1 These meeting notes are summary in nature and should be read in conjunction with the meeting materials and handouts. Electronic copies of the meeting materials and handouts are included on this same CD.

2 Throughout this meeting, speakers used various terms to refer to the solid materials generated as a result of the combustion of coal, including: coal combustion waste, coal combustion byproducts, coal combustion products, and coal ash. For ease of presentation, these notes use the abbreviation " CCW" throughout, except in cases where the speaker was making a point regarding distinctions between the terms used. The use of " CCW" in these notes is not meant to imply a preference for the categorization of these materials as " waste." Joint IMCC EPA Summary Meeting Notes1 from the IMCC Intergovernmental Forum on Mine Placement of Coal Combustion Waste May 15 16, 2001 Opening Remarks ( Greg Conrad, Executive Director, IMCC)

Greg Conrad welcomed attendees and provided an introduction to IMCC. The impetus for this meeting was the need for a forum specifically on regulatory issues associated with EPA's regulatory determination on coal combustion wastes ( CCW). 2 Its purpose is to initiate a dialog among EPA, other federal agencies ( OSM), and State regulators ( including tribal regulators). The meeting's focus is on the mine placement of CCW, not on the landfill disposal aspect of EPA's rulemaking.

It was noted that EPA and a number of States have concerns that extend beyond the placement of CCW in coal mines to the placement of CCW in mineral, sand, gravel, and other non coal mines.

IMCC is interested in the following outcomes for the meeting: ° Identifying data needs ° Setting up a system for information collection assistance ° Addressing implementation concerns ° Considering how to involve other stakeholders. Interest in this forum from industry and academia was noted. If there is a continuing dialog, there needs to be some consideration of the degree of involvement by these parties. ° Benchmarking and providing opportunities for States to share the status of their regulatory programs ° Identifying opportunities for improvement in regulatory programs ° Achieving an effective degree of intergovernmental cooperation, especially between EPA and OSM Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 2 3 Some of the points cited under certain State program presentations were not part of the State's formal presentation, but were noted during discussions later in the forum. For continuity, these points are presented in this section at the end of the appropriate State's formal presentation. Part I: Presentations3 EPA Presentation ( Dennis Ruddy, US EPA, Office of Solid Waste)

History of regulatory development effort: ° RCRA required EPA to study four " special" wastes. The last of these four was fossil fuel combustion waste ( including not only from coal combustion, but also from oil and natural gas combustion). The statute required a Report to Congress ( RTC) incorporating specific study factors. ° EPA completed the RTC in March 1999. The RTC acted as draft conclusions for regulatory determination ( similar to a proposed rule). The RTC found no compelling need to regulate these wastes as hazardous on a national basis. The RTC, however, found some instances of mismanagement. ° EPA has completed its final regulatory determination. The regulatory determination also concluded there is no need for regulation of these wastes as hazardous. For some instances ( specifically for CCW), however, the regulatory determination concluded that national regulations are warranted under RCRA Subtitle D ( which regulates non hazardous wastes). ° The specific areas where Subtitle D regulation is warranted are: disposal of CCW in surface impoundments ( SIs) and landfills ( LFs) and placement of CCW in mines ( not limited to coal mines).

Planned regulatory development efforts: ° Part I: disposal of CCW in SIs and LFs by electric power producers ( utilities and some Independent Power Producers). Proposal in February of 2002. Final in February of 2003. ° Possible elements of the Part I regulation include: ground water monitoring, choice between performance/ design standards, possible corrective action. EPA is mindful of existing State programs. EPA's concern is with gaps   e. g., at least at utilities, there is infrequent ground water monitoring for SIs ( fewer than 30%). ° Part II: disposal of CCW in SIs and LFs by non utilities AND mine placement and minefilling of CCW. Proposal in March 2003. Final in July 2004. ° For the Part II regulation, there are no preconcieved notions on EPA's part; the Agency's intent is not to ban mine placement. EPA is looking to see that the practice is conducted in an environmentally protective manner. EPA is seeking to identify best management practices. Issues currently under consideration include: direct placement in ground water, leaching potential in various environments, and a need to rethink current monitoring practices ( location and duration to adequately detect problems). ° A fundamental tenet of EPA's regulatory development effort is to consult with the States. The Agency is mindful to not duplicate or supercede existing State programs. OSM has been working with EPA since EPA announced its intention to proceed with regulatory development. EPA also consults with DOE and ASTSWMO. ° EPA notes that 40 CFR 258 ( which covers municipal solid waste) is a possible template for regulation. Some elements of this section, however, are not necessarily applicable to minefills. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 3 Technical background: ° The Agency's concern is with metals concentrations ( not organics)   e. g., arsenic, lead, mercury, selenium. ° Total production of CCW is 120 130 million tpy. Electric utilities generate > 90% of this. ° As much as 30% of electric utility CCW goes to beneficial uses. Mine placement is an estimated 10 12 million tons per year. ° There appears to be an increasing popularity for beneficial uses. ° A significant increase in coal combustion is expected, meaning significant increase in CCW generation. ° EPA is exploring the possiblity of promoting bona fide beneficial uses of CCW.

Noteworthy developments: ° EPA's air office has announced development of hazardous air pollutant regulations targeting mercury emissions from electric power plants ( 1/ 3 of all anthropogenic mercury). A final rule is anticipated in December 2004. This regulation could significantly affect the quality of CCW. The technologies needed for compliance are likely to remove more than just mercury. Waste generated by these technologies likely is not segregable from CCW. This regulation may require EPA to revisit its hazardous/ non hazardous determination for CCW. ° In examining damage cases ( one of the eight RCRA study factors), EPA found no cases relating to coal mine placement, but found five or six cases involving sand and gravel pits. State requirements for ground water monitoring are variable, making damage detection more problematic. Potential problems can take decades or centuries to emerge; thus EPA's concern with duration of monitoring. DOE had a similar conclusion in a recent study of mine placement. ° EPA notes the considerable technical development and research at OSM and DOE, including efforts involving AMD remediation, waste characterization, leaching test methods, combustion byproducts recycling, new & improved beneficial uses and impact thereof, clean coal combustion technologies, air pollution control technologies. DOE's EIA has provided a wealth of information, as has ASTSWMO. ° EPA Industrial D guidance effort is currently in draft form. Working with the States through ASTSWMO, EPA expects to finalize the guidance by next April. EPA's regulatory development for CCW is to remain compatible and consistent with this guidance.

OSM Presentation ( Kimery Vories, OSM MCRCC)

OSM's concerns are with SMCRA regulated mine sites.

OSM described some of its CCW initiatives: ° Continuing technical outreach forums ° A CCW information network website ° Combustion Products Recycling Consortium ( OSM and IMCC are members) ° Cooperative efforts with DOE in technical development ° Participation in an interagency advisory group to EPA as part of the regulatory determination ° Joint EPA OSM fact finding efforts on mine placement ° Technical assistance to ASTM ( In response to a question, OSM noted that the ASTM effort is primarily concerned with testing methods appropriate to use) Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 4 The questions at hand are: ° Are additional federal regulations on mine placement needed? ° If not, why not? ° If so, what is the appropriate vehicle ( RCRA, SMCRA)?

From OSM's perspective, EPA's logic regarding mine placement is as follows: ° CCW generates toxic leachate at utilities approximately 2% of the time ° Toxic leachate at mines is equally likely ° SMCRA monitoring is inadequate ° SMCRA bond length is inadequate OSM's position, however, is as follows: ° OSM is unaware of any scientific data showing that toxicity has occurred at mine sites ° Mine placement has been beneficial ° SMCRA controls are adequate ° There are significant differences between mine sites and utility sites ( including geography, geology, ground water, CCW type, reclamation required, regulations applied)

OSM also notes that: ° CCW use at mine sites is primarily fludized bed combustion waste ( FBCs), with a smaller percentage of non FBCs ° 17 of 26 SMCRA States have placed CCWs at mine sites ° Additional federal regulation discourages reuse ° Under 30 CFR 800.13( a)( 1), SMCRA bond release is triggered by performance, not time ° SMCRA includes performance standards at 30 CFR 816.41 ° SMCRA includes permit requirements at 30 CFR 780.12 OSM concludes that: ° Do we know everything we need to on potential environmental effects? No ° Do we need more research? Yes If additional Federal regulations are to be proposed the following questions must be answered: ° What is the problem? ° Where is the science? Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 5 Illinois Presentation ( Dan Wheeler, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Mines and Minerals; Larry Crislip, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Mine Pollution Program)

° IL uses a unique approach that covers CCW at mine sites whether disposed or used beneficially. The program is a joint venture between IOMM and IEPA which has been in place approximately 10 years. ° IL has 12 disposal permits, 8 of which are active, with a total quantity of 1 million tons per year. ° Regulated as disposal if CCW quantity exceeds 35% of coal extracted. ° IL has approved 9 beneficial use projects. ° There are no known surface or ground water quality problems. ° The program is implemented through Memorandum 90 5, Memorandum 92 11, and Memoranda 95 8 and 95 9, and Section 620. ° Later in the forum, there was a question about the enforceability of IL's memorandum based program. The State responded that 90% of the program is backed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, and the other 10% by SMCRA, so the program is enforceable.

° A 1994 amendment to Section 620 defines CCW as coal combustion byproduct ( CCB) when beneficially used. ° Characterization for CCBs uses ASTM, rather than TCLP, testing methods. ° Beneficial use of CCBs must meet the following conditions:   No mixing with hazardous waste.   Leachate cannot exceed GW standards using ASTM testing.   Notification, documentation of quantity, and certification of compliance.   Dust control required.   No speculative accumulation ° Some uses have no specific regulatory conditions   these can receive written approval as a beneficial use from IEPA in cooperation with other State agencies. ° For use, there are no additional requirements beyond SMCRA. ° Abandoned Mine Lands sites are exempt from the above programs. ° The presenters could not address issues related to CCW placement in non coal mines.

° For disposal, CCW is specifically defined as coal combustion waste and the permitting guidelines incorporate four provisions:   Demonstration of vegetative cover ( identical to SMCRA),   protection from wind and water erosion,   maintain pH and waste characterization ( TCLP) to prevent leaching ( critical element),   surface and ground water protection through containment ( also critical element). ° The permitting process for disposal requires joint submittal to IOMM and IEPA. Projects must meet the requirements of SMCRA, Section 620, and the IL Env Protection Act ( which has the definitions and four main provisions written in). Separate permits are issued, but they are reviewed in joint application process. A joint guidance document implements requirements. ° Disposal of CCW requires ground water monitoring for more parameters than SMCRA. Design of program is based on evaluation of site specific conditions and leachate characterization. ° Ground water standards are applied and there are corrective action requirements. ° IL has the authority to require liners for disposal in certain ground water classes. In situ fire clay can meet the liner requirement. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 6 Indiana Presentation ( Bruce Stevens, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation)

° IN has 18 permits. 16 have been appealed and 2 are final. Total placement is 2.9 million tons. No regulatory distinction concerning beneficial use. No statutory authority to permit FBC use. ° The most recent element of the program is a guidance document. IN considers it an enforceable document because most of the document is incorporated in permit conditions. ° The program incorporates:   Cap requirements   Ground water monitoring for 30+ parameters   Waste characterization using ASTM ° The program does not require ground water modeling, but there are certain hydrogeologic conditions under which disposal is not permitted ( e. g., alluvial aquifers). ° Acid mine drainage is not a problem in IN ( alkaline overburden). ° CCW projects constitute a significant revision under SMCRA, and therefore require public announcement and provide for appeal ° IN has specific definitions for backfills and monofills ° Requiring liners and placement above the water table are the biggest most issues. IN can require a liner, but generally does not allow disposal in conditions that would warrant a liner. In situ fire clay serves well as a liner. ° While CCW is not deposited into ground water, facilities generally re hydrate over time such that the water table rises into the CCW. ° Preplacement conditions are such that placement of CCW does not result in degradation. A survey of 29,000 water supplies showed that there is no use of spoil water as a drinking water resource in IN and there is significant attenuation. ° The biggest environmental justice issue is in Southwest IN, where most mines are located. ° IDEM has not yet promulgated ground water standards. NPDES provisions apply. ° There is no CCW volume restriction in Memorandum 92 1. Volume restrictions can be incorporated on a site specific basis. This has been done at only one site. IN's proposed new requirements incorporate a volume restriction: 50% of the quantity of coal removed. ° Ground water monitoring wells are constructed to collect from multiple strata, unless there is a single zone drinking water use, in which case zone specific monitoring would be required. ° Bond release provisions are the same as SMCRA. IDNR proposed more stringent requirements, but these were found to go beyond the Department's authority ( under State statutes, IN cannot regulate more stringently than SMCRA). ° There is a State fund to replace water supply wells if contamination occurs after bond release. This fund has not been used yet. ° The first instance of disposal in IN was an illegal operation. EP tox was required at that site for characterization. ° IN has provisions for structural fill projects.

° IN has post closure authority for 30 years for landfills. SMCRA bond release usually occurs in 5 to 13 years following closure.

Missouri Presentation ( Bruce Waltrip, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Solid Waste Program; Brian Hicks, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Land Reclamation Program) Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 7 ° In MO, CCW is regulated as a solid waste. ° There are 5 coal ash landfills in MO. All have monitoring. Probably all have clay liners, at least one has membrane. Liners are required for new landfills. ° Under the solid waste program, there are specific regulatory exemptions for a number of beneficial uses. Other uses fall under the State's Section 9( b) generic exemption. Requirements under this generic exemption are mostly logistical, but the exemption does incorporate some testing. ° For beneficial use, hydrogeologic characterization is required that proves placement is above seasonal high water mark. Because this process requires a certified hydrogeologist, it effectively limits beneficial use to users with resources ( larger companies). ° If placement is covered by an engineered clay cap, the only characterization requirement is to show the CCW is non hazardous using TCLP. If there is any potential for ground water contact or no cap, ASTM characterization is required. ° The solid waste program has no monitoring requirements, closure requirements, or financial assurance requirements. The land reclamation program does have such requirements. ° There are no volume restrictions, other than a 2 foot limit on structural fills. ° There is no sand or gravel pit placement in MO, although clay pit reclamation with CCW has occurred.

° Under the land reclamation program, MO has two laws: one for coal mines, one for industrial minerals mines. ° If there is a beneficial use exemption from the solid waste program, the land reclamation program regulates by incorporating it under mining permit. ° The land reclamation program requires:   A surface water monitoring plan   Hydrologic balance requirements   Bonding   Annual ground water monitoring for 16 parameters.   An annual report showing placement locations and volume of materials. ° One coal mine currently has a beneficial use exemption. ° Bond release requires analysis of monitoring data to determine if there has been impact.

° In MO, fly ash slurries that are injected are exempt from solid waste regulations and are regulated by the underground injection control program ( water office). ° There are specific exemptions for CCW when beneficially use as road base, soil stabilization or amendment ( limited to 6 inches), and for stabilizing underground mines ( limited to 2 feet). Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 8 Pennsylvania Presentation ( Michael Menghini, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, District Mining Operations; Bill Pounds, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection/ ASTSWMO)

° PA has had a regulatory program since 1973, a beneficial use policy since 1986, and an ash certification program since 1997. Ash disposal is handled via an MOU between the mining and solid waste divisions of DEP. ° PA has 100+ placement projects; significant mine acreage is reclaimed annually. ° PA receives CCW from out of state ( CT, NY, NJ) for abandoned mine lands remediation. ° Total placement is 7 8 million tons per year, 75% of which is FBC. ° For an active mine, CCW quantity cannot exceed the quantity of coal removed; otherwise, regulated as disposal. For inactive mines, DEP decides how much CCW can be placed for reclamation. ° 95% of placement is in pre SMCRA sites ( non virgin) related to remining operations or reclamation areas. ° Placement methods vary. Many are monofills. Ash also is used as alkaline addition as part of remining operations to address acid mine drainage. Most placement continues for an extended period of time, i. e, some sites are over 10 years old and some of those sites still have another 10 years of placement area. ° The Bureau of Mining and Reclamation enforces the Land Recycling Program's regulations under a Memorandum or Agreement. ° All project types except for soil additive require public notice. ° PA requires:   A permit   An approved ground water monitoring plan   Monitoring before and after placement   All ash must meet minimum pH and leaching limits to be approved for placement under the terms of any permit   Placement 8 feet above the regional ground water table   A 4 foot soil cap at closure   Annual sampling for 16 parameters; quarterly sampling for indicators   Twice yearly ash characterization   Compaction analysis is required for monofill ash placement ( to eliminate infiltration and leaching)   Optimal moisture content to ensure compaction and minimize fugitive dust. ° Receipt of CCW from new sources does not require public notice in newspaper, but approval of new sources is appealable. Public notice is required for any disposal. ° Bond release is in three stages: ( 1) pre vegetative cover: requires examination of ground water impact; ( 2) 70% vegetative cover complete: requires examination of ground water impact, but further monitoring can be eliminated at this point; ( 3) final release. ° FGD sludge is not covered under the ash regulations, but general permitting exemption program can be used to incorporate this material in Land Reclamation Permits. ° PA has corrective action authority for mine placement of CCW.

° PA has several current demonstration projects ( e. g., placement in water filled pit; wet to dry placement) to examine new disposal methods. PA is trying to find methods that can safely be used to remediate safety hazard sites that are within the regional ground water table. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 9 ° A major concern is dealing with different types of ash. FBC sets up well, while bituminous ash creates fugitive dust concerns. ° PA has provided some upgradient monitoring waivers due to historical mining impacts. ° PA has 12+ years of data, with no evidence of degradation. This ground water database is available. ° PA has faced a number of issues that other States seem to be concerned with right now.

° One reason there is not more use of power company CCWs in PA is that the companies have already sunk the costs for the disposal facility. Disposal in an existing solid waste management unit is cheaper than transportation to a mine site. ° Deep mine injection is under a different program in PA   combination of mining, solid waste, and water regulatory program.

° PA regulations allow utilization of CCW in non coal mines, but little has happened yet. Under a demonstration projection, CCW was placed in a limestone quarry and monitored for ten years. The State has denied subsequent permit applications for placing ash in quarries. ° PA has 25 years of monitoring data. This shows that sulfates and chlorides go up, but there are few metals exceedences. This is true even at limestone quarry demonstration site in PA.

Ohio Presentation ( Bob Baker, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mineral Resource Management)

° OH's mining program just began regulating beneficial uses ( not disposal) under a law passed in 1999. This includes CCW placement in mines. The program's guidelines are still in draft. ° The guidelines include:   Ground water monitoring   Acid base accounting   Ground water standards   Leaching tests for waste characterization with maximum acceptable concentrations 30x drinking water standards   pH limits for acid mine drainage projects   Hydraulic conductivity limits   Background ground water sampling   Placement 8 feet above regional ground water table, unless it is demonstrated that this is not needed   Location restrictions with respect to streams, wetlands, drinking water sources, occupations   Limits for boron, or a requirement for cover, for soil additive applications   Public notice as in the normal coal mining permit   Coordination with other agencies ° The guidelines will be used only as a reference for abandoned mine lands projects. ° 4 projects have been accepted. One was rejected because the volume constituted disposal. In addition, this project proposed to use CCW from an out of state source.

° Some of the limitations incorporated in the guidelines are based on OH's experience. For example: Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 10   The Broken Arrow project: An acid mine drainage abatement project under the abandoned mine lands program that incorporated sealing an underground mine with FGD. The project found a 97% pollutant reduction. Available as a University of Ohio study.   Rehobeth: This project involved a gob pile and drainage abatement. This project tested several applications: FGD 2' cap for coal refuse, buffer material of FGD/ coal waste mixed, and FGD/ yard waste/ spoil mixed. Boron problems arose, resulting in degradation of vegetative cover. Coal refuse overwhelmed alkalinity, mobilized boron. Also, the project tested a CCW liner system for a pond with no problems observed.   Fleming project: A PFBC project with 6 years of monitoring. High boron, but no impact on vegetation. Available as EPRI study.

° OH would like comments on its draft mine placement program.

West Virginia Presentation ( Harold " Rocky" Parsons, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Mining and Reclamation)

° WV's first policy was developed in the 1980s. The current policy was issued in 1998. ° The policy covers beneficial uses, maximum volume limit is 8: 1 ratio. ° CCW use was initially treated as a significant modification to the SMCRA permit ( meaning public comment and more stringent review). As WV has become more comfortable with the practice, CCB use has become treated as a minor modification, and some uses are pre approved ( notification only). ° The program incorporates:   Waste characteristic limits   Maps and geologic information as part of the permit application   Waste characterization when the CCW source changes. Companies using the same source are allowed to share information.   Preplacement water quality monitoring   Specific formulas for alkaline amendment. ° The ground water program is tied to the SMCRA program and details are determined on a sitespecific basis. ° Disposal of CCW at a mine would be covered under the solid waste program.

° WV has observed that as long as a site is alkaline, there are no metal leaching problems. ° Alkaline addition is a significant use in WV, particularly with regard to remining operations because of the presence of acid mine drainage. Encapsulation also. Other uses include capping refuse piles; lining pits; and backstoing deep mines for subsidence control. ° WV would like to see acid base accounting procedures updated. ° WV has observed some stability problems with scrubber sludge, and does not consider this an acceptable cap material on steep slopes. Also, some ash does not make a good soil amendment; significant amounts of alkaline ash are used to counteract acid mine drainage. ° WV has 3 FBC facilities. WV will not issue a permit to mine sites with marginally acidic overburden without an alkaline amendment and best material for that is FBC. Also, WV allows substituting 1' of FBC for 2' of soil in encapsulation. The result is a lot of FBC material beneficially used. The only use of scrubber sludge is out of state in Maryland. ° A small limestone quarry accepts CCW under a solid waste permit. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 11 ° A UIC permit is required for injection of wastes into underground mines.

Maryland Presentation ( Connie Lyons, Maryland Department of the Environment, Mining Program)

° MD regulates CCW mine placement by policy only. The solid waste program signs off on the mining program's policy. ° Pozzolan definition in MD's law allows an exception for FBC ashes. ° The policy requires:   Maintaining documentation as part of the SMCRA permit program   TCLP testing of materials, with additional characterization for soil amendment uses   A CCW disposal plan   Description of dust controls and methods for mitigation of any potential ground water, surface water, or worker safety hazards.

° MD's is a small program. There is only one major mine, with no large utilities near the mining region, except one FBC plant. ° There are two non coal mines using CCW. These projects incorporate a 100' buffer, ground water monitoring on site, and characterization every 3 months. The results so far are that the only problem is higher levels of SO4 in a well near fill area. ° MD has one remining permit using FBC ash. ° The Kempton mine is using CCW as grout to seal off manshaft to keep clean ground water from being lost to deep mine. ° Mettiki mine uses scrubber sludge from West Virginia for alkaline addition. pH has gone from 3 to 6. They have observed no increase in metals, some sulfate increase. Primary interest is in alkaline addition benefits.

° MD has an active research program. Examples include:   A culm/ ash/ overburden mixture leach testing study ( study published in 1995)   A grout demonstration project ( Winding Ridge) with mixed results ( report available)   TCLP tests on Warrior Run power plant CCW Louisiana Presentation ( Tony Duplechin, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources)

° LA's is a new program. The issue of mine placement of CCW just came up in the last week in LA.

° LA has four power plants and only one uses local coal. CCW from this plant is disposed on site. ° Recently, LA was approached for use of CCW ( pH 8.76) as a soil amendment. The solid waste and agriculture programs have already approved the project. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 12 Colorado Presentation ( Mike Long, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Minerals and Geology)

° In CO, CCW placement projects require a certificate of designation from county government. ° The solid waste program also could apply standards, but has thus far deferred to mining program. ° CO's mining program has a SMCRA program for coal mines and a non coal mining program. Many of the coal mining site requirements also apply to non coal mines, except for inspection frequency. ° CO finds the baseline SMCRA requirements sufficient to characterize a project for CCW application. There are no pre established criteria for accepting and rejecting projects; requirements are determined on a site specific basis.

° Two mines ( Keensburg, Trapper) in CO currently dispose of CCW. One more is closed. ° Requirements, as incorporated for these two projects, include:   Minimum 12 months background monitoring   Geologic background data   No disposal in flood plain   Public notice as part of certificate of designation and SMCRA program, public involvement required, and citizen suits are possible   TCLP at one of the two mines   Clay liner required at Keensburg   Site specific cover requirements   Zero degradation standards for ground water   NPDES permits   All placement is above the ground water table   Long term baseline ground water and surface water monitoring   Volume restrictions determined on a site specific basis   Closure requirements are the same as for all coal mines, 10 year minimum. There are revegetation criteria, ground water criteria, and surface water criteria for bond release. There are no subsequent use restrictions   Annual hydrology reports and reclamation reports   Inspection at least once a month   Quarterly ground water monitoring for all parameters, monthly for indicators ° The mining program maintains a close working relationship with DOH. ° No enforcement issues have been observed to date.

° CO has denied two permits for CCW placement in gravel pits. ° CO has since approved one project for a gravel pit. The CCW failed TCLP, but passed SPLP ( similar to ground water that would be encountered). Disposal at this site is below the water table. Contact with ground water at this site is expected to keep the CCW in a chemically reduced state, thus preventing leaching of contaminants. The project was approved by Dept of Public Health and Environment. This ground water is a drinking water source.

New York Presentation ( Steven Potter, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 13 ° NY has no coal mines, but generates large quantities of CCW. ° CCW is regulated jointly by the Division of Solid Waste and the Division of Mineral Resources. ° The type of CCW dictates the standards applied. Bottom ash has performance standards; fly ash has operating standards. ° There are three types of permits applicable:   Disposal permit for landfills ( NY provided a list of landfills receiving CCW)   RD& D permit for innovative technologies or processes. These permits are performance standard based and apply for 1 year with renewal for up to 3 years.   Beneficial use determinations ° Mine placement currently falls under the RD& D permit.

° NY has one specific RD& D project involving CCW placement mixed with foundry sand as flowable fill in a 40 acre quarry. ° The permit for this project was issued one year ago. ° There are no pre established requirements; these are site specific in permit. In this case, they include:   No surface water in fill   Complete hydrogeologic characterization ( this was already done under the mine permit)   Grab samples from each truck ( TCLP, SPLP)   Fill samples   Dust controls   Ground water samples quarterly on and off site for total metals and routine field parameters.   Must meet State ground water standards   Cover requirements   Post closure for 30 years including ground water monitoring at reduced frequency, cover maintenance, annual report, financial assurance.

° NY plans to review this project for future approval as a beneficial use determination, but is awaiting EPA's rulemaking to determine the proper approach. ° Monitoring and inspection data are available for this project.

South Carolina Presentation ( Art Braswell, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control)

° In SC, solid waste and mining are the same division. ° SC has no coal mines and, thus, mine placement is limited to non coal mines. ° SC currently is reviewing an application for CCW disposal in a rock quarry. ° SC has no beneficial use/ re use program for these materials. Therefore, the mine reclamation permit will regulate the project as if it were a solid waste landfill. ° For solid waste landfills, waste characterization, using TCLP or equivalent, is required every five years or when the waste changes. ° Characterization data are compared to MCLs to determine the class of the landfill. CCW usually falls into Class I (< 10x MCL) industrial landfill. Class I requirements incorporate:   Location restrictions   2' or 5' separation from ground water, 2' from bedrock Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 14   Run on/ off controls   GW monitoring with a compliance boundary 500 feet from waste boundary   Corrective action   Closure requirements, including cover   A post closure period of 30 years, which can be reduced if warranted   Financial assurance   Public notice ° In SC, construction uses would be assessed on a case by case basis. SC has no rules for flowable fill.

DOE Presentation ( Lynn Brickett, US DOE, NETL)

° DOE's NETL conducts research on CCW environmental issues generally, as well as specific research on clean coal technologies and their impact on CCW marketability. ° DOE's goal is ensuring that any regulation of CCW are based on sound science. ° DOE would like to provide their data to inform the rulemaking process.

USGS Presentation ( Rustu Kalyoncu, USGS, Minerals Information Team)

° The presenter from USGS represents a remaining section of US Bureau of Mines which was transferred to USGS. They are part of a group entitled the Minerals Information Team. ° The group produces statistical surveys of CCW as part of Mineral Commodities Yearbook, CCW annual reports, and other publications. ° They receive many questions about legal issues surrounding use of CCW. ° The group also has a research division.

Illinois Commerce Department Presentation ( Ron Carty, Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, Illinois Clean Coal Institute)

° The Department has done considerable research on clean coal technology and on beneficial uses. This research can be examined at their website: icci. org. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 15 Programs in Other States A number of States did not make formal presentations, but provided valuable information about their programs during discussions. This information is presented here.

° Texas:   TX doesn't exercise SMCRA jurisdiction over " disposal" areas at mines; this practice is regulated under the State solid waste authority.   There is a basic decision about what is a solid waste, what is a product.   TX has constituent criteria for classifying non hazardous waste. " Inert" material exits the State solid waste regulatory system.   Materials that are beneficially used also exit the State solid waste regulatory system.   Bond release conditions are based on proposed land use.   In TX there are 2 or 3 active mines with ash disposal regulated by the solid waste agency. Some of these projects are below the water table.   There are six beneficial reuse sites, all utilizing bottom ash.   TX has a no degradation policy for ground water.   TX has ground water transport models for mines   If placement delays contemporaneous reclamation, it is regulated as disposal ° Wyoming:   Concerned about possible long term ground water impacts.   The WY legislature recently moved the regulatory authority for mine disposal from the solid waste agency to the mining agency. Is CCW placement disposal ( regulated) or beneficial use ( not regulated)?   The mining agency has little experience in this area, but has begun developing rules for non coal mining waste ( e. g., CCW), including mine mouth power plant ash.   WY has 2 mine mouth power plants sending CCW back to the mine.

° New Mexico: According to OSM West, NM completely exempts CCW from regulation.

° Kentucky:   KY regulations discourage mine operators from using mine sites as monofills.   CCW haul back cannot exceed the thickness of the coal seam extracted.   KY has no mechanism to correct problems after bond release ( e. g., water quality) other than landowner liability through water program.

° Oklahoma:   Proposed CCW disposal regulations recently.   Expect to finalize in August 2001.

° Navajo Nation: Just beginning to address regulation of CCW placement/ disposal. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 16 ° Utah:   UT has 5 power plants with ash going to solid waste facilities.   There is one co generation facility that might eventually go to mine placement, but there is no mine placement at this time.   UT expects that mine placement could be proposed in the future. If CCW were hauled to a mine site, the State would probably want to regulate it as disposal. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 17 Part II: Discussion For ease of presentation, this section is organized by topic, rather than chronologically.

Closure Requirements for Landfills versus those for Mine Placement ( i. e., 30 years post closure under solid waste authorities for landfills; 10 to 12 years bonding for mine placement under SMCRA)

° PA: landfills are large volume, monolithic facilities with engineered controls that must be maintained long term. Mine placement projects have limitations on characteristics of the CCW that is placed and the quantity of CCW is limited to that sufficient to reclaim the mine.

° OSM: SMCRA bond release is performance based   all permit conditions must be satisfied. Phase 1 bond release occurs only after untreated discharges meet NPDES limits.

° TX: if there is a disposal area at the mine, the bond release process doesn't consider that, only results of mining and reclamation.

Monitoring Well Location ° IL: well location requirements for mine placement projects in IL are very stringent ( 25 to 50 feet from the CCW placement area).

° IN: well placement depends on site specific conditions. The preference is for unmined strata as close as possible to waste. The State seeks to avoid wells in spoil because water impact could be masked.

° PA: in certain areas ( anthracite, extensively mined areas), wells may be as far away as a mile ( using existing seeps/ overflows). Mainly, locations are decided on a case by case basis. Often, the State does not require upgradient monitoring because of pre existing contamination. Mine conditions are such that close in monitoring wells wouldn't work ( dry holes).

Prohibition on Placement in Water Table ° IL: allows placement in the water table because the State has stringent monitoring and characteristic limitations. IL has detected no adverse impacts since filling began in the 1980s.

° PA: State's regulations prohibit placement within 8 feet of water table. But PA does have demonstration projects, because water filled pits need to be filled. No cases of mine placement in PA are for disposal only; rather, all are for some kind of beneficial use ( reclamation, acid mine drainage remediation, etc.).

° IN: allows placement in the water table because ground water at the sites is not pristine and because of CCW characteristic limits. Requiring disposal above the ground water table would be impractical because of the fluctuating water table. All placement in IN is below the post mining water table. It takes 5 years to decades for spoil/ aquifer to recharge following mining. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 18 ° TX allows placement below the water table because it has non degradation policy for ground water.

Defining Disposal versus Reclamation/ Beneficial Use ° PA: In PA, the only cases where placement goes beyond reclamation are overfill sites. In these cases, PA requires a structural fill permit.

° KY: fill volume may not be greater than the thickness of the coal seam.

° IN: policy is 50% of the volume of coal removed.

° TX: under SMCRA, if placement disrupts or slows down reclamation process, then it's disposal. If CCW replaces a construction material, it should be in like quantities.

° IL: Placement of CCW greater than 35% of coal sales is disposal; beneficial use is restricted to a reasonable volume ( i. e., the volume needed to accomplish the use). Also, the State uses the SMCRA timetable.

° PA: for reclamation at active mines:   the volume of CCW cannot exceed the volume of coal and culm removed, unless more is necessary for reclamation ( or to eliminate a safety and health hazard).   areas of the site may not be left open for disposal.   placement may not delay reclamation.   there may not be leftover spoil piles. For abandoned sites:   placement must be designed to prevent water quality degradation, treat drainage, etc.   the maximum volume is determined by the district mining office on a case by case basis.

° OH: the determination must be made, but there are no specific criteria to define " beneficial use." The mining agency regulates " beneficial use," not " disposal." The solid waste agency regulates disposal. An example of close call: a capping project proposed to use an excessive thickness of CCW, so mining rejected it as a beneficial use. The operator chose not to proceed under regulation by the solid waste agency.

° EPA: in EPA's regulatory determination, there is no definition or decision criterion on what EPA considers " beneficial use." Note that EPA exempted all beneficial uses other than mine placement. Mine placement covers the full spectrum of CCW activities at mines from remediation/ reclamation to disposal. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 19 Contentiousness of Permit Issuance ° PA: one contentious permit. Most of the non mine reclamation beneficial uses have presented no problems. One reopening of a closed disposal site was a problem because of new housing development surrounding the site.

° IN: 16 of 18 permits have been appealed.

Use of Pre placement Site Characterization and Assessment Data Case examples of rejection on this basis: ° WV: A company wanted to mix Class F with really nasty refuse. WV asked for small scale field test. The results were worse than without ash placement, so the State rejected the project. Lesson: If in doubt, small scale field tests can be very helpful/ informative.

° IL: sites with high potential for ground water contamination due to geologic setting are defined and known. Proposals for waste disposal at these sites are evaluated carefully. Liners, additional wells, and additional monitoring may be required. An example is a southwestern site where vegetative rooting depth was such that the State required additional cap depth.

° SC: for the mine placement project at a rock quarry, it is difficult to define the top of the water table. SC is going to require interceptor wells/ drain system to lower the ground water table to keep it below bottom of fly ash disposal area. They are currently studying the engineering of that system.

° IN: there have been a few cases of rejection due to the waste characterization screening criteria ( 1/ 4 RCRA metals levels, 18 hr and 30 day leach tests). Also, there was a permit application ( Pride Mine) in an area of an alluvial sand and gravel aquifer with a lack of attenuative material. The State required the project to stay out of that lowland area.

° PA: in two cases, applications were revised to add fill material to add safety factor on sites with fluctuating water table. Another site required a membrane to prevent infiltration in area where there was conveyance across disposal area. The State withdrew approval for a site that was already reclaimed with no basic safety problem. At a scrubber sludge general permit site, the operator changed source to one that did not meet totals requirements. The site was shut down for several months.

How do States arrive at a level of comfort with a proposed operation? ° IL: experience with use of this material. The State evaluates the best available information on potential impact and characteristics early in permit process. Pre placement information counts a lot ( 6 months of background monitoring, data on water quality, ash quality, placement design). Ash sources that are well known add to the comfort level. In addition, the existence of corrective action authority via the solid waste statute is important. IL requires close in monitoring wells and quarterly monitoring during operation. Back end corrective action is important in case the project is not executed according to plan. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 20 ° IN: SMCRA is preventative in nature. The State's program relies on background information in the mining permit application in addition to that in the CCW placement application. The presence of underclays is very important. The placement of overburden materials provides attenuation. A Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment is required.

° WV: for new sources or new uses, WV encourages a small scale, pre placement demonstration. The State also requires appropriate characterization of sources ( not TCLP). There is a need to improve on TCLP ( perhaps using something like sulfuric acid) and on acid base accounting methods.

Damage Case Identification Case examples of damage cases or procedural problems and how they were detected and resolved: ° OH: Problem with vegetative cover toxicity attributable to boron at scrubber sludge/ spoil land cover site ( see OH presentation). Lab tests had indicated there would be no problem. However, it didn't work in the field ( vegetation kill).

° IL: two corrective actions have been associated with pre law conditions and were not related to CCW placement.

New Characterization Methods ° Several States expressed desire for improved test over the TCLP.

° EPA is examining new characterization methods. This may be a multi year process.

° DOE is working on validation of tests vs field data. In practice, as many of 160 different tests have been applied. The idea is to tailor a test to be representative for the application. A rhetorical question is how do you handle the transition to a new test?

Suggestions, Additions, and Revisions to Existing Requirements To encourage more candid discussion, EPA and IMCC agreed not to show attribution of comments during this part of the discussion. A key question for this part of the discussion was: What does any EPA rule need to address in light of SMCRA regulations and your State's existing regulatory programs ( mining and solid waste)?

° The current regulatory environment is similar to that when EPA first started studying Industrial D waste   States already had programs, so guidance was appropriate. If EPA has to promulgate a regulation in this case, the Agency should not start from scratch. Approaches might include a performance standard, minimum standards, and best management practices.

° Mine placement is really a disposal activity that may happen to coincide with reclamation. SMCRA is not a solid waste regulation. SMCRA is sufficient to control placement that coincides with reclamation. But disposal needs to be regulated under solid waste authority. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 21 ° The driving force for regional differences in approach ( at least under SMCRA) may be the presence or absence of acid forming materials. Appropriate differences may be site specific.

° SMCRA is designed to allow flexibility to deal with regional and State specific differences. Performance standards lend flexibility. Design standards cannot account for regional differences.

° OSM rules under SMCRA are not specific to CCW. One State would like a federal OSM rule specific to CCW. This would make it easier to promulgate regulations.

° It seems that some States lack authority under SMCRA to do things they need to do. Under State statutes, some States cannot regulate more stringently than SMCRA.

° Concerns are with volume restrictions, closure, liners, monitoring ( specifically ground water monitoring), corrective action after bond release, testing/ characterization methods, clear direction on environmental justice.

° Characterization testing methods are an area of concern. Several States would like to see development of an appropriate leaching test method, maybe one specific to CCW and better than TCLP.

° Several States would like to have some mechanism to address potential environmental problems that may arise after SMCRA bond release. One State specifically suggested a fund/ financial assurance instrument to cover issues that might arise after bond release   in interest of making peace with the public, not because the commenter State is concerned that major problems might arise.

° Intrastate coordination: mining people need to coordinate with their solid waste counterparts on mine placement of CCW.

° OSM/ EPA coordination is a concern.

° Defining beneficial use versus disposal: should there be some consideration of the nature of the waste material? Are there some mine site activities that deserve some special consideration because they are similar to exempt beneficial uses?

° Any approach should provide for flexibility/ discretion   no " one size" fits all.

° Deed notation regarding placement.

° Better assessment of how to allow or allocate potential haulback capacities among permits.

° Site investigations under some State's programs are similar to Subtitle D solid waste investigations. These processes could utilize more information from the mine permit program.

° Important to have placement procedure/ plan explicitly described so inspectors can tell over time whether placement is being done properly. More planning and reporting of placement process/ practice. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 22 ° Could use more resources for inspection and enforcement   both to keep things in line and to learn.

° No regulatory framework in some States for placement in non coal mines ( industrial mineral mines)   cannot require ground water or surface water monitoring. These could be more problematic because they are monofills.

° Structural fill ( non mine) situations generally don't require monitoring in some States. General permits valid State wide don't incorporate public involvement for each project.

° Update acid base accounting.

° Define disposal versus beneficial use. States with newly developing programs are concerned that mine operators will want to call all mine placement " beneficial use" to avoid regulation. One State requested clarification of what practices OSM considers reclamation or use.

° Environmental justice: States need clear direction.

° If mine ground water is already degraded, how can we identify ash impact, if any? Some suggestions were to look at parameters indicative of CCW ( chlorides, molybdenum, potassium, boron) or establish performance standards that look at water quality improvement.

° There was some disagreement among States and within OSM as to whether SMCRA and current SMCRA regulations can/ should handle mine placement.

° Suggestions for guidance on sound environmental practices ° Economic incentives, level playing field among States.

° How to regulate CCW where other materials ( tires, papermill sludges, etc.) are co fired with coal?

Miscellaneous Questions and Answers Question ( TX): Is EPA open to considering a level of contaminants where regulation is less stringent? Answer ( EPA): No, because problems could occur regardless of the level of constituents of concern in the wastes, depending on how they are placed.

Question ( DOE): Does EPA have the authority to promulgate regulations under Subtitle D, particularly for beneficial use? Answer ( EPA): Yes. Comments: ASTSWMO requested additional clarification on this point in its comments on the regulatory determination. TX, also, would like clarification regarding industrial waste in general and beneficial uses. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 23 Question ( WY): What kinds of problems arose at sand and gravel operations to cause damages? Answer ( EPA): EPA will attach to the meeting notes a summary of EPA's sand/ gravel pit damage cases; e. g., which constituents were problematic.

Question ( DOE): Is additional national regulation a fait accompli? Answer ( EPA): The Agency has announced its intentions to issue Subtitle D regulations. However, the specific form of the regulation is fluid at this point ( among the possibilities: guidance type content, gap filling, minimum criteria/ aspects to consider for mine placement.) State programs are not static, i. e., they change and evolve with time. As such, EPA is developing an updated status summary of State programs re: mine placement. The results of this effort may affect the Agency's conclusions and direction in this area. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 24 Part III: Next Steps OSM ° OSM discussed specific OSM policy explaining how OSM views CCW placement and how SMCRA should apply to it.

° OSM has found no scientific evidence of problems with CCW placement, so there is no basis for rulemaking. OSM will continue technology transfer and research. If there was evidence of a problem, they would be concerned. But there isn't, so they are satisfied with State programs.

EPA ° Based on the presentations and discussion, it is apparent that no States prohibit mine placement and all States have some process for overseeing the practice ( although a diversity in levels of oversight exists).

° Oversight is not necessarily formal in all States, but is moving in that direction.

° There is variation among States in their range of experience. States with mature programs don't have much desire for additional fundamental regulatory tools.

° There are individual technical issues and variation among States in approaches and allowances.

° EPA would like to continue with this process on the individual broad issues, either in a larger or smaller group format as decided by IMCC.

IMCC:

IMCC suggested several options: ° Another benchmarking forum focused on specific topics. ° A meeting to continue dialog: beneficial use v disposal, status of State programs, agency coordination intrastate and State/ federal, regulatory approaches at the national level ( yes/ no). ° A meeting on information needs to support EPA rulemaking ( assuming that is a fait accompli).

IMCC requested opinions on the following: ° Same or smaller group to continue this process? ° At what point do we include other stakeholders?

Reactions/ Discussion ° States requested an opportunity to review EPA's State regulatory survey and information on what gaps ( data or regulatory) EPA still thinks exist in State programs. Summary Meeting Notes: IMCC Forum Page 25 Conclusion ° Another meeting to discuss critical issues  July time frame. 1st day: States only, probably 2nd day: States plus federal agencies ° IMCC and EPA will distribute EPA's State regulatory analysis, notes of this meeting, and information on what gaps ( data or regulatory) EPA still thinks exist in State programs a month ahead of next meeting.

° This will allow some time to see the impact of the new administration on EPA and OSM and the projected impact of the new national energy policy.

° For other stakeholders, IMCC will share meeting notes, but keep the next meeting closed to other stakeholders, because EPA State issue development is still occurring.


[Federal Register: October 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 66349-66350]
[DOCID:fr26oc11-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities; Requests for Comments:
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection; Financial
Responsibility for Licensed Launch Activities

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on August 24, 2011, vol. 76, no. 164, page 53024. Information
is used to determine if licensees have complied with financial
responsibility requirements (including maximum probable loss
determination) as set forth in FAA regulations.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by November 25, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at: Kathy A. DePaepe @faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0601.
    Title: Financial Responsibility for Licensed Launch Activities.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: This collection is applicable upon concurrence of
requests for conducting commercial launch operations as prescribed in
14 CFR, Parts 401, et al., Commercial Space Transportation Licensing
Regulation. A commercial space launch services provider must complete
the Launch Operators License, Launch-Specific License or Experimental
Permit in order to gain authorization for conducting commercial launch
operations.
    Respondents: 6 commercial space launch services providers.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 100 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 600 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 20, 2011.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-27711 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


0001 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 3 4                   X 5 Control of Emissions of Air Pollution: Docket ID No. 6 From New Motor Vehicles: In Use : OAR 204 0072 7 Testing for Heavy Duty Diesel Engines: 8 and Vehicles; Proposed Rule : 9                   X 10 Washington, D. C. 11 Thursday, July 15, 2004 12 13 The above entitled matter was held in 14 the offices of the EPA, 1310 L Street, N. W., Washington, 15 D. C., at 10: 05 a. m., Thursday, July 15, 2004, and the 16 proceedings being taken down by Stenotype by CARLA L. 17 ANDREWS and transcribed under her direction. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0002 1 APPEARANCES: 2 GLENN PASSAVANT ( Panel member) 3 MICHAEL HOROWITZ ( Panel member) 4 RICK GEZELLE ( Panel member) 5 RICHARD S. WILCOX ( Panel member) 6 TIMOTHY A. FRENCH ( Presenter  Engine 7 Manufacturers Association) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0003 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MR. PASSAVANT: Good morning. Welcome to 3 today's hearing. My name is Glenn Passavant, and I am 4 the director of the Nonroad Center in the Assessment 5 Standards Division in EPA's Office of Transportation and 6 Air Quality. Today I will be serving as the presiding 7 officer for this hearing. 8 We will be hearing testimony today on a 9 notice of proposed rulemaking for a manufacturer run, 10 in use test program for 2007 and later model year 11 heavy duty diesel engines and vehicles. The proposed 12 regulations being considered today were published in the 13 June 10, 2004, edition of the Federal Register. This 14 proposal advances EPA's clean diesel activities by 15 helping to ensure that the benefits of more stringent 16 emission standards are realized under real world driving 17 conditions. 18 The proposed test program will require the 19 truck engine manufactures to measure exhaust emissions 20 from their diesel engines using portable emissions 21 measurement systems for the first time. Also for the 22 first time, all manufacturers will be regularly 23 providing EPA with a significant quantity of emissions 24 data generated from engines used in regular service, 25 which EPA will evaluate to ensure the engines comply 0004 1 with specified emissions requirements. The proposed 2 rule is a result of an agreement between EPA and the 3 Engine Manufacturers Association. 4 As part of the in use testing regulations, we 5 are proposing to adopt the test procedures in Part 1065, 6 Subpart J, entitled Field Testing for conducting any 7 emissions testing required in this program. Therefore, 8 I want to draw your attention to a notice of proposed 9 rulemaking, which the EPA will publish in the Federal 10 Register very soon, that will include changes to the 11 current version of Part 1065. And let me implement in 12 there parenthetically they have been approved. It's 13 just simply a matter of now getting it into the final 14 signature page process. We have placed a copy of the 15 draft regulations in the docket for this NPRM and they 16 are posted on the OTAQ website. 17 The test procedures currently in Part 1065 18 are sufficient to conduct testing, but the new test 19 procedure NPRM proposes to reorganization and to add 20 content to improve these procedures. The new content 21 includes proposed procedures for measuring very low 22 concentrations of emissions, using new measurement 23 technology, and performing field testing. 24 Regarding field testing, this companion rule 25 proposes that in general, field testing equipment and 0005 1 measurement instruments meet the same specifications and 2 for performance checks that laboratory instruments 3 meet. However, for field testing instruments, the test 4 procedure rule proposes to allow certain deviations from 5 the laboratory specifications. It proposes a procedure 6 with preparing and conducting a field test, and 7 additional drift and noise allowances for emissions 8 analyzers. The companion notice of proposed rulemaking 9 will also clarify an important aspect of the information 10 reporting requirements for proposed manufacturer in use 11 testing of heavy duty vehicles. 12 The preamble of the in use testing proposal 13 provides a non exhaustive listing of the types of engine 14 parameters commonly stored in the engine's on board 15 computer and requires manufacturers to report these 16 parameters, which are readily available. We want to be 17 clear that not only should those parameters be reported 18 to EPA, but that they also must be reported to and 19 stored by any portable emissions measurement system used 20 to meet the testing requirements described in the NPRM. 21 Because the proposed regulatory language in 40 CFR, Part 22 1065, Subpart J contained in the companion test 23 procedure notice does not contain all the parameters we 24 intended to be required in the manufacture in use 25 testing program, we expect that section 0006 1 86.1920( a)( 4)( xii) in the final in use testing 2 regulations will contain language that will better 3 reflect this intent and make explicit the types of 4 parameters that may be subject to the reporting 5 requirements. 6 The companion test procedure proposal 7 contains the specific language for Section 8 86.1920( a)( 4)( xii) that we intend to adopt in the final 9 in use testing regulations. 10 Comments regarding the test procedures 11 proposed in the separate companion NPRM to this notice 12 can be directed as comments toward that notice or the 13 in use testing notice. 14 Following this public hearing, there will be 15 an opportunity for everyone to send us written 16 comments. We expect to take final action on this 17 proposal by the end of 2004. 18 Representing the EPA with me are a few 19 colleagues, including Michael Horowitz of the EPA's 20 Office of General Counsel, and Rick Gezelle from the 21 Certification and Compliance Division, and Rich Wilcox 22 from the Office of Air Quality and Transportation. 23 I will read a prepared statement to outline 24 how we will hold this hearing. We are conducting this 25 hearing in accordance with Section 307( d)( 5) of the 0007 1 amended Clean Air Act, which requires EPA to provide 2 interested persons with an opportunity for oral 3 presentation of data, views, or arguments. In addition 4 to an opportunity to make written submissions, this 5 hearing provides the opportunity for such oral 6 presentations. 7 The official record of this hearing will be 8 kept open until August 16, 2004, as provided for in the 9 Act and for submission of rebuttal and supplemental 10 testimony. The hearing will be conducted informally, 11 and formal rules of evidence will not apply. The 12 presiding officer, however, is authorized to strike 13 statements from the record, which are deemed irrelevant 14 or needlessly repetitious, and to enforce reasonable 15 limits on the duration of the statement of any witness. 16 Witnesses must state their name and 17 affiliation prior to making their statement. When a 18 witness has finished his or her presentation, members of 19 the panel will have an opportunity to ask questions 20 related to the testimony. Witnesses are reminded that 21 any false statements or false responses to the questions 22 may be a violation of law. 23 If any members of the audience wishing to 24 testify have not already signed up, please submit your 25 name  actually, we passed around a roster here for you 0008 1 all. Sign that roster. We will try to accommodate 2 everyone who wants to testify. Everyone attending 3 should sign the register whether or not you testify. 4 Finally, if you would like a transcript of 5 the proceedings, you should make arrangements directly 6 with Carla, the court reporter, during one of the 7 breaks. Before we begin testimony, I want to ask if 8 there are any clarifying questions. 9 So far I only know of one party who is going 10 to testify. Are there others? All right. In that 11 case, I will ask Mr. Tim French, representing the Engine 12 Manufacturers Association. 13 MR. FRENCH: Good morning, everyone. My name 14 is Tim French, legal counsel with the Engine 15 Manufacturers Association. We are happy to be here 16 today. And I will try to be brief. And I will read the 17 comments that we prepared to submit today as well 18 testimony. And I tendered each of you a copy so you can 19 follow along. 20 The Engine Manufacturers Association 21 appreciates the opportunity to present this oral 22 statement today regarding the notice of proposed 23 rulemaking NPRM that EPA published initially on 24 June 10, 2004, and supplemented on June 21 with Reg 25 language relating to the establishment of a 0009 1 manufacture run in use testing program for heavy duty 2 on highway diesel fueled engines and vehicles. 3 EMA is the trade association that represents 4 the world's leading manufacturers of internal combustion 5 engines used in a wide variety of applications, 6 including the diesel fueled engines that will be used in 7 the heavy duty trucks that are to be tested in use under 8 road conditions under the proposed in use testing rule. 9 As with any EPA rulemaking that impacts HDOH 10 engines, EMA and its members have a direct and 11 significant interest in the proposed in use testing rule 12 and the manner in which it will be revised, finalized 13 and implemented. EMA's interest in this case is perhaps 14 even more heightened, since the proposed in use testing 15 rule stems from many months of detailed negotiations 16 between EMA, EPA, and the California Air Resources Board 17 aimed at settling a number of underlying and significant 18 legal issues and challenges relating to the group of 19 emission control requirements referred to as " not to 20 exceed" or NTE standards. 21 One specific result from those NTE settlement 22 negotiations was a detailed 10 page outline of a 23 ground breaking manufacturer run in use testing program 24 to assess the real world compliance and impact of HDOH 25 vehicle emissions with the applicable NTE standards 0010 1 accordingly, the relevant benchmark  certainly from 2 EMA's perspective  for assessing the merits of 3 feasibility of the pending rulemaking is the extent to 4 which it tracks or, alternatively, deviates from the 5 agreed upon in use testing outline. 6 The critical importance of EPA and not 7 coincidentally ARB implementing an in use testing rule 8 that is fully consistent with the letter and spirit of 9 the in use testing outline cannot be overstated. The 10 type of manufacturer in run in use NTE testing that is 11 at issue in this rulemaking represents a true paradigm 12 shift from the regulatory scream that heretofore has 13 been applied to control emissions from the heavy duty 14 highway vehicles and engines. Previously, those types 15 of engine standards have been established with reference 16 to specified engine development and testing processes 17 that are carried out using engine dynamometers in 18 carefully controlled and monitored engine laboratories. 19 In addition, the technical feasibility of the 20 under laying engine emission standards, as well as an 21 the engine's compliance with those standards, 22 traditionally have been assessed through the use of 23 specific engine duty cycles ( designating specified test 24 modes of engine speed and torque) that can be programmed 25 into and run on engine dynamometers, again, in carefully 0011 1 controlled and monitored laboratory settings. 2 An in use NTE testing program, by contrast, 3 represents a fundamental break  what we would call a 4 paradigm shift  from the traditional heavy duty on 5 highway engine development and testing processes. 6 Instead of controlling, monitored, and repeatable engine 7 laboratory conditions, heavy duty on highway engine 8 emissions will now need to be assessed with the engine 9 fully installed in the vehicle and with the vehicle 10 operating as it is on a day to day basis under 11 real world driving conditions, and utilizing 12 still developing onboard emission measurement systems. 13 Engine manufacturers have never before faced 14 this level of challenge in performing and administering 15 emission tests in uncontrolled environments utilizing as 16 yet to be proven in some instances emission measurement 17 systems. So, in sum, it is a true paradigm shift that 18 you are dealing with under this rulemaking. 19 Now, due to the significant ( in fact, 20 unprecedented) challenges that engine manufacturers will 21 face in trying to implement the in use testing program, 22 it is vital that the in use program be administered on a 23 uniform, nationwide basis, without any unique or 24 specific or special provisions for particular 25 jurisdictions, including the State of California. And 0012 1 to that end, the in use testing outline embodies the 2 parties' commitment to a single coordinated program. 3 And it is incumbent on both EPA and ARB that they work 4 diligently together to ensure that those commitments to 5 a single, nationwide in use testing program are, in 6 fact, honored. 7 Indeed, engine manufacturers have expressly 8 relied on the respective agencies' commitment to a 9 uniform nationwide program in developing and agreeing to 10 the in use testing outline. And it is also important as 11 we have all committed to one another that that program 12 include a two year program to prove out the technologies 13 and the methods for generating that data. And we 14 appreciate that as well. And so the cornerstone 15 commitment to uniformity must remain in place in any 16 final rulemaking relating to the in use testing. 17 Now because of the daunting technical, not to 18 mention financial, challenges that manufacturers will 19 face in implementing an in use testing, it is also 20 crucial that any final program not deviate in any 21 material respect from the in use testing outline that 22 manufacturers and EPA spent a long time carefully 23 negotiating and developing. Indeed, any material 24 deviation will occasion necessarily material issues 25 concerning the feasibility and cost effectiveness of an 0013 1 in use testing program. 2 Now, for the most part, the proposed in use 3 testing rule accurately reflects the agreed upon 4 outline. And this is particularly the case with respect 5 to most all of the core elements of the in use testing 6 program and specifically those that relate to the 7 establishment of a consistent national program as just 8 discussed relating to the number of engine families and 9 vehicles to be tested, relating to the duration of 10 vehicle testing, relating to the criteria for assessing 11 whether a vehicle passes the in use testing under phase 12 one. The two faze nature of the in use program as well 13 as the criteria that EPA will look to in assessing when 14 and whether remedial action might be warranted. And we 15 appreciate that very much. It is, in fact, the core for 16 a workable program there are. 17 There are, however, a number of other 18 elements of the in use testing outline that do not 19 accurately reflect the terms or intent of the outline, 20 or that otherwise are slightly inconsistent with what 21 was contemplated when manufacturers agreed to the 22 paradigm shift that will be required to implement in use 23 testing. And it our written comments, EMA will detail 24 those inconsistencies and offer suggestions for 25 remedying them so that we can implement a timely, 0014 1 effective, and feasible in use program in accordance 2 with the schedule we have laid out. 3 In conclusion, EMA appreciates the 4 opportunity to present this oral statement today 5 relating to the proposed in use testing program. As 6 already stated, the in use program represents a 7 fundamental and ground breaking paradigm shift in the 8 regulation and control of emissions from the heavy duty 9 on highway engines and vehicles. And, in fact, as we 10 look forward it may actually usher a means to shift our 11 compliant certification focus from the lab to the field 12 from beginning to end. 13 Accordingly, while many challenges lie ahead, 14 EMA looks forward to an ongoing collaborative effort 15 with EPA and ARB to ensure that the negotiated in use 16 program is implemented in a feasible, cost effective and 17 highly successful manner. 18 Thank you for your time, and i will be happy 19 to try to answer any questions you have. 20 MR. PASSAVANT: Tim, thank you for your 21 testimony. I did take an opportunity to read the letter 22 that you had sent out the other day. And I think you 23 pretty well highlighted the open items that we talked 24 about in the past. We will commit to working through 25 this with you over the course of the next couple of 0015 1 months as we move toward a final rule. I didn't see 2 anything in your letter that I didn't understand. It 3 was all pretty straightforward. So it's just a matter 4 of waiting for the other comments and working through 5 the process and see how we, being the EMA and the ARB, 6 come to a final conclusion. 7 I don't have any questions right now myself. 8 MR. HOROWITZ: I would encourage you to take 9 a look at the rights that are in the docket now on 1065 10 for the testing procedure. 11 MR. FRENCH: We will and we will have some 12 comments on our Calibration Standard Task Force within 13 the EMA doing that even as we speak. 14 MR. PASSAVANT: And they are meeting today, I 15 believe, with our guys. So things are moving along. You 16 did get the copy that we provided. 17 MR. FRENCH: Right. I circulated that. 18 MR. PASSAVANT: Okay. Would anybody like to 19 make a statement or does anybody else have any 20 testimony? Going once, going twice. This meeting is 21 adjourned. 22 ( At 10: 23 a. m., the meeting was concluded.) 23 24 25


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 28, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41822-41824]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13765]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0369]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Key West July 4th Fireworks, Key West, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters surrounding Key West, Florida, during the Key West July 4th
Fireworks event. The safety zone will include an 800-foot radius around
the White Street Pier in Key West, FL. The safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of participant vessels, spectators, and the general
public during the event. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP) Key West or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July
4, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0369 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 Hailye Wilson, Waterways Management Division,
Sector Key West, FL, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

COTP Captain of the Port
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
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

    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) with respect
to this rule. The Coast Guard did not receive final details of the
event until June 6, 2023, and the event is scheduled to take place on
July 4, 2023. The event would begin before the rulemaking process would
be completed. Because of the dangers posed by the fireworks display, a
safety zone is necessary without delay to ensure the safety of persons,
vessels, and the marine environment. It is impracticable and contrary
to the public interest to delay this rule because it is necessary to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards created by the fireworks display.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety
hazards associated with the fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46
U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Key West (COTP) has determined
that potential hazards associated with the Key West July 4th Fireworks
event will be a safety concern for anyone within 800 feet of the White
Street Pier in Key West, FL. This rule is necessary to ensure the
safety of the event participants, the general public, vessels and the
navigable waters of Key West, Florida, during the Key West July 4th
Fireworks event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone on certain navigable waters of
Key West, Florida, during the Key West July 4th Fireworks event. The
safety zone will encompass an 800-foot radius around the White Street
Pier in Key West, FL. The safety zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m.
to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2023. Approximately 300 spectator craft are
anticipated to attend the event. No person or vessel will be permitted
to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone
without first obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within the safety zone is granted by the COTP or a designated
representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization
must comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated
representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone
by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or by on-scene designated
representatives.

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 section 3(f) of 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 location,
duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This rule involves a
safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on
the navigable waters of Key West, Florida, during a firework display
lasting thirty minutes. Although persons and vessels may not enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the zone without
authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they will
be able to safely transit around this safety zone. Moreover, the Coast
Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the zone, and the rule will allow vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone.

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 persons and vessels from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on
the navigable waters of Key West, Florida, during a firework display
lasting thirty minutes. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

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.T07-0369 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0369  Safety Zone; Key West July 4th Fireworks, Key West,
FL.

    (a) Location. The following regulated area is a safety zone: All
waters encompassing an 800-foot radius around the White Street Pier in
Key West, FL.
    (b) Definition. As used in this section, the term 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 Key West (COTP) in the enforcement of
the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section unless
authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF-FM
radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is
granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must
comply with the instructions of the COTP Key West or a designated
representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM channel 16, and/or by on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8:30
p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2023.

    Dated: June 22, 2023.
Jason D. Ingram,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Key West.
[FR Doc. 2023-13765 Filed 6-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P