traffic, or local VMT played an important role in determining potential impacts on PM2.5 levels within an MSA. It is not feasible to designate a county as nonattainment if the only reason an area has been included was due to these population based factors. With national controls being implemented that would address this contribution, including these counties as nonattainment would place additional, burdensome planning requirements on these local areas for no useful purpose. Due to the Tier 2 Vehicle and Low Sulfur Gasoline, scheduled to be in place by 2006, average national gasoline sulfur levels will be 90% lower. The new Low Sulfur Diesel Rule, scheduled to be phased in beginning in 2007, along with new clean engines operating requirements will reduce NOx emissions by 50%, and reduce PM emissions by more than 90%. The implementation of these new federal rules will significantly decrease the fine particulate contribution in and from areas impacted by population and transportation factors.

The final compliance dates under the CAIR and BART rules are set for relatively the same time frame as attainment of the   presumed  attainment date for PM2.5 levels. As seen with all control programs, emission reductions are seen in advance over a broad time frame with final compliance achieved on a specific date. Emission reductions of PM and precursor emissions will begin to take place well in advance of the final compliance dates for PM attainment.

Additionally, although final compliance for the national engine and fuel improvements will take place over several years before being fully implemented, incremental improvements will be seen in the urban areas beginning within a year after designations. 5 Continuing PM Reductions in State Ambient data for the period of 1999 2004 continues to show a downward trend in PM2.5 levels in Kentucky. This improvement in PM2.5 levels is consistent with those seen in the southeast during the same time period. According to a recent EPA s report on air quality improvements, PM2.5 levels have decreased 18% in the southeastern U. S. since monitoring began in 1999.

It would appear that consideration of this data would be prudent in the designation process. Failure to do so ignores the fact that some areas in Kentucky are on track to achieve the PM2.5 standard by the end of 2004.

Contradictions in the June 29, 2004 Response Letter There were many contradictions or inaccuracies noted throughout the June 29, letter from EPA   On page 3, the letter states   Campbell and Kenton Counties  and both counties part [ sic] of the Cincinnati 1 hour ozone nonattainment area due to violating monitors.  This statement is incorrect. On August 30, 2002, EPA s final rule, redesignating the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati Hamilton 1 Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to maintenance, became effective.

  On page 4, the table that EPA utilizes in it s analysis of the weighted emissions factor for the area includes Montgomery County, Ohio. However, Montgomery County, Ohio is not in the MSA, it is in the Dayton Springfield MSA, so the emissions from this county would skew the analysis.

  Comments on page 5 and page 12 indicate that even though a monitor shows attainment with the standard, being close to the standard is a reason for nonattainment designation.

  On page 20, the letter states   Although Pulaski County This factor did not appear significant for the remaining counties listed in this table.  It appears that a sentence ending is missing.

  On page 22, the letter states that Madison County    has the largest number of workers commuting into Fayette County ( 6,870), which is relatively insignificant for such a large county as Fayette. Based on the analysis for this factor, there are no counties with commuting data showing a potential to contribute to the PM 2.5 violations in Fayette County.  On page 23, the letter states,    no other Kentucky counties, with the exception of Madison County, have VMT and commuting data with a potential to contribute to the PM 2.5 violations in Fayette County.  One page indicates that commuting data indicates no potential impact; the next page states that the commuting data indicates a potential impact. 6 Date Extension EPA indicated in previous guidance its intention to consider 2002 2004 monitoring when making PM2.5 designations. Kentucky feels that EPA should follow through with its original intentions.

Kentucky believes that the date for official designation should be extended until after the beginning of 2005, instead of mid November 2004. This would allow states to utilize the 2004 data, and would provide the use of the most recent available data, a requirement that EPA consistently espouses.

Meteorological Conditions/ Upwind Counties The geographic location of a county and the historic prevailing wind data in an area has an impact on PM2.5 monitored values. In addressing comments from information presented in the February 2004 recommendations from Kentucky, EPA claims that an area may contribute to the monitored violation even if it is located downwind of another area, due to this being a   year long  standard. EPA has previously made numerous references to   upwind areas impacting downwind areas  and   predominant wind patterns.  This has been the premise for several control programs recently implemented by EPA and most recently set the stage for the CAIR and BART proposals. Therefore, if the geographic location and predominant wind patterns are an important variable when determining when and at what levels PM impacts are seen, including at Class I areas, then the same variable should be taken into account when EPA makes final PM2.5 designations.

Conclusions   EPA should abandon its approach of using the weighted emissions factor screening levels as the sole reason to include an area in nonattainment. The method used by EPA has not been reviewed by states and other interested parties. This study, while applying similar methodologies for parts of the analysis goes beyond comparison and looks for ways to associate a regional pollutant on a localized level, without taking into account other variables in a geographic location.

  EPA is in the process of adopting CAIR to lower the regional concentrations of SO2 and NOx. New fuel and engine requirements to assist in lowering PM concentrations in our urban areas are being implemented within the next two years. EPA s position has been that the implementation of these national/ regional controls will alleviate PM2.5 problems in most areas of the nation. To require nonattainment designations for   possible potential  contributions from these sectors, when control programs have already been adopted to address them is nothing more than a unnecessary paper exercise for state and local agencies resulting in costly resource expenditures.

  As other national studies have shown, urban PM levels can definitely be driven by localized activities. EPA needs to be cognizant of information submitted by 7 states where there appear to be definite   pockets  of nonattainment and an urban core impact area. This can most readily be seen where there are monitors attaining the standard located within a short distance of a monitor in violation.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 85500-85502]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26808]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0743]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lahaina Boat Basin, Maui, HI--Emergency Operations
and Port Recovery

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
the navigable waters in the vicinity of Lahaina Boat Basin, Maui,
Hawaii. The temporary safety zone encompasses all waters extending 200
yards from shore from the northernmost boundary, 60 yards south of the
intersection of Front Street and Baker Street, Maui, to the
southernmost boundary, 20 yards south of the intersection of Front
Street and Shaw Street, Maui. This action is necessary to provide for
the safety of persons and the marine environment from the potential
safety hazards associated with the damage assessment, debris
management, vessel salvage, and port recovery of Lahaina Boat Basin and
surrounding waters, through December 15, 2023. Entry of vessels or
persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port Sector Honolulu or designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from December 8,
2023 through December 15, 2023. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from December 01, 2023, until December 8, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0743 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Wade Thomson, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Honolulu
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On August 8, 2023, high winds and wildfires struck portions of
Maui, Hawaii, causing damage to coastal infrastructure and prompting
mass rescue operations for area residents.
    On August 9, 2023, the Coast Guard issued a temporary rule
establishing a safety zone for all waters extending 1 nautical mile
from shore starting from the northernmost point of Kekaa Point, Maui,
thenceforth to the southernmost point at Hekili Point, Maui, to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards
associated with emergency response and port recovery operations after
wildfires affected the area. The safety zone was effective through
August 23, 2023. A copy of the rulemaking that ended on August 23,
2023, is available in Docket USCG-2023-0669, which can be found using
instructions in the ADDRESSES section.
    On September 22, 2023, the Coast Guard issued a rulemaking creating
a temporary safety zone that encompassed all waters extending 200 yards
from shore from the northernmost point, 100 yards south of the
intersection of Kaniau Road and Honoapiilani Highway (Highway 30),
Maui, thenceforth to the southernmost boundary at the southern end of
Launiupoko Beach Park, Maui, with an effective end date of December 5,
2023. A copy of the rulemaking ending on December 5, 2023 is available
in the Docket USCG-2023-0743, which can be found using instructions in
the ADDRESSES section. However, additional time is needed to continue
to provide protection against hazards in the area due to emergency
response and port recovery operations. As a result, the Coast Guard is
establishing through temporary regulations a safety zone that will be
in effect through December 15, 2023. The safety zone encompasses all
waters extending 200 yards from shore from the northernmost boundary,
60 yards south of the intersection of Front Street and Baker Street,
Maui, to the southernmost boundary, 20 yards south of the intersection
of Front Street and Shaw Street, Maui.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
The Coast Guard was unable to publish an NPRM and hold a reasonable
comment period for this rulemaking due to the emergent nature of the
continuing damage assessment and salvage operations.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action to restrict
vessel traffic within the safety zone is needed to protect life,
property, and the environment, therefore a 30-day notice period is
impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the
safety zone's intended objectives of providing immediate protection to
on-scene emergency personal, creating a working buffer necessary to
mitigate any safety and potential pollution threats caused by the
wildfires and establishing immediate maritime safety in the vicinity of
on-scene damage assessments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Coast Guard Captain of the Port Sector Honolulu (COTP) has
determined that the potential hazards associated with the emergency
response and port recovery efforts connected to wildfires in the area
constitute a safety concern for anyone within the designated safety
zone. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment within the navigable waters of the safety zone
during ongoing emergency response and port recovery operations.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone that will be enforced
from December 01, 2023, through December 15, 2023, at 11:59 p.m., or
until emergency response and port recovery operations are complete,
whichever is earlier. If the safety zone is terminated prior to 11:59
p.m. on December 15, 2023, the Coast Guard will provide notice via a
broadcast notice to mariners. The temporary safety zone encompasses all
waters extending 200 yards from shore from the northernmost

