			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 6, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-19849

________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Starair (Ireland) Ltd.					Date Filed:  December 6, 2004

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in
charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between
a point or points in Ireland and a point or points in the United States,
including service via intermediate stops, and to conduct fifth-freedom
charter operations subject to prior approval under Part 212 of the
Department’s rules.  Starair asks that the authority be effective for
two years or for a period continuing until 90 days after issuance to
Starair of a foreign air carrier permit.  Starair proposes to conduct
these services with a Bombardier Challenger CL 604 aircraft.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority

Applicant representative:  Joanne W. Young<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved in part; dismissed in part (request for longer-term
authority)

Action date:  April 6, 2005

Effective dates of the exemption authority granted:  April 6, 2005-April
6, 2006

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Air Transport
Agreement between the United States and Ireland (the Agreement)

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  X Standard exemption
conditions (attached) and the Agreement

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  Based on the
record in this case , we found that Starair is financially and
operationally qualified to perform the services authorized above.  We
also found that Starair is substantially owned and effectively
controlled by citizens of Ireland.  Starair is properly licensed and
designated (Note 31/05, dated January 26, 2005) by the Government of
Ireland to perform

the proposed services.  By memorandum dated January 10, 2005, the FAA
advised us that it knows of no reason why we should act unfavorably on
Starair’s application.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with

2

Department policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (4) grant of the

authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act

of 1975.  To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all
requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the
authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our
discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date

of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Attachment

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

												05/2004

  See Docket OST-2004-19848.

  We note that Starair sought authority for a two year period.  However,
as is our usual practice in conferring exemption authority in the
circumstances presented, we are limiting the term of authority to one
year.  Starair may, of course, seek renewal of this authority in
accordance with the Department’s regulations.

  In support of its application, Starair relies on the information
contained in its contemporaneously filed application for a foreign air
carrier permit, Docket OST-2004-19848.

  Starair is owned by Irelandia Investments, an Irish company.
Irelandia Investments is 100% owned by and controlled by the Ryan
Family, the founding shareholders of Ryan Air, PLC.  The Ryan family are
 citizens of Ireland.  In addition, all of Starair’s key management
personnel are citizens of Ireland.


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		7/15/14

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Michael Gordon, EPA Region 3

SUBJECT:	7/15/2014 Meeting with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on July 15, 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation
Reid Harvey, Office of Atmospheric Programs
Sarah Dunham, Office of Atmospheric Programs
Matt Clouse, Office of Atmospheric Programs
Jim Ketcham-Colwill, Office of Policy Analysis and Review
Denise Mulholland, Office of Atmospheric Programs*
David Solomon, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards*
Debra Dalcher, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards*
Lora Strine, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Brian Fisher, Office of Atmospheric Programs*
Joe Bryson, Office of Atmospheric Programs*
Brian Rehn, Air Protection Division
Mike Gordon, Air Protection Division
Emily Linn, Air Protection Division

Mike Dowd, VADEQ
Angie Jenkins, VADEQ
Tom Ballou, VADEQ

*Called in via conference line


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 8 (Friday, January 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2467-2469]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00351]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68587; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Its Price With Respect to Regulatory Fees Related to the
Central Registration Depository, Which Are Collected by the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.

January 4, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 21, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List (the ``Price List'')
with respect to regulatory fees related to the Central Registration
Depository (``CRD system''), which are collected by the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''). The Exchange proposes
to implement the fee changes on January 2, 2013. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Price List with respect to
regulatory fees related to the CRD system, which are collected by
FINRA.\4\ The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes on January
2, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The CRD system is the central licensing and registration
system for the U.S. securities industry. The CRD system enables
individuals and firms seeking registration with multiple states and
self-regulatory organizations to do so by submitting a single form,
fingerprint card and a combined payment of fees to FINRA. Through
the CRD system, FINRA maintains the qualification, employment and
disciplinary histories of registered associated persons of broker-
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA collects and retains certain regulatory fees via the CRD
system for the registration of employees of member organizations of the
Exchange that are not FINRA members (``Non-FINRA

