1 1 EPA'S PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR ZINC FERTILIZERS MADE FROM RECYCLED HAZARDOUS WASTES 2 3 4 5 __________________________________________ 6 7 8 PART A PUBLIC HEARING 9 EPA HEARING November 29, 2001 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, pursuant to the Washington 17 Rules of Civil Procedure, the hearing of the 18 Environmental Protection Agency in re: Proposed 19 Regulations for zinc fertilizers made from recycled 20 hazardous wastes was taken before Cassandra E. Ellis, a 21 Certified Shorthand Reporter, and a Notary Public for 22 the State of Washington, on November 29, 2001,

23 commencing at the hour of 1: 00 p. m., the proceedings 24 being reported at Town Hall, 1119 8th Avenue, Seattle,

25 Washington. 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 USEPA HEADQUARTERS 3 DAVID FAGAN 4 SPECIAL ASSISTANT 5 5301 W 6 Washington, D. C. 20460 7 (703) 308 0603 8 Appearing on Behalf of the Director of Solid Waste 9 .

10 EPA REGION 10 11 JACKSON FOX 12 HEARING OFFICER 13 1200 6th Avenue 14 Seattle, Washington 98101 15 (206) 553 1073 16 Appearing on Behalf of the Seattle EPA Office,

17 Region 10 18 .

19 EPA REGION 10 20 JEANNE O'DELL 21 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COORDINATOR 22 1200 6th Avenue 23 Seattle, Washington 98101 24 (206) 553 1073 25 Appearing on Behalf of the Seattle EPA Office, 3 1 Region 10 2 .

3 .

4 .

5 .

6 .

7 .

8 .

9 .

10 .

11 .

12 .

13 .

14 .

15 .

16 .

17 .

18 .

19 .

20 .

21 .

22 .

23 .

24 .

25 . 4 1 Seattle, Washington;

2 Thursday, November 29, 2001 3 1: 00 p. m.

4 MR. FOX: Hello, everyone, I'm Jackson 5 Fox. I'm regional counsel for EPA Region 10, and also 6 the hearing officer for this hearing.

7 It's my responsibility to insure that 8 the hearing is run properly and that anybody who chooses 9 to provide testimony this afternoon has the opportunity 10 to do so.

11 First, I would like to introduce Ms.

12 Cassandra Ellis, over here on my left. She's the court 13 reporter, and because she's taking down everything 14 that's said please speak fairly slowly and clearly so 15 that she can get your words verbatim.

16 This hearing is being held on November 17 29th, 2001, at the Town Hall here in Seattle. The 18 purpose of this public hearing is to receive public 19 comments on EPA's proposed regulations for recycling of 20 hazardous wastes in the manufacture of zinc in 21 fertilizers.

22 These proposed regulations, which were 23 developed by the Office of Solid Waste, at EPA 24 headquarters, were published in the federal register on 25 November 28th, 2000. 5 1 Public notice of this hearing was 2 published in the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post 3 Intelligencer on November 16th, 2001.

4 This public hearing has been called 5 with two objectives in mind. We would like to give all 6 interested parties an opportunity to express their views 7 on the proposed regulations, and we are interested in 8 obtaining as much relevant new information as possible 9 to assist the agency in developing the final ruling.

10 As Mr. Fagan mentioned previously the 11 agency received a substantial number of written comments 12 during the initial comment period that ended on February 13 26th of this year.

14 This hearing is an additional 15 opportunity to offer comments on the proposal. The 16 comments received at this hearing will become part of 17 the formal, administrative record for this rule making.

18 We will take both oral and written 19 comments here this afternoon. If you want to provide 20 oral testimony you will need to put your name on the 21 sign in sheet, which I have here now. Those who wish 22 to make a statement will be called in the order they 23 signed in. The only exceptions for this are for 24 individuals who represent government agencies who will 25 be allowed to speak first. 6 1 If you would like to provide written 2 comments this afternoon we have comment sheets you can 3 fill out at the registration table. When you've 4 completed your written comments you can either place 5 them in the box provided at the registration table or 6 leave them with Ms. O'Dell, that's Jeanne, who was 7 talking earlier.

8 If you don't want to make a 9 statement, but want to be put on EPA's mailing list for 10 the final rule, you can indicate that on the comment 11 sheet.

12 The oral and written comments received 13 at this hearing will be reviewed by EPA and will be 14 responded to fully in the final rule document.

15 Now, let's get started with the 16 hearing. If there's anybody in the audience who wishes 17 to testify, but has not yet signed up to do so, please 18 sign up at the registration table. You can do that 19 now.

20 Testimony will be limited to three 21 minutes, and I have a timer here. Given this limitation 22 you may need to summarize your comments and perhaps 23 submit additional comments, in writing, for the record.

24 I will call each speaker up to the 25 microphone. As you begin your testimony please state 7 1 your name clearly for the record, and include the 2 organization you represent, if any. To insure that 3 everyone has an opportunity to testify please limit your 4 comments to three minutes.

5 I have a  a little card that tells 6 you when you have 30 second left, so I will hold that 7 up so you can see that you better wind down.

8 To keep things moving I will also 9 call out the name of the following speaker, the one on 10 deck, and so if you're the one on deck please move up 11 into the front so you can assume a position by the 12 microphone right after the previous  the speaker 13 before you.

14 In the interests of time, if you have 15 testimony that is similar to a previous speaker's 16 testimony, you may wish to simply state that you support 17 and want to second what was said previously. Make sure 18 you identify the name of the speaker with whom you 19 agree.

20 Before we begin with testimony I would 21 like to emphasize that the specific purpose of this 22 hearing is to receive comments on this regulatory 23 proposal developed by EPA.

24 While you may have concerns or views 25 on other issues, and I have heard that some of you do, 8 1 that relate in some other way to fertilizers please 2 focus your comments on this particular proposed rule.

3 I also appreciate that there are some 4 strong feelings and different points of view among some 5 of you in the room. We are not here to resolve those 6 difference, but rather to receive input on this 7 important matter.

8 I hope we can have a civil proceeding 9 and be respectful of the various points of view that 10 will be expressed this afternoon.

11 So, with that, let's get started.

12 The first speaker is Greg Sorlie.

13 MR. SORLIE: Is using this microphone 14 okay?

15 MR. FOX: That's fine.

16 MR. SORLIE: So, audience is to my 17 back today. I will look to you because you have the 18 card. My name's Greg Sorlie. I'm a manager for the 19 hazardous waste program at the State's Department of 20 Ecology. I'm here to testify in favor of this proposal.

21 The governor, in February, wrote a 22 letter to EPA expressing his support for the steps you 23 are moving forward on, and I wanted to quickly summarize 24 the points made in that letter.

25 First, the reason why we  we think 9 1 this rule is at least the first step in the right 2 direction is that it eliminates the KO61 exception of 3 the steel milled fluid dust, which is what Washington 4 State did a couple of years ago.

5 And we think that closing that 6 regulatory loophole and having an even playing field for 7 the rest of the country makes a lot of sense.

8 We also like the fact that these are 9 technology based standards. We originally had supported 10 risk based standards, but it's our understanding given 11 the current risk models used by EPA is that they could 12 actually allow more metals and contaminants in, and that 13 didn't make sense to us, especially if the industry can 14 meet these lower amounts.

15 Thirdly, dioxin, we are very pleased 16 to see that there are some dioxin standard here. We 17 just have not seen that from the federal government 18 before we had done testing here in Washington in our 19 fertilizers. We did find them, in some cases, to be 20 very high.

21 So this non degradation standard that 22 you've proposed, we think, is a good step and we would 23 like to see that stay in the rule.

24 And, lastly, mining wastes, the 25 proposed rule eliminates the exclusion for  that 10 1 exempts mining waste. We did not adopt that in 2 Washington, years ago, it's called the bevel amendment.

3 We haven't seen any adverse impacts to our agricultural 4 community or soil because of that not being here.

5 And we think that, again, this is an 6 even playing field. We've done that in Washington, it 7 should be done elsewhere.

8 A couple of other reasons why we 9 think at least that this step going forward makes sense,

10 when the law in Washington was passed we required 11 testing of fertilizers that were by producers.

12 And in one case we found that a zinc 13 fertilizer that was tested had very high amounts of 14 cadmium in it, this is from an offshore source,

15 thousands of thousands of parts per million of cadmium.

16 And once we found that we kind of 17 blew the whistle. And with EPA's assistance that was 18 taken off the market all across the country.

19 And had that not happened it would 20 have been here now. So I think this points out the 21 example of having these kinds of standards in place.

22 And in Washington we also have about 23 50 fertilizers now that were either denied registration 24 or reconfigured because we have some standards in place 25 and we're much better off because of that. 11 1 So, again, we would like to support 2 this. We are concerned that what's being proposed could 3 be weakened. We would just like to encourage EPA to 4 have the most stringent standards as we go through this 5 process.

6 And, finally, Oregon Department of 7 Equality has asked me to indicate in a letter that was 8 submitted that they also support moving head in getting 9 something on the books to have some regulatory control.

10 Thank you.

11 MR. FOX: Thank you. And I broke one 12 of my own rules immediately by not calling the on deck 13 speaker. The next speaker is Catherine Roper. And 14 following Catherine will be Elizabeth Gentala.

15 MS. ROPER: Thank you. My name is 16 Catherine Roper. I represent the Well Mind Association 17 of Seattle. I'm also a member of the Green Party. The 18 Well Mind Association is an educational organizational 19 focusing on the nutritional and environmental causes of 20 mental and emotional illness. We provide advocacy,

21 information and referral.

22 Among other factors documented in 23 research we have found that food allergies, multiple 24 chemical sensitivity, impaired immune function, fibrosis,

25 nutritional imbalance and toxicity are important causes 12 1 of most so called mental disorders.

2 We request that the EPA, together with 3 the FDA, label toxic waste, what it is, poison. We 4 request that dumping of hazardous waste that is poison 5 on the farms be stopped immediately. Laws requiring 6 labeling have been finessed by powerful companies.

7 The Well Mind Association requests 8 that the EPA protect our environment by taking all 9 action necessary to begin a soil cleanup program,

10 beginning with outlawing toxic waste and fertilizer.

11 Soil is the start of the food chain.

12 Poisoning people is a crime, whether it's done by a 13 company or an individual.

14 The book, Faithful Harvest, by Duff 15 Wilson, lists toxins found in soil and fertilizer.

16 Doctors can list the heavy metals found in their 17 patients in ever increasing amounts, in reference to 18 your presentation perhaps you put down percentages, but 19 I think what doctors are finding in people's bodies are 20 witness that they are finding their ways into their 21 bodies no matter what percentages you're finding.

22 Well Mind has found that successful 23 treatment of so called mental illness often starts with 24 detoxification, if this step is skipped and a person is 25 medicated the toxic load becomes serious. 13 1 There's no such thing as a deficiency 2 of Prozac or Ritalin. However, over seven billion is 3 spent, seven billion dollars, is spent each year on 4 antidepressants.

5 According to the US Center of Disease 6 Control over seven million children are on Prozac and 7 Ritalin. When food doesn't nourish and heal drugs sell.

8 The April issue of the Townsend Letter 9 for patients and doctors gives the behavioral 10 abnormalities associated with various heavy metal 11 toxins.

12 Mercury: Social deficits, social 13 withdrawal.

14 Arsenic, copper, lead, mercury:

15 Depression, mood swings, flat affect, impaired facial 16 recognition.

17 Mercury: Schizoid tendency,

18 hallucinations delirium.

19 Copper, mercury: Suicidal behaviors.

20 Aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, copper,

21 lead, mercury, thallium: Chronic fatigue syndrome,

22 weakness, malaise.

23 Lead, mercury: Attention deficit 24 disorder, lacks eye contact.

25 And I have three pages of the effects 14 1 of heavy metal. You can do the research, and that's 2 very important as part of what you're doing.

3 However, we see in people that are 4 coming to us and are seen by the doctors that they are 5 collecting these heavy metals in their bodies.

6 So you can do the research, and I 7 appreciate everything you're doing, and I agree with 8 anything he said before in terms of the Department of 9 Ecology, but please, and I'll submit this list to you,

10 there's a lot of people are picking up this. And we 11 are all going to be toxic waste sites if Congress 12 doesn't take even more action.

13 So, tell us what we can do to reach 14 Congress, too. Thank you.

15 MR. FOX: Thank you. Next is 16 Elizabeth Gentala, on deck is Steve Erickson.

17 MS. GENTALA: I'm Elizabeth Gentala,

18 with Well Mind Association. I  I am in favor of what 19 the previous spokes people said, but my concern is that 20 though a small amount of toxic metals and other toxins 21 are allowed that these could accumulate in the soil.

22 I happen to be a gardener, even if 23 I'm a bit disabled, and I am concerned that I should

24 could be able to eat food that doesn't have toxic 25 materials in it. 15 1 But we're finding toxins now in our 2 rivers, besides our  our soils. And I don't know how 3 we're going to reduce all of these toxins that  so 4 that we can have healthy people, because we  the

5 the toxic minerals and chemicals are producing a lot 6 more disabled people.

7 We're finding illnesses that should be 8 coming  be arriving when you're an adult that in 9 children. And so that's my concern is that we don't have 10 toxins that are  are increasing in all of the  the 11 soils and the waters.

12 MR. FOX: Thank you. Steve Erickson 13 on deck Jon Stier.

14 MS. ERICKSON: Thank you. I'm Steve 15 Erickson. I do not have a group affiliation, and I am 16 responding only to the presentation, so I'm perhaps not 17 as organized as I should be, but I recognize the 18 distinction between the roles of Congress and the roles 19 of EPA.

20 However, I would hope that the public 21 can cause Congress to give a primary interest to the 22 greater good over the economic interests of small 23 segments of society.

24 Besides, a personal opinion, I believe 25 that the recognition of hazardous, hazardous wastes 16 1 should cause us to, as you try to do, promote recycling,

2 but to keep it out of the food chain.

3 I detected an incongruity between two 4 statements that you made on regulation. One was, if I 5 quoted you hopefully correctly, that you don't intend to 6 regulate hazardous waste if industry makes, quote,

7 unquote, common sense approaches, versus another comment 8 that  that what the key, quote, unquote, the key to 9 this is the good, strong state regulation.

10 Now, I do recognize the difference 11 between federal and state regulation. However, I feel 12 that EPA does have a regulatory rule  role to play 13 for two reasons: One, in this area of products and 14 food chain that they typically and normally do cross 15 state borders, if not national borders. And then,

16 secondly, as a personal philosophy I believe that third 17 party, namely government, is needed as a regulatory 18 agent to assure the  the common good is, indeed, met.

19 Another belief of mine is that, and I 20 would hope that Congress would accept this and hope that 21 EPA would, that public policy should be predicated on 22 the avoidance of risk and not waiting for the 23 requirement of scientific provability of risk.