boundary, 60 yards south of the intersection of Front Street and Baker
Street, Maui, to the southernmost boundary, 20 yards south of the
intersection of Front Street and Shaw Street, Maui. The safety zone is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards associated with ongoing emergency response and port
recovery operations after wildfires affected the area. No vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the safety zone absent the express
authorization of the COTP or her designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly,
this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and limited duration of the safety zone. This zone impacts a
small, designated area of the Lahaina Harbor and surrounding waters and
operations may suspend early at the discretion of the COTP.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone that will prohibit entry within certain navigable waters of
Lahaina Boat Basin. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T14-0743 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T14-0743  Safety Zone; Pacific Ocean, Lahaina Boat Basin,
Maui, HI--Emergency Operations and Port Recovery.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters
extending 200 yards from shore from the northernmost boundary, 60 yards
south of the intersection of Front Street and Baker Street, Maui, to
the southernmost boundary, 20 yards south of the intersection of Front
Street and Shaw Street, Maui.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector Honolulu (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by VHF/FM Chanel 16. Those in the safety zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced December 1,
2023, through December 15, 2023, unless an earlier end is announced by
broadcast notice to mariners.

    Dated: December 1, 2023.
A.L. Kirksey,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Honolulu.
[FR Doc. 2023-26808 Filed 12-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Materials Characterization Paper

In Support of the

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking –

Identification of Nonhazardous Materials That Are Solid Waste

Foundry Sand - Used as ingredient in clinker manufacture

December 16, 2008

==================================================================

1.	Definition of Foundry Sand

Foundry sand is an industrial material generated by the metal-casting
industry, which uses the sand to form a physical mold used in the
production of metal products.  Two general types of sand are used in
metal casting: clay-bonded sand (green sand); and chemically-bonded
sand:

Green sand is composed of naturally occurring materials that are blended
together: high quality silica sand; bentonite clay as a binder; a
carbonaceous additive to improve the casting surface finish; and water.
Due to the carbon content, green sand is actually black in color and
adheres together due to the clay and water content.  Green sand molds
comprise about 90 percent of the casting volume in the United States.

Chemically-bonded sand does not employ  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  a clay
binder. Instead, chemical binders are used to cause the sand to hold its
shape during the introduction of the molten metal into the mold and the
cooling of the casting. Chemically-bonded sand is generally light in
color and coarser in texture than clay bonded sand, and accounts for
only 10 percent of casting volume in the United States.  Foundries use
chemically-bonded sand in coremaking, where high strengths are necessary
to withstand the heat of the molten metal (FIRSTb).

After multiple uses in castings, the sand becomes unsuitable for
castings and is either disposed of in landfills or beneficially used in
other applications, including use as an ingredient in the manufacture of
portland cement.

2.	Annual Quantities of Foundry Sand Generated and Trends in Generation

Sectors that generate foundry sand:

The metal-casting industry, represented by NAICS code 3115, is the sole
generator of spent foundry sand.

Quantities and prices of foundry sand generated:

According to the American Foundry Society (AFS), a metal casting
industry group, the metal-casting process generates 9.4 million tons of
foundry sand annually (AFS 2007).

Trends in generation of foundry sand:

The generation of foundry sand generally tracks with the manufacture of
cast metal products. Despite increased foreign competition, the metal
casting industry expects modest growth to continue. Sales of metal
castings are expected to grow 14 percent over the next three years from
$33 billion in 2005 to $37.7 billion in 2008 (Industrial Metalcasting).

3.	Uses of Foundry Sand

Ingredient uses of foundry sand:

Spent foundry sand can be used in the manufacture of portland cement
clinker.  Most foundry sands are high in silica content and can serve as
a potential alternative silica source in portland cement clinker
production. In addition, portland cement clinker production requires
certain minerals, such as iron and aluminum oxides, both of which are
found in many spent foundry sands.  Brass foundries create sands that
can be hazardous under RCRA (if disposed of) due to metals content and,
therefore, are outside the scope of this report.

According to the portland cement industry, foundry sand can be
beneficially reused in the manufacturing of portland cement when it
possesses the following properties: silica content of 80 percent, low
alkali levels, and uniform particle size. In addition, large quantities
of foundry sands must be available for it to be used by Portland cement
manufacturers (FIRST).

Non-combustion uses of foundry sand:

Spent foundry sand can be used as a substitute for virgin sand in road
base, structural fill, flowable fill, soil amendment, or as the fine
aggregate portion of concrete or hot-mix asphalt.  In addition, some
sand can be used as a high-end additive to industrial materials, such as
plastics, to provide specific textures and colors.

Quantities of foundry sand landfilled:

AFS estimates that in 2006, 6.8 million tons of foundry sand were
disposed in landfills. This quantity includes sand used as a landfill
daily cover.

Quantities of foundry sand stockpiled/stored:

The sources consulted for this paper did not provide available
information concerning whether significant quantities of foundry sand
are stockpiled or stored.

Exhibit 1:  Overview of Generation and Use of Foundry Sand in 2007

Commodity	Annual Quantity Generated 	Annual Quantity Used as Ingredient
Annual Quantity Landfilled	Annual Quantity in Other Uses	Total Quantity
Stockpiled

Cement Kilns	Other

------------------------------------ Short Tons
-----------------------------------

Foundry sand	9.4 million	Undetermined	None	6.8 million	2.6 million
Undetermined

Sources:

Oman, Alicia. American Foundry Society (AFS), personal communication,
12/21/07, and Foundry Industry Benchmarking Survey, August 2007,
accessed at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.strategicgoals.org/benchmarking/foundryresults8-7.pdf"
http://www.strategicgoals.org/benchmarking/foundryresults8-7.pdf .

Notes:

Detailed quantitative data on the various beneficial use applications of
foundry sand have not been well documented in the past.  In an attempt
to address this issue, AFS recently conducted a benchmark survey to
collect information from the foundry industry on the specific quantities
of spent foundry sand being beneficially used in different applications.
The survey results indicate that none of the respondents are currently
using foundry sand in clinker manufacture. According to the Portland
Cement Association, however, foundry sand is being used by a number of
North American cement kilns (FIRSTb).

4.	Management and Combustion processes for Foundry Sand

Types of units using foundry sand:

When used in clinker manufacture, foundry sand is fed into cement kilns
with other raw material feed.  No other combustion applications appear
to use significant quantities of foundry sand as an input.

Sourcing of foundry sand:

In some cases, cement manufacturers obtain foundry sand through direct
agreements with foundries, most of which are located in certain states,
including Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Some
foundries market their spent sand through a third-party or a cooperative
instead of selling directly to the end-user. The majority of foundries
are small businesses that generate small quantities of spent foundry
sand. Through arrangements with multiple foundries, cooperative
brokers/third party processors may be able to provide sufficient and
consistent amounts of spent foundry sand to support the need of cement
kilns.  If a cement kiln uses a third party broker, the broker will pay
the foundry for the foundry sand, but in some cases the kiln purchases
the sand directly from the foundry.

Processing of foundry sand:

Foundry sand used in portland cement manufacturing must be separated
from other foundry by-products through a series of screens (FIRST). The
oversized material that does not pass the screens is termed "raw core
butt" and consists of chunks and grains of coarse sand and scrap metal.
Most portland cement plants also require that core butts be ground to a
uniform grain size. Vibrating screens and a ball mill are used to
further separate the components of this stream and to crush the
oversized chunks of sand. Through use of a magnetic separator, metal in
the stream is removed.

State status of foundry sand use as ingredient:

At this stage, we have not identified any states that have specifically
given beneficial use designation to the use of foundry sand in clinker
manufacture, or that prohibit use of foundry sand in clinker, but we
have not performed an exhaustive investigation of state activities and
regulations.

5.	Foundry Sand Composition and Impacts

Composition of foundry sand:

Spent foundry sand consists primarily of silica sand, coated with a thin
film of burnt carbon, residual binder (bentonite, sea coal, resins) and
dust (Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center).  Spent foundry sand may
also contain heavy metals and phenols that are absorbed by the sand
during the molding process and casting operations. Phenols are formed
through high-temperature thermal decomposition and rearrangement of
organic binders during the metal pouring process. The presence of heavy
metals is greater in foundry sands generated from nonferrous foundries.
Spent foundry sand from brass or bronze foundries, in particular, may
contain high concentrations of cadmium, lead, copper, nickel, and zinc
(Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center).

Impacts of foundry sand use:

In clinker manufacture, foundry sand partially offsets the need for
virgin silica, iron, and alumina sources. Thus, using foundry sand in
the cement kiln can reduce the unit consumption of virgin feed stock
materials and related emissions.

The specific lifecycle impacts of foundry sand use as a raw material in
clinker production are not evaluated here because of uncertainties in
lifecycle scenario development. For example, it is difficult to
determine the replacement ratio between foundry sand and other raw feed
materials in clinker production. Thus, the correct quantity of material
to be modeled is unclear. In addition, foundry sand may substitute for a
variety of virgin raw materials as well as other secondary materials
(e.g., blast furnace slag, CCPs, cement kiln dust, etc.); the choice of
material often depends on location-specific factors such as the
proximity of material sources to the cement kiln and relative
availability of different materials. Avoided upstream impacts depend
heavily on the specific material being displaced in the lifecycle
scenario.

References

American Foundry Society (AFS), About Metal Casting, accessed at:
HYPERLINK "http://www.afsinc.org/content/view/62/122/"
http://www.afsinc.org/content/view/62/122/ .

American Foundry Society (AFS). August 2007. “Foundry Industry
Benchmarking Survey: Industry Practices Regarding the Disposal and
Beneficial Reuse of Foundry Sand – Results and Analysis.” Accessed
at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.strategicgoals.org/benchmarking/foundry.html"
http://www.strategicgoals.org/benchmarking/foundry.html .

Foundry Industry Recycling Stars Today (FIRSTa), Foundry Sand in
Portland Cement Manufacturing, accessed at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.foundryrecycling.org/TechnicalApplications/ManufacturedProdu
cts/PortlandCement/tabid/173/Default.aspx"
http://www.foundryrecycling.org/TechnicalApplications/ManufacturedProduc
ts/PortlandCement/tabid/173/Default.aspx .

Foundry Industry Recycling Stars Today (FIRSTb), What is Recycled
Foundry Sand?, accessed at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.foundryrecycling.org/Home/WhatisRecycledFoundrySand/tabid/29
4/Default.aspx"
http://www.foundryrecycling.org/Home/WhatisRecycledFoundrySand/tabid/294
/Default.aspx .

Industrial Metal Casting, “Casting Industry,” accessed at:
HYPERLINK "http://www.industrialmetalcasting.com/casting-industry.html"
http://www.industrialmetalcasting.com/casting-industry.html .

Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center and the Federal Highway
Administration, User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials in
Pavement Construction, accessed at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/begin.htm"
http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/begin.htm .

 PAGE

 PAGE   5

Foundry Sand