Member Organizations'').\5\ FINRA recently amended certain of the fees
assessed for use of the CRD system, and those amendments will become
effective January 2, 2013.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange originally adopted fees for use of the CRD
system in 2001. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45112
(November 28, 2001), 66 FR 63086 (December 4, 2001) (SR-NYSE-2001-
47).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67247 (June 25,
2012), 77 FR 38866 (June 29, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2012-030).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CRD system fees are user-based and there is no distinction in
the cost incurred by FINRA if the user is a FINRA member or a Non-FINRA
Member Organization. Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to amend
the Price List to mirror the fees assessed by FINRA, which will be
implemented concurrently with the amended FINRA fees on January 2,
2013.\7\ The proposed changes are as follows: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that it has only adopted the CRD system
fees charged by FINRA to Non-FINRA Member Organizations when such
fees are applicable. In this regard, certain FINRA CRD system fees
and requirements are specific to FINRA members, but do not apply to
NYSE-only member organizations.
    \8\ Non-FINRA Member Organizations have been charged CRD system
fees since 2001. See supra note 5. The Exchange is proposing a new
subheading in the ``Registration & Regulatory Fees'' section of the
Price List to differentiate between those fees that are applicable
to all member organizations and those fees that are applicable only
to Non-FINRA Member Organizations. The Exchange notes that member
organizations that are also FINRA members are charged CRD system
fees according to Section (4) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $100 for each initial Form U4 filed for the registration
of a representative or principal; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Section (4)(b)(1) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-laws
effective on January 2, 2013. This fee is assessed when a Non-FINRA
Member Organization submits its first Initial, Transfer, Relicense,
or Dual Registration Form U4 filing on behalf of a registered
person. The current applicable fee is $85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $110 for additional processing of each initial or amended
Form U4, Form U5 or Form BD that includes the initial reporting,
amendment, or certification of one or more disclosure events or
proceedings; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Section (4)(b)(3) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-laws
effective on January 2, 2013. The current applicable fee is $95
related to Form U4 and Form U5. The fee related to Form BD is a new
fee charged by FINRA. Broker-dealers use Form BD to, among other
things, report disclosure matters in which they or a control
affiliate have been involved. Prior to the adoption of the new fee,
FINRA did not have a fee designed to cover the costs associated with
the review of Form BD, notwithstanding that the review is similar to
that performed of broker-dealers' Forms U4 and U5. Such reviews
include confirming that the matter is properly reported, reviewing
any documentation submitted and determining whether additional
documentation is required, conducting any necessary independent
research and, depending on the matter reported, analyzing whether
the event or proceeding subjects the individual or firm to a
statutory disqualification pursuant to Section 3(a)(39) of the Act
(15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(39). FINRA adopted a $110 fee for the review of a
Form BD, which mirrors the increased fee adopted for the review of
Forms U4 and U5. As such, the Exchange is adopting the identical fee
for FINRA's review of a Form BD submitted by Non-FINRA Member
Organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $15 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set
of fingerprints submitted electronically to FINRA, plus any other
charge that may be imposed by the U.S. Department of Justice for
processing each set of fingerprints; \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Section (4)(b)(4) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-laws
effective on January 2, 2013. The current applicable fee is $13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $30 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set
of fingerprint cards submitted in non-electronic format to FINRA, plus
any other charge that may be imposed by the U.S. Department of Justice
for processing each set of fingerprints; \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Section (4)(b)(5) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-laws
effective on January 2, 2013. The current applicable fee is $13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $30 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set
of fingerprint results and identifying information that have been
processed through another self-regulatory organization and submitted to
FINRA; \13\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Section (4)(b)(6) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-laws
effective on January 2, 2013. The current applicable fee is $13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     $45 annually for system processing for each registered
representative and principal.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Section (4)(b)(7) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-laws
effective on January 2, 2013. The current applicable fee is $30. The
proposed system processing fee would become effective for the 2013
Renewal Program. In this regard, as part of FINRA's 2013 Renewal
Program, Preliminary Renewal Statements reflecting the proposed $45
system processing fee will be made available in the fourth quarter
of 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise
intended to address any other issues surrounding regulatory fees and
that the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member
organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the change is reasonable because the
proposed fees are identical to those adopted by FINRA for use of the
CRD system for disclosure and the registration of FINRA members and
their associated persons. As FINRA noted in amending its fees, it
believed that the fees are reasonable based on the increased costs
associated with operating and maintaining the CRD system, and listed a
number of enhancements made since the last fee increase, including (1)
Incorporation of various uniform registration form changes; (2)
electronic fingerprint processing; (3) Web EFT\TM\, which allows
subscribing firms to submit batch filings to the CRD system; and (4)
increases in the number and types of reports available through the CRD
system. These increased costs are similarly borne by FINRA when a Non-
FINRA Member Organization uses the CRD system. FINRA further noted its
belief that the proposed fees are reasonable because they help to
ensure the integrity of the information in the CRD system, which is
very important because the Commission, FINRA, other self-regulatory
organizations and state securities regulators use the CRD system to
make licensing and registration decisions, among other things.
    The Exchange also believes that the change is reasonable because it
will provide greater specificity regarding the CRD system fees that are
applicable to Non-FINRA Member Organizations. All similarly situated
member organizations are subject to the same fee structure, and every
member organization must use the CRD system for registration and
disclosure. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the fees collected
for such use should likewise increase in lockstep with the fees
assessed to FINRA members, as is proposed by the Exchange. The proposed
change, like FINRA's proposal, is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will result in the same regulatory fees being
charged to all member organizations required to report information to
the CRD system and for services performed by FINRA, regardless of
whether or not such member organizations are FINRA members.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change will result in the same regulatory
fees being charged to all member organizations required to report
information to the CRD system and for services performed by FINRA,
regardless of whether or not such