24 The item that I did not understand,

25 and I'm not asking for an explanation here, but was how 17 1 this would  the heavy metals would be tied to zinc,

2 your statement, to lower the zinc to lower the heavier 3 metals, and how you could necessarily presume that the 4 zinc level would be indicative of the other metals.

5 And, as a final conclusion, I  I do 6 support your proposals in that they are increasing 7 regulatory influence over what already exists.

8 However, I don't feel they're adequate 9 for the purposes, as I mentioned.

10 And I thank you for your time.

11 MR. FOX: Lauren Braden. On deck 12 Melinda Gladstone.

13 MR. TAKARO: My name is Tim Takaro.

14 Steve has agreed to let me take his place and he will 15 take mine later in the testimony.

16 I am a physician, faculty at the 17 University of Washington in the School of Public Health 18 and Medicine. I am representing the Washington 19 Physicians for Social Responsibility today.

20 However, my research interests are in 21 genetics, susceptibility, profusion, in part, on metals 22 and susceptibilities to metals. I also am very 23 interested in occupational exposures. And so, in 24 addition to being concerned about children and the 25 general public, I am concerned about workers who may be 18 1 exposed during the processing of these toxic wastes.

2 The proposed rule does not go far 3 enough to protect children and other susceptible 4 individuals. While science has been the foundation of my 5 career I have grown to recognize more and more the 6 limits of our science.

7 And it is very clear to me that 8 despite the safety factors that have been built into 9 much of our regulations these safety factors do not 10 address all of the uncertainty that remains in our 11 science.

12 It is important that we recognize a 13 manifestation of this uncertainty and that all of the 14 regulation almost invariably has levels being driven 15 down over time by science.

16 You rarely see a protective level 17 raised in  in the history of regulation. Although 18 that does occur it's an extremely rare event.

19 And there is a lesson here. We  we 20 must recognize that in the limits of our science we may 21 be risking the future generations. And we may, in fact,

22 be endangering our own health, particularly for those 23 individuals who are susceptible.

24 For this reason we supported 25 Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the 19 1 National Organization, the precautionary principal, this 2 is a very simple idea, better safe than sorry when you 3 don't know everything.

4 And we certainly don't know everything 5 about genetic susceptibility. We only recently have a 6 rough draft of the human genome. And it is incumbent 7 upon us to slow down, use common sense approaches, and 8 not endanger future generations.

9 I would bring just one example to the 10 floor today, based on the Washington Survey of 11 Fertilizers, in 1995. One of the constituents is 12 beryllium. Beryllium is a highly toxic metal, very 13 clearly can cause disease at the regulated levels, and 14 this is why the Department of Energy and EPA and OSHA 15 have been reviewing this particular standard.

16 Beryllium is present in much of these 17 toxins. A single exposure can produce disease in 18 susceptible individuals. These people, of course, don't 19 know who they are. That means that we need to protect 20 the entire population.

21 And, in doing so, I think we should 22 be following precautionary principals, it doesn't make 23 sense to use toxic wastes in materials that are going to 24 go into our soils, accumulate in the soils, have 25 multiple exposures, perhaps have synergistic effects 20 1 that we don't understand. Toxic waste makes no sense 2 being placed back on the soils.

3 Use of the background level as some 4 kind of standard also doesn't make a lot of logistical 5 sense at  okay, background, that's what we have to 6 live with. So why would you want to increase anything 7 over that background.

8 Their regulations usually follows a 9 single compound, and that's not the way the real world 10 works, particularly it's not the way these toxic waste 11 deposits are. They're multiple compounds with multiple 12 effects, some of them synergistic.

13 Thank you.

14 MR. FOX: Who do you speak on behalf 15 of.

16 MR. TAKARO: Washington Physicians for 17 Social Responsibilities.

18 MR. FOX: And whose position did you 19 take on.

20 MR. STIER: He took mine. I'm Jon 21 Stier, and I'm going to take Lauren Braden's position,

22 because she had to go. I think she had a doctor's 23 appointment.

24 MR. FOX: All right. After Jon is 25 Melinda Gladstone. 21 1 MR. STIER: Thank you. So, my name's 2 Jon Stier. I'm an attorney with the National 3 Environmental Law Center in Seattle, and I represent the 4 Sierra Club and the Washington Toxic's Coalition in the 5 lawsuit that resulted in today's modest ruling that's 6 the reason we're going forward here today.

7 My clients have already submitted 8 detailed comments on the proposed rule, some of it okay,

9 some of it not so okay.

10 And so I just would like to take a 11 minute or two to just step back and look at some policy 12 issues.

13 Turning toxic waste into fertilizer 14 not only poses a health threat as described in Duff 15 Wilson's excellent new book, a faithful harvest, but 16 it's a bad environmental policy, as well.

17 And EPA's waste to fertilizers 18 loopholes offer polluting industries a cheap waste 19 disposal option. Why where is it cheap, because if EPA 20 regulated these wastes as the hazardous substances that 21 they really are then they would have to be disposed of 22 in specially built hazardous waste landfills, away from 23 people and far away from the food supply.

24 But instead, with EPA's blessing, the 25 polluters give away or sell their waste to fertilizer 22 1 makers claiming the waste has plant nutrients in it, but 2 ignoring the lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, the 3 dioxins and other industrial poisons that make them 4 hazardous wastes in the first place.

5 They then profit by trafficking the 6 wastes to unwitting farmers and consumers. By making 7 toxic waste disposal in plant food cheap and even 8 profitable this twisted system discourages investment 9 into cleaner technologies.

10 This contradicts a cardinal purpose of 11 our hazardous waste laws, which is to retain, reduce and 12 prevent pollution.

13 The original idea of industrial waste 14 recycling was to reuse chemicals in a closed loop 15 manufacturing process, not to dump those chemicals into 16 the stream of commerce, and certainly not onto the food 17 supply.

18 It is a gross distortion of our 19 hazardous waste laws to use recycling as a pretext for 20 cheap toxic waste dumping, all the more so given the 21 known health risks posed by the chemicals involved, some 22 of which, like dioxin and lead, have no safe exposure 23 levels.

24 Look, folks, we got lead out of house 25 paint, we got led out of gasoline, by forcing those 23 1 industries to invent cleaner products and cleaner 2 manufacturing processes. We should do the same with the 3 industries that, today, dump their waste down the 4 fertilizer loopholes.

5 What's worse, consumers and farmers 6 today have no meaningful choice, whatsoever. Washington 7 State maintains an obscure web site that lists some 8 levels of some contaminants in some fertilizers, but in 9 reality most people won't ever know about that web site.

10 The contaminants and their levels must 11 be listed right on the labels so consumers can 12 comparison shop right at the store and so farmers can 13 take informed steps to protect themselves if they choose 14 to use these contaminated products.

15 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds, Jon.

16 MR. STIER: We do have a right to 17 know. To EPA I say the following things with respect 18 to this rule: Keep toxic waste out of our food supply 19 by banning toxic wastes in fertilizers, especially 20 wastes containing dioxin.

21 As an interim step, adopt stringent 22 standards for metals and fertilizers, and close 23 loopholes that give special treatment to mining waste 24 and steel mill waste.

25 All fertilizers should be fully 24 1 labeled with the actual levels of contaminants. And EPA 2 should establish a comprehensive tracking system for all 3 waste going into fertilizers.

4 Once we've gotten toxic waste out of 5 fertilizers EPA should support standards for all 6 fertilizers based on keeping our nation's soils clean 7 for future generations.

8 Turning toxic wastes into fertilizers 9 is a bang your head against the wall stupid idea, it is 10 unfathomable that we should actually have to explain 11 that to our government. Thank you.

12 MR. FOX: Melinda Gladstone, David to 13 follow.

14 MS. GLADSTONE: My name is Melinda 15 Lark Gladstone. And, Dave, I am a green zealot.

16 My testimony represents the values and 17 believes of Green Wings, the Environmental Group,

18 Whidbey Environmental Action Network, Pilchuck Audubon 19 Society, and Northwest Ecopsychology Institute.

20 I speak for friends and colleagues who 21 could not attend today, and I am also a voice for the 22 natural world and our home planet.

23 The health of the individual is 24 inextricably linked to the health of our earth.

25 Thank you Patty Martin, thank you Duff 25 1 Wilson, thank you Washington Toxic's Coalition, thank 2 you members of the Environmental Protection Agency, and 3 thank you for the person or persons who made the 4 decision to hold this important national meeting in the 5 City of Seattle.

6 The City of Seattle has an 7 international reputation as a place of protest, power 8 and change making. EPA, I say to you, We The People 9 will take to the streets if our voices are not heard 10 today.

11 My commitment to drive three hours to 12 speak for three minutes brings me to the essence of why 13 I am here. I am angry. I am outraged. I am fighting 14 for my life, fighting against an agency whose original 15 purpose was to offer protection. I am fighting against 16 the legality of allowing corporations to place hazardous 17 wastes covertly in fertilizers used to grow our food.

18 This is a life and death matter to me.

19 In an age of terrorism I find the 20 terrorists alive and well within our own borders.

21 In an age of terrorism EPA is 22 eliminating personal freedoms, freedom to know, for 23 example, specifically what the contents of a fertilizer 24 contains, what is in the food supply, water, soil,

25 etcetera, and freedom to self protect. Poisoning the 26 1 food supply is non consensual battery.

2 I reiterate, I am speaking for myself 3 and those who were unable to attend today. We are 4 fighting for our lives, our health, and our quality of 5 life.

6 Health and quality of life is measured 7 by degrees. Does our world end with a bang or a 8 whimper. I, for one, will not allow myself to be a 9 victim due to decisions made by governmental agency.

10 Environmental Protection Agency, I am 11 requesting an immediate ban of dioxin in all 12 fertilizers.

13 Environmental Protection Agency, admit 14 you are unaware of the extent of the systemic damages 15 being done to the human health and the health of the 16 natural world.

17 Environmental Protection Agency,

18 create stringent standards, especially for thorough 19 labeling for industrial wastes added to fertilizers.

20 I ask the people in the audience,

21 those of you who are concerned about our collective 22 health, to continue to awaken and educate all friends,

23 colleagues, neighbors, coworkers and extended family 24 members. Let your outrage be your motivation.

25 Hazardous wastes covertly placed in 27 1 fertilizers are an issue that will not go away.

2 I, We The People, want disclosure and 3 change now. EPA, I say to you, get the led out and put 4 the "P", for protection, back in EPA.

5 Thank you for the opportunity to 6 speak.

7 MR. FOX: Next is David Gladstone,

8 after David is Bruce Bzura.

9 MR. GLADSTONE: My name is David 10 Gladstone. I also drove three hours to speak for a 11 very short period of time.

12 I've been listening to what Dave, what 13 you had to say, and to some of the speakers, and I've 14 read some material in the past.

15 This is one of those issues that,

16 again, you just have to step back from and take a close 17 look at what's really going on.

18 If, indeed, these fertilizers 19 represent less than one half of one percent of all the 20 fertilizers in the United States why screw around. Why 21 take the risk. The precautionary principal, which has 22 been espoused all over the world relative to issues just 23 like this, says wait a minute, our lives are at stake,

24 our health's at stake. Don't mess around with this.

25 Ban all these fertilizers. 28 1 And if you can't go that far at least 2 ban dioxin and require labeling. Don't lighten the load 3 for these companies. There's no reason to take away 4 their responsibility to get rid of any hazardous wastes 5 that they produce. It's a very simple issue.

6 And don't kowtow to the company's in 7 Washington that have these huge lobbying budgets to 8 spend money to try and soften the standards.

9 At least take the standards that you 10 have, tighten them up, get rid of dioxin and label them.

11 Thank you.

12 MR. FOX: Bruce. And after Bruce is 13 Aisling Kerins.

14 MR. BZURA: Dave, I agree with you 15 fully on the need to recycle hazardous waste, if it's 16 done properly. I think it's very important to recycle it 17 rather than put it in a dump or on land.

18 But you stated in your proposals here 19 that the regulations are unnecessarily strict, and that,

20 I don't agree with.

21 If they're so strict then why are you 22 allowing such high levels of various heavy metals. The 23 example I used before was lead. You're proposing a 24 hundred parts per million lead when you know that 25 technology is available and economical to make a much 29 1 purer product.

2 As I stated before, you know you can 3 manufacture less than five parts or even less than two 4 parts per million lead.

5 So I just want to say that I believe 6 in recycling hazardous wastes. If you're going to 7 recycle it, though, make the best possible product with 8 it that is environmentally safe.

9 MR. FOX: Okay. Ms. Aisling here?

10 Christina Logsdon?

11 MS. LOGSDON: I meant to sign up for 12 the evening.

13 MR. FOX: What?

14 MS. LOGSDON: I meant to sign up for 15 the evening. I think we weren't aware that it was a 16 sign in sheet for speaking.

17 MR. FOX: All right. Sarahjoy 18 VanBoven.

19 MS. VANBOVEN: That's me.

20 MR. GLADSTONE: You get two for one.

21 MS. VANBOVEN: Hi, sorry for the 22 disruptive, happy child. Yeah, I just wanted to say 23 that this rule is really obvious to me, it seems like 24 it should have been done a while ago, it touches on 25 what we call civilized behavior as in: You don't shit 30 1 where you eat. And most animals really understand that.

2 And so I was hoping we could, you know, even have the 3 sense of most horses and dogs to do that.

4 But the mining companies and steel 5 mill corporations are trying to force us to put their 6 toxic wastes on our food crops and yards, and thus 7 turning our fields and our yards into toxic dumps, and 8 maybe eventually into super fund sites.

9 So that sounds a little ridiculous to 10 me, you know, rather than take care of it and deal with 11 it themselves, at their expense, they want us to do it.

12 And they are going to fight you guys all the way,

13 because they make a lot of money doing this, selling 14 this to us.

15 And if they have to put on labeling,

16 I mean no one in their right mind is going to go put 17 dioxins in their garden, that's just not feasible.

18 So if you do the labeling they are 19 going to be upset, because they're going to lose a lot 20 of money. And so, yeah, and it's hazardous waste for a 21 reason. I mean, it's hazardous, that's why we call it 22 hazardous waste. So that seems really obvious to me, as 23 well.

24 So it seems obvious in anyone with 25 good sense, you know, that you don't put dioxins on your 31 1 food stuffs, but the corporations are just stupid with 2 greed and they're just  they  they aren't people.

3 They don't have families, they don't have friends, and 4 corporations don't get sick. I mean, their main goal is 5 to make money.

6 And that's why we have organizations 7 like your organization, which is supposed to help 8 protect people from this ideology of straight money, we 9 need more money, we need to grow bigger and let's see 10 how much we can sell.

11 And so  I mean your job as an 12 organization, as I see it, is to protect us from these 13 machines of money making machines. I mean, they're not 14 people. They don't have, like, long term CEO's or 15 anything that are even responsible.

16 They're just  so  so I would ask 17 that you, you know, say no to this stupidity and enact 18 this law. I think, you know, I agree with a lot of 19 other people here that all toxins should be banned from 20 fertilizers, period. But, you know, if that's not 21 possible, which it is possible, but  so I would like 22 to ask you, the EPA, to be an agent of protection for 23 the environment and for all who depend upon it, namely 24 myself, as well as you and your coworkers depend upon 25 the cleanliness of our food, and so I would ask that 32 1 you take this step in the right direction.

2 MR. FOX: Next is Tim Takaro,

3 followed by Cassie Marshall, is Tim here.

4 THE AUDIENCE: Tim spoke earlier.

5 MR. FOX: Oh, he did. Cassie 6 Marshall.

7 MR. FOX: Following Cassie is Holly 8 Forrest.

9 MS. MARSHALL: Hi, my name is Cassie 10 Marshall, and I came here today  I also made a three 11 hour trip to come here today, because  because I just 12 happened to stumble across this information, actually 13 through Duff Wilson's book, primarily. Thank you for 14 that information.

15 And  and my feeling is that the 16 general public isn't aware of this issue at all. And 17 I'm always  I've always been concerned about food 18 safety issues, and I've fought hard on other battles,

19 but this was news to me and that was scary to me,

20 because most people just aren't aware of it.

21 And I guess we're kind of placing our 22 trust in the system that we will be protected from these 23 kind of things.

24 And it's shaken my trust a little 25 bit, I guess, that just this was allowed to happen, you 33 1 know, accidentally, intentionally, whatever, that it is 2 a problem and a danger.

3 I think that the practice of calling 4 hazardous waste or of the practice of turning it into 5 fertilizer or calling that recycling is just not quite 6 right.

7 You know, most people associate 8 recycling with the good use, with the good reuse of 9 something, and  and toxic wastes being reapplied 10 somewhere else doesn't seem to me like most people would 11 think that is a good use of it, to reuse it in any way.

12 Sorry, I wasn't quite ready to come 13 up here.

14 I would just say that, you know, most 15 people would say that applying lead, cadmium, arsenic,

16 dioxins to our food crop is not good recycling.

17 It seems to me from the information 18 that I have, which I admit is limited, that the 19 industries that create these wastes have found that it 20 is so much cheaper to pay the fertilizer companies to 21 take these materials and to dispose of them safely.

22 And so our need for a better tracking 23 and regulating of these by products is  is  is very 24 big. We really do need this.

25 The part that I found disturbing in 34 1 Mr. Wilson's book was how I think he calls it the magic 2 silo effect. A hazardous waste is transported into

3 into an area, and all of the sudden it becomes a 4 fertilizer product, and it's no longer regulated by any 5 of the restrictions that hazardous waste is required to 6  to  how it's required to be handled. And that's 7 kind of a scary thought, it is the same hazardous waste,

8 it's just called a different name and allowed to be 9 applied that it really scares me, it really bothers me.

10 I'm the mother of two young daughters,

11 and it scares me for the future. I have a lot of fear 12 about this actually killing our farm land, our  the 13 precious land that we, you know, we  we need to be 14 feeding our future generations. This really, really 15 frightens me.

16 After kind of being  becoming a 17 little bit informed about this I did a little  a 18 little looking into some things.

19 And I found that the mostly empty box 20 of fertilizer in my garage that I had used to plant 21 flowers with my daughter, and she was really young at 22 the time and I can remember her putting it into the 23 flower bowls, and I looked it up and it has 16 times 24 the background levels of cadmium levels in it.

25 And, you know, reading what cadmium 35 1 can do, especially exposure in young children, just 2 really frightened me.

3 So I'm just here as a concerned 4 parent, and I am just urging you to ban all the toxic 5 waste in any fertilizer products just to protect us.

6 I totally agree with the comments made 7 by the Washington Toxic Coalition spokesperson, and the 8 Physicians for Social Responsibility, I would like those 9 to be supported in my  my testimony, also.

10 And just  just to keep working to 11 get these dangerous things out of our system.

12 Thank you.

13 MR. FOX: Holly Forrest, next is Lisa 14 Ramirez.

15 MS. FORREST: Hi, I'm Holly Forrest,

16 and up till this point the most hazardous waste that 17 I've had to deal with has been this one and her 18 brother's diapers, but the reason that I'm here today is 19 because I'm aghast that hazardous wastes are in 20 fertilizer, fertilizer that's not just put on grass, but 21 on our food.

22 And one thing I do want to start off 23 with, though, is thanking you for holding this hearing,

24 because I'm happy that the EPA plans to regulate certain 25 fertilizers made from hazardous waste. 36 1 I am a member of Sierra Club in 2 Southwest Washington, in Vancouver. So, like Cassie, I 3 traveled three hours for three minutes and will have a 4 three hour drive back. Fortunately, this one is a good 5 traveller.

6 When I told family and friends what I 7 was doing today, where I was going, they thought that I 8 was joking.

9 The notion that fertilizer's used to 10 grow our food as a dumping ground for toxic substances 11 is so bizarre. Physicians and scientists will give and 12 have given you detailed information about the harms of 13 this practice.

14 I am here to support and reinforce 15 that the EPA regulate this or, as my Dad would say,

16 make them knock it off.

17 I am here as a daughter, a wife, a 18 mother, a friend and a citizen, to tell you that I want 19 protection from the greed that threatens our health.

20 In this time of growing economic 21 uncertainty it is not acceptable that we reduce 22 regulations, rather, I think we need to maintain or even 23 increase it in order to protect that which is so much 24 more important than our wealth, and that is our health.

25 Each evening I am thankful for the 37 1 fact that my family is healthy, but when I hear about 2 practices like this I wonder how much longer they're 3 going to be healthy.

4 Going specifically to what you have 5 proposed and what you are suggesting doing I would like 6 to make a few specific comments.

7 First, I'm glad to see that you have 8 several things in your proposal, the technology based 9 limits on metals and zinc fertilizer made from hazardous 10 waste.

11 I maybe should even preface that by 12 saying that ultimately I think the solution is to ban 13 hazardous waste in fertilizer, but let's deal with what 14 you're talking about.

15 Certainly a prohibition on wastes from 16 dioxin polluting industries that are being used for 17 fertilizer, the elimination of the loopholes that 18 provide for special treatment for steel mill waste when 19 it's used for fertilizer, as well as the mining waste,

20 and full reporting and tracking, including product 21 labeling of the use of hazardous waste in fertilizer.

22 Ultimately, you've heard a lot of good 23 comments from a number of people. And I certainly 24 support Cassie's and the folks that she supported, but I 25  I just would encourage you to keep that protection 38 1 up, because far more than being afraid of getting on a 2 hijacked plane I'm concerned about what happens when I 3 go to the grocery store and when I prepare meals for my 4 family.

5 So I'm counting on your agency to 6 protect our families.

7 Thank you.

8 MR. FOX: Okay. Next is Lisa 9 Ramirez, following her is Nancy Dickeman.

10 MS. RAMIREZ: Hi, I'm Lisa Ramirez.

11 I am here on behalf of Friends of the Earth. Friends 12 of the Earth is a national, non profit environmental 13 organization. We have over 20,000 members nationwide.

14 And I'm here representing everyone.

15 I would also like to second the 16 comments made by Toxic Coalition, Sierra Club, and the 17 Physicians for Social Responsibility, and thank you for 18 giving us the opportunity to speak, as well as thanking 19 everyone that came out today, especially the people that 20 made a six hour round trip journey, that is incredible 21 so, I'm just going to keep this short.

22 Friends of the Earth is just calling 23 on the EPA to ban all toxic waste in fertilizer, to 24 require labeling of all fertilizer contents, and require 25 fertilizers to be ecologically safe. 39 1 When we find toxins like lead,

2 cadmium, arsenic, dioxin in our food supply we know this 3 is a problem. And it's shameful where this problem is 4 stemming from. And it is shameful that we're allowing 5 polluting industries to put short term profit ahead of 6 human safety and environmental health.

7 Now it's time to end this cycle that 8 not only allows toxic waste to show up in our food 9 disposal, but also encourages it, as a cheap means of 10 disposal for these polluting corporations.

11 We can't allow  we can't continue 12 to allow corporations to turn their toxic by products 13 into fertilizers and clean out their smoke stacks on our 14 farms. It's ridiculous that I even have to say this.

15 What good is a pollution control 16 device on a smoke stack if we just end up spreading it 17 all over our agricultural fields. I don't see the point 18 in that.

19 Maybe this industry should find ways 20 to perhaps even eliminate all of the pollution that 21 they're emitting, but in the meantime, we just can't 22 continue putting our children at risk by exposing them 23 to the toxins that they eat, every time they eat. And 24 we can't continue to harm the environment by 25 irresponsibly dumping toxins on our fields. 40 1 So, again, we have to support the 2 precautionary principle, obviously that should be 3 applied here, we have to ban toxic wastes in 4 fertilizers, require labeling of all fertilizer 5 contents, and to require fertilizers to be ecologically 6 safe.

7 Thank you very much.

8 MR. FOX: Nancy Dickeman, Troy Prouty 9 is next.

10 MS. DICKEMAN: Hi, I'm Nancy Dickeman.

11 I'm with the Environment and Health Committee for 12 Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, and I'm 13 also speaking as a parent and for myself.

14 I believe it is imperative that 15 industries are stopped from using our fields as dumping 16 grounds for their toxic waste, this is not a form of 17 recycling, it is paying industry to allow them to 18 dispose of their toxins into our farmlands, our food,

19 and into our bodies.

20 These wastes, including dioxin and 21 arsenic, are associated with serious health problems.

22 Dioxin, linked to cancers and other illnesses, has 23 recently been found to be far more hazardous than we 24 thought, hazardous in minuscule amounts.

25 I'm requesting that the EPA strengthen 41 1 and enforce regulations prohibiting toxic wastes in 2 fertilizers. There is no acceptable reasons to allow 3 these toxic wastes to jeopardize the health of anyone in 4 this country, it is time to prohibit the practice now.

5 Thank you.

6 MR. FOX: Troy Prouty, and Sally 7 Goodwin is next.

8 MR. PROUTY: Hi. Yes, sir, my name 9 is Troy Prouty, and on this proposal the only main 10 question I had I would prefer no hazardous waste at all,

11 but that's not going to happen, and I see this loophole,

12 conditional exclusion, and there's  Dave, I listened 13 to you speak, and conditional exclusion can mean 14 anything.

15 And knowing that companies have 16 influence over our government I would kind of question 17 having that loophole in any type of a proposal. So I 18 just wanted to make that statement clear.

19 Thank you.

20 MR. FOX: Sally Goodwin. Jeanne 21 Shank is after Sally.

22 MS. GOODWIN: Hello, I'm Sally 23 Goodwin. I'm a family doctor, and I would like to 24 speak for the public health for my patients and for my 25 family. I'm concerned that steel mills, paper mills and 42 1 other major polluting industries are turning their waste 2 into fertilizer, which is spread onto food producing 3 lands.

4 I urge the EPA to take leadership in 5 guiding health promoting regulations. Public policies 6 should promote public health, not wait until risk is 7 manifest or overwhelming.

8 I'm glad that the EPA has decided to 9 tighten regulations with certain fertilizers made from 10 hazardous waste, but the proposed rule does not go far 11 enough, especially when we focus on public health and 12 the protection of our children.

13 I urge you to strengthen the proposed 14 fertilizer rule in the following ways: Keep toxic waste 15 out of our food supply by banning toxic waste in 16 fertilizer, especially wastes containing dioxin; as an 17 interim step, adopt stringent standards for metals and 18 fertilizers, and close loopholes that give special 19 treatment to mining waste and steel mill waste; all 20 fertilizers should be fully labeled with the actual 21 levels of contaminants; and EPA should establish a 22 comprehensive tracking system for all wastes going to 23 fertilizer.

24 I encourage you to follow the 25 precautionary principal and look critically at possible 43 1 dangers. The American people want and expect the EPA to 2 regulate and to protect. Sending this dilemma to the 3 states is only going to complicate the situation.

4 MR. FOX: Thank you. Jeanne Shank.

5 MS. SHANK: Hi. Before I begin, you 6 talked about the percentages of one half of one percent 7 was what you were using for the amount of micronutrient 8 hazardous fertilizer, I think.

9 On your web site for the EPA it 10 stated one tenth of one percent, and that  so my 11 calculations go with that. So, actually, it would 12 probably be higher. Anyway.

13 I wanted to thank you for providing 14 us with an opportunity to comment on this most important 15 issue. I firmly believe a total ban on hazardous waste 16 being added to fertilizer is the only intelligent 17 direction to take.

18 Common sense tells us we must protect 19 the environment where we produce our food. We all have 20 to eat.

21 As of now we are treating our 22 farmlands as a dumping ground for dangerous materials 23 that are considered too hazardous for the landfills.

24 In a conversation with the EPA last 25 week I was informed that the amount of fertilizers 44 1 contained  containing recycled hazardous waste was 2 insignificant, just one tenth of one percent of the 110 3 billion pounds of fertilizers supplied annually on 4 commercial fields and orchards in the US.

5 I did the math. One tenth of one 6 percent of 110 billion pounds is 110 million pounds of 7 dangerous fertilizer, that sounds significant to me.

8 The EPA claims that the  excuse me 9  the EPA claims that the proposed regulations will 10 save the industry seven million dollars a year. I think 11 that number pales when compared to the future health 12 care costs from illness and disease related to exposure 13 and ingestion of these recycled hazardous materials.

14 Didn't we learn anything from the environmental 15 destruction we caused when we embraced DDT decades ago.

16 A paragraph from the EPA background 17 report on fertilizer use contaminants and regulations,

18 July 1999, executive summary reads, and I quote, and 19 this is from the 395 page report, and I read it all:

20 To simplify calculations, soil type and chemical nature,

21 plant uptake, leaching, erosion and other removal 22 mechanisms, were not considered in these calculations.

23 All input of heavy metals was assumed 24 to remain with the soil and is therefore presumed to be 25 an overstatement of soil metals over a long period of 45 1 time, end of quote.

2 This means there's actually less 3 amounts of heavy metals from applied fertilizers 4 remaining in the soil than when first applied due to,

5 and I'll use your three standards: Plant uptake, and 6 that means some of the hazardous materials have left the 7 soil and are now in our food chain. Leaching, some of 8 the hazardous materials have left the soil and are 9 heading into our ground water. Erosion, some of the 10 hazardous materials have left the soil, via irrigation,

11 run off, and are in our local water ways or they have 12 left the soil through field cultivation and are being 13 distributed into the air we breathe.

14 I feel, since we are not able to 15 completely control these toxic substances once we 16 release them onto the ground, that is reason enough not 17 to allow them to be mixed in with the fertilizers that 18 cover so much of our farmlands.

19 Thank you.

20 MR. FOX: Thank you. All right.

21 Everyone who's signed up has had an opportunity to 22 speak, is there anyone else who would like to speak who 23 has not yet signed up? Okay, come forward.

24 MR. DUIM: My name's Larry, and I've 25 had a lot of contact with these products all my life. 46 1 I was raised on a farm in Eastern Washington, where we 2 got products from such places as Bay Zinc, over in 3 Yakima, who took toxic sludge and converted it into 4 fertilizer.

5 One of the places that creates sludge 6 is in Whatcom County, that place is up north there, it's 7 called  let me get my notes here, I'm sorry about 8 this  but it's very poisonous.

9 And toxic waste sludge that they 10 produce it actually eats the tires off of the heavy 11 equipment, this stuff is so toxic. And we all have it 12 in us now, because it's in all the food that we eat.

13 We raise peas, corn, carrots, all 14 these things you find on the produce shelf have these 15 chemicals on them now. And they've assimilated into the 16 produce.

17 I have been detoxing now for years 18 trying to get this stuff out of my system. Well, I 19 found that there are certain products out there on the 20 market that can actually help you detox these things out 21 of your system.

22 One of the things I found that works 23 really well, and this is for everybody, I highly 24 recommend this, it's the essential oils. Lavender 25 actually eats these products right out of your system. 47 1 Gary Young is one of the largest 2 producers of essential oils, of pure essential oils, in 3 the country. I highly recommend it. This guy can  he 4 uses a  a spectral analysis to make sure these are of 5 the highest quality essential oils. Therefore, they 6 actually do the job. They're not poisonous. They 7 actually eat the poisons.

8 So if anybody's interested I can hook 9 them up with a direct dealer for Gary Young, and I 10 highly recommend it. It's helping me. I'm sweating 11 right now because the toxins are sweating out of me just 12 with the use of essential oils.

13 So that's all I have to say. Thanks.

14 MR. FOX: Okay. Is there anyone else 15 who would like to speak? Well, thank you all for 16 coming and giving your remarks and comments. And this 17 meeting is now adjourned.

18 (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned 19 at 3: 00 p. m.)

20 .

21 .

22 .

23 .

24 .

25 .


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44543-44545]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18241]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1092; MI-87-1; EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0121; FRL-9998-75-
Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Ohio; Corrections

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects codification errors in the Michigan State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for changes to the Permit to Install
requirements of Part 2 and the Emission Limitations and Prohibitions
found in the Part 9 rules of the Michigan Administrative Code. This
action also corrects a codification error in the Ohio SIP for changes
to the Ohio air permitting rules at Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)
3745-31.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 26, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Environmental
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On separate occasions, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) made inadvertent codification errors when it
approved revisions to Michigan's and Ohio's SIP. The first of these
took place on September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52467). At that time, EPA
approved revisions to the format of materials submitted by the state of
Michigan that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into its SIP and
amended the list of EPA-approved Michigan regulations at 40 CFR 52.
1170(c), which included Michigan's Part 9 rules. In the final rule
published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52467, on
page 52475, EPA mistakenly listed the Part 9 rules with a prefix of R
339 instead of R 336. The prefix was subsequently corrected for R
336.1912 on October 26, 2007 (72 FR 60783) on page 60786, and for R
336.1902 on June 29, 2018 (83 FR 30571) on page 30573. This document
corrects the prefix for the remaining Part 9 rules cited in 40 CFR
52.1170(c) as R 339.1906, R 339.1910, R 339.1911, R 339.1915, R
339.1916, and R 339.1930 by changing the prefix so the rules will now
read as R 336.1906, R 336.1910, R 336.1911, R 336.1915, R 336.1916, and
R 336.1930.
    The second action took place on August 31, 2018 (83 FR 44485). At
that time, EPA published a final rule approving changes to the State of
Michigan's minor source permitting rules that are contained in Part 2
of the Michigan Administrative Code. However, the codification of that
action erroneously listed the state effective date for Rules 336.1203,
336.1204, 336.1206, 336.1212, and 336.1216 as 7/26/1995, when the
correct state effective date should be 7/01/2003. This document
corrects the erroneous amendatory language published in the Federal
Register on August 31, 2018 (83 FR 44485), in the table entitled ``EPA-
Approved Michigan Regulations'' on page 44497, for entries R 336.1203,
R 336.1204, R 336.1206, R 336.1212, and R 336.1216 by citing the state
effective date to read 7/01/2003.
    The third action took place on March 7, 2019 (84 FR 8257). At that
time, EPA published a final rule approving changes to the State of
Ohio's air permitting rules at OAC 3745-31. However, the codification
of that action erroneously listed the state effective date for rule
3745-31-01 as 5/01/2016, when the correct state effective date should
be 3/20/2017. This document corrects the erroneous amendatory language
published in the Federal Register on March 7, 2019 (84 FR 8257), in the
table entitled ``EPA-Approved Ohio Regulations'' on page 8259, for
entry 3745-31-01 by citing the state effective date to read 3/20/2017.
    This action amends the regulatory text to correct these errors.
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),
provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and
public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the
public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice
and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that there is
good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and
opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting incorrect
citations in previous actions. Thus, notice and public procedure are
unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to E.O. 13211, ``Actions

Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action is not
an E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because
this action is not significant under E.O. 12866. Because the agency has
made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not subject to
notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act
or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary Information
section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly
or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant
intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of
UMRA. In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule 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 the various levels of governments,
as specified by E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule
also is not subject to E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically significant.
    This technical correction action does not involve technical
standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as required by E.O. 12898 (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct, as required by section 3 of E.O. 12988 (61 FR 4729, February
7, 1996). EPA has complied with E.O. 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998)
by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with
the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the
executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection
burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
    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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This
determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As stated previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including
the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of August 26,
2019. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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. This correction to 40 CFR part 52 for
Michigan and Ohio is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

    Dated: August 13, 2019.
Cheryl L Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is amended by making the following
correcting amendments:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (c) is amended:
0
i. Under the heading ``Part 2. Air Use Approval'', by revising the
entries for R 336.1203, R 336.1204, R 336.1206, R 336.1212, and R
336.1216; and
0
ii. Under the heading ``Part 9. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions--
Miscellaneous'', by revising the entries for R 336.1906, R 336.1910, R
336.1911, R 336.1915, R 336.1916, and R 336.1930.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  State
        Michigan citation                    Title           effective date   EPA approval date      Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                            Part 2. Air Use Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
R 336.1203.......................  Information required....       7/01/2003  8/31/2018, 83 FR
                                                                              44485.
R 336.1204.......................  Authority of agents.....       7/01/2003  8/31/2018, 83 FR
                                                                              44485.

                                                  * * * * * * *
R 336.1206.......................  Processing of                  7/01/2003  8/31/2018, 83 FR
                                    applications for                          44485.
                                    permits to install.

                                                  * * * * * * *
R 336.1212.......................  Administratively               7/01/2003  8/31/2018, 83 FR
                                    complete applications;                    44485.
                                    insignificant
                                    activities;
                                    streamlining applicable
                                    requirements; emissions
                                    reporting and fee
                                    calculations.
R 336.1216.......................  Modifications to               7/01/2003  8/31/2018, 83 FR
                                    renewable operating                       44485.
                                    permits.

                                                  * * * * * * *
                          Part 9. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions--Miscellaneous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
R 336.1906.......................  Diluting and concealing        5/20/2015  12/19/2016, 81 FR
                                    emissions.                                91839.
R 336.1910.......................  Air-cleaning devices....       1/19/1980  5/6/1980, 45 FR
                                                                              29790.
R 336.1911.......................  Malfunction abatement          5/20/2015  12/19/2016, 81 FR
                                    plans.                                    91839.

                                                  * * * * * * *
R 336.1915.......................  Enforcement discretion         5/28/2002  2/24/2003, 68 FR
                                    in instances of excess                    8550.
                                    emission resulting from
                                    malfunction, start-up,
                                    or shutdown.
R 336.1916.......................  Affirmative defense for        5/28/2002  2/24/2003, 68 FR
                                    excess emissions during                   8550.
                                    start-up or shutdown.
R 336.1930.......................  Emission of carbon            12/20/2016  7/19/2018, 83 FR
                                    monoxide from ferrous                     34050.
                                    cupola operations.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  52.1870, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for 3745-31-01 under ``Chapter 3745-31 Permit-to Install New
Sources and Permit-to-Install and Operate Program'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1870   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                          EPA-Approved Ohio Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Ohio effective
         Ohio citation              Title/subject         date        EPA approval date           Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
             Chapter 3745-31 Permit-to Install New Sources and Permit-to-Install and Operate Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3745-31-01.....................  Definitions.......       3/20/2017  3/7/2019, 84 FR     Except for (I),
                                                                      8257.               (NN)(2)(b) and (c),
                                                                                (SSS)(1)(b),
                                                                                (CCCC)(2)(d) through
                                                                                (h), (QQQQ), (JJJJJ),
                                                                                and (BBBBBB).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-18241 Filed 8-23-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33935-33936]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15295]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From:Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-0213

Extension:
    Rule 17g-2; SEC File No. 270-564, OMB Control No. 3235-0628

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17g-
2 (17 CFR 240.17g-2) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    Rule 17g-2, ``Records to be made and retained by nationally
recognized statistical rating organizations,'' implements the
Commission's recordkeeping rulemaking authority under Section 17(a) of
the Exchange Act.\1\ The rule requires a Nationally Recognized
Statistical Rating Organization (``NRSRO'') to make and retain certain
records relating to its business and to retain certain other business
records, if such records are made. The rule also prescribes the time
periods and manner in which all these records must be retained. There
are 10 credit rating agencies registered with the Commission as NRSROs
under section 15E of the Exchange Act, which have already established
the recordkeeping policies and procedures required by Rule 17g-2. Based
on staff experience, NRSROs are estimated to spend a total industry-
wide burden of 2,390 annual hours to make and retain the appropriate
records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C 78q.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Background documentation for this information collection may be
viewed at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be
directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and

Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC
20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii)
Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F St NE., Washington,
DC 20549 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be
submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: July 17, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15295 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 37811-37813]
[DOCID:fr28jn11-82]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OEI-2006-0037, FRL-9425-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Exchange Network Grants Progress
Report (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on 11/30/
11. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is
soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information
collection as described below.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-
2006-0037, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
Information Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statue. Do not submit information that you consider to be
CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or DC-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Humrighouse, Mail Code 2823T,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
566-1684; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2006-0037 which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the OEI Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What should I consider when I prepare my comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPEI-2006-0037

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
States, Tribal, and Territorial Environmental Offices receiving
National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN) grants.
    Title: Exchange Network Grants Progress Report (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2207.04, OMB Control No. 2025-0006.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2011.
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 title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This notice announces the collection of information
related to the U.S. EPA NEIEN Grant Program. The EPA Office of
Environmental

Information provides funding to EPA's Exchange Network partners
(states, territories, and Federally recognized Indian Tribes) to
support the development of the NEIEN. The NEIEN is an Internet and-
standards-based, secure information system that supports the electronic
collection, exchange, and integration of data among its partners.
Funding for the Grant Program has been provided through annual
congressional appropriations for the EPA.
    To enhance the quality and overall public benefit of the Network,
EPA proposes to collect information from the NEIEN grantees about how
they intend to ensure quality in their projects and the environmental
outcomes and outputs from their projects. The proposed Quality
Assurance Reporting Form is intended to provide a simple means for
grant recipients to describe how quality will be addressed throughout
their projects. The Quality Assurance Reporting Form is derived from
guidelines provided in the NEIEN 2006 grant solicitation notice. As a
stipulation of their award, grant recipients are to submit the form
within ninety days of grant award.
    Grantees are currently required to submit semi-annual progress
reports as a stipulation of their award. In these reports, grantees
outline project goals, activities required to meet these goals, and
outputs and outcomes of activities to date. At the request of numerous
grantees, we are proposing to offer the Progress Reporting Form as a
vehicle for collecting information. This form is easier to complete
than an unstructured narrative; it can be used as the semi-annual and
final report form and the information returned will be of higher
quality and comparable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.5
hours for the Semi-Annual Report Form per response and 1 hour per
Quality Assurance Form per response. 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 that have subsequently
changed; 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.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: State, Tribal, and Territorial
Environmental Offices receiving NEIEN grants.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 225. Frequency of Response: Twice
for the Semi-Annual Report Form; once for the Quality Assurance Form.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 733. Estimated Total Annual
Cost: $37,000 includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs and $37,000
annual labor costs.

Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in estimate from the
last ICR renewal.

What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: June 22, 2011.
Jeffrey Wells,
Acting Director, Information Exchange & Services Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-16194 Filed 6-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26323-26324]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09001]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0093]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0069

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-Day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0069,
Ballast Water Management for Vessels with Ballast Tanks Entering U.S.
Waters; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to
collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
May 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Search for
docket number [USCG-2023-0093]. Written comments and recommendations to
OIRA for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30
days of publication of this notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Find this particular information collection by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2023-0093], and must be received by May 30,
2023.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will
be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided. For more about
privacy and submissions to the Coast Guard in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in
response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-
submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each
ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a
hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0041.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (88 FR 7100, February 2, 2023)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Ballast Water Management for Vessels with Ballast Tanks
Entering U.S. Waters.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0069.
    Summary: This collection requires the master of a vessel to provide
information that details the vessel operator's ballast water management
efforts.
    Need: The information is needed to ensure compliance with 33 U.S.C.
1251 and the requirements in 33 CFR part 151, subparts C and D
regarding the management of ballast water, to prevent the introduction
and spread of aquatic nuisance species into U.S. waters. The
information is also used for research and periodic reporting to
Congress.
    Forms:

 Ballast Water Management Report
 Ballast Water Management (BWM) Equivalent Reporting Program

    Respondents: Owners and operators of certain vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from
61,819 hours to 87,509 hours a year, due to an increase in the
estimated annual number of responses.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: April 7, 2023.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2023-09001 Filed 4-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Public Hearing
Proposal to Withdraw Proposed Clean Water Act Restrictions
on Mining the Pebble Deposit Area
Bristol Bay Watershed, Alaska
October 11, 2017, Dillingham, Alaska                                                             October 12, 2017, Iliamna, Alaska

                                Hearing Agenda
Welcome, Introductions  -  EPA (David Allnutt or Russell Kaiser,
                                                Michelle Pirzadeh, and Lee Forsgren)
About Today's Hearing  -  Betsy Daniels, Facilitator
EPA Presentation: The Proposal  -  Palmer Hough, EPA
Public Hearing Notations  -  David Allnutt or Russell Kaiser, EPA
Commenting Process  -  Betsy Daniels, Facilitator
Public Testimony - Commenters
Adjourn

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Hearing
Ground Rules
::	Each person may speak only once
::	Do not interrupt others
::	Time cannot be yielded to others
::	 Be courteous and respectful
::	 Avoid personal attacks or accusations
::	 Refrain from grandstanding
::	Speak clearly into the microphone
::	Begin your comments by saying
       and spelling your name
::	Direct comments to EPA,
       not other meeting participants
::	Hold your applause