member organizations are FINRA members.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \17\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \18\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2012-77 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2012-77. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at NYSE's principal office or on the Web
site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NYSE-2012-77, and should be submitted on or before February 1, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00351 Filed 1-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


November 7, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Regulatory Impact Results for the Reconsideration Proposal for Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units

FROM:	Tom Walton
      Economist
      AEG (C439-02)

TO:		Toni Jones
                        Environmental Engineer
      FIG ( E143-03)

The EPA analyzed the economic impacts and benefits of this proposed rule using the methodology that was discussed in the final rule RIA and in the preamble to the final rule. See FR 76 15704.
The market impact results are very similar to the results in the final rule RIA. The Agency's economic model suggests average national price increases for industrial sectors are less than 0.0008 percent, while average annual domestic production may fall by less than 0.0005 percent.  Because of higher domestic prices, imports slightly rise by 0.0006 percent and exports fall by 0.0006 percent. The change in US surplus is now -270 million dollars (2006$). For the final rule RIA, the change in surplus was -283 million dollars (2006$). Table 1 shows the price, production, import, and export changes for this proposed rule, which are very close to the estimated changes for the final rule RIA.

Table 1.  Price, Production, Import, and Export Changes Resulting from the CISWI  Proposed Reconsideration
Industry Sector
U.S. Prices
U.S. Production
Imports
U.S. Consumption
Exports
Energy
0.001%
-0.001%
0.003%
-0.001%
0.000%
Nonmanufacturing
0.003%
-0.001%
0.002%
0.000%
-0.002%
Manufacturing

   Food, beverages, and textiles
0.001%
-0.001%
0.001%
0.000%
0.000%
   Lumber, paper, and printing
0.024%
-0.010%
0.024%
-0.006%
-0.017%
  Chemicals
0.000%
-0.001%
0.000%
-0.001%
0.000%
  Plastics and Rubber
0.000%
-0.001%
0.001%
-0.001%
0.000%
  Nonmetallic Minerals
0.071%
-0.017%
0.026%
-0.010%
-0.059%
  Primary Metals
0.001%
-0.001%
0.001%
-0.001%
-0.001%
  Fabricated Metals
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
  Machinery and Equipment
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
  Electronic Equipment
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
  Transportation Equipment
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
Other
0.000%
-0.001%
0.001%
0.000%
0.000%
Wholesale and Retail Trade
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
Transportation Services
-0.001%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
Other Services
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%

The results for sales tests for small businesses are lower for the reconsideration proposal than those calculated for the final rule. The number of small entities affected by the rule dropped from nine to five.  For the final rule, four of the nine had cost-to-sales percentages of more than 3 percent.  For the reconsideration proposal only two of the five had cost-to-sales percentages of more than 3 percent and the other three had small savings.  This is not a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The change in employment estimates between the final rule RIA and the reconsideration proposal is small. The estimated employment changes range between −500 to +1000 employees, with a central estimate of +300 employees for the final rule RIA. For the reconsideration proposal, the estimated employment changes range between −400 to +900 employees, with a central estimate of +200.
The health benefits were calculated using the methodology described in the final CISWI RIA, which is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/CISWIRIAfinal110221_psg2.pdf, using the revised emission reductions estimated for the reconsideration proposal. We were unable to estimate the benefits from reducing exposure to HAPs and ozone, ecosystem impairment, and visibility impairment, including reducing 22,000 tons of carbon monoxide, 590 tons of HCl, 3.1 tons of lead, 1.6 tons of cadmium, 290 pounds of mercury, and 94 grams of dioxins/furans. Please refer to the full description in the final CISWI RIA of the unquantified benefits as well as analysis limitations and uncertainties. These monetized benefits are approximately 4% lower than the final CISWI NSPS due to the slight decrease in emission reductions of PM2.5, SO2, and NOx.

Table 2: Summary of Monetized Benefits Estimates for CISWI Reconsideration Proposal
                                in 2015 (2008$)
                                   Pollutant
                          Emissions Reductions (tons)
                          Benefit per ton (Pope, 3%)
                          Benefit per ton (Laden, 3%)
                          Benefit per ton (Pope, 7%)
                          Benefit per ton (Laden, 7%)
                Total Monetized Benefits (millions 2008$ at 3%)
                Total Monetized Benefits (millions 2008$ at 7%)
Direct PM2.5
                                      670
                                   $230,000
                                   $560,000
                                   $210,000
                                   $500,000
                                                                           $150
                                      to
$370
                                                                           $140
                                      to
$340
   PM2.5 Precursors

SO2
                                     5,033
                                    $29,000
                                    $72,000
                                    $27,000
                                    $65,000
                                                                           $150
                                      to
$360
                                                                           $130
                                      to
$330
NO2
                                     5,405
                                    $4,900
                                    $12,000
                                    $4,400
                                    $11,000
                                                                          $26.0
                                        to
   $64.0
                                                                          $24.0
                                        to
   $58.0

                                      Total
                                                                           $330
                                        to
   $800
                                                                           $300
                                        to
   $720
*All estimates are for the implementation year (2015), and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across columns. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle type. The benefit per ton estimates vary because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to become PM2.5. The monetized benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor emissions to ambient fine particles. These estimates do not include benefits from reducing HAP emissions or ozone benefits.

Table 3: Summary of Estimated Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5 for the
                    CISWI Reconsideration Proposal in 2015*
Avoided Premature Mortality
Pope et al.
                                      37
Laden et al.
                                      94
Avoided Morbidity
Chronic Bronchitis
                                      25
Acute Myocardial Infarction
                                      59
Hospital Admissions, Respiratory
                                       9
Hospital Admissions, Cardiovascular
                                      19
Emergency Room Visits, Respiratory
                                      35
Acute Bronchitis
                                      59
Work Loss Days
                                     4,900
Asthma Exacerbation
                                      650
MRAD
                                    29,000
Lower Respiratory Symptoms
                                      710
Upper Respiratory Symptoms
                                      530

*All estimates are for the analysis year (2015) and are rounded to whole numbers with two significant figures. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle type. These estimates do not include benefits from reducing HAP emissions and ozone exposure, nor energy disbenefits associated with the increased emissions from additional energy usage.

           Figure 1: Breakdown of Monetized Benefits by Subcategory

Figure 2: Total Monetized PM2.5 Benefits Estimates for the CISWI Reconsideration Proposal in 2015

Table 4 shows the estimated costs and benefits for the reconsideration proposal. The estimated net benefits are almost the same as for the final rule RIA, which was $30 million to $470 million at 7 percent and was $60 million to $550 million at 3 percent.
            Table 4. Summary of Estimated Social Costs and Benefits
Category
                               Primary Estimate
                                 Low Estimate
                                 High Estimate
                                  Year Dollar
                                 Discount Rate
                                Period Covered
Benefits

Annualized    Monetized ($millions/year)

                                                                          $300
                                                                          $720
                                                                           2008
                                                                             7%
                                                                           2015

                                                                          $330
                                                                          $800
                                                                           2008
                                                                             3%
                                                                           2015
Costs

Annualized    Monetized ($millions/year)
                                                                          $271

                                                                           2008
                                                                             7%
                                                                           2015

                                                                          $271

                                                                           2008
                                                                             3%
                                                                           2015
Net Benefits

Annualized    Monetized ($millions/year)

                                                                           $30
                                                                          $450
                                                                           2008
                                                                             7%
                                                                           2015

                                                                           $60
                                                                          $530
                                                                           2008
                                                                             3%
                                                                           2015


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 15, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81142-81144]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27340]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0005; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8657]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur. Information identifying the current participation status of a
community can be obtained from FEMA's CSB available at www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/work-with-nfip/community-status-book.

Please note that per Revisions to Publication Requirements for
Community Eligibility Status Information Under the National Flood
Insurance Program, documents such as this one for scheduled suspension
will no longer be published in the Federal Register as of June 2021 but
will be available at www.fema.gov. Individuals without internet access
will be able to contact their local floodplain management official and/
or State NFIP Coordinating Office directly for assistance.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Details
regarding updated publication requirements of community eligibility
status information under the NFIP can be found on the CSB section at
www.fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives, new and
substantially improved construction, and development in general from
future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood
insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain
management measures with effective enforcement measures. The
communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory
requirement for compliance with NFIP regulations, 44 CFR part 59.
Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date
listed in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no
longer be available in the community. FEMA recognizes communities may
adopt and submit the required documentation after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. Their current NFIP participation status can be
verified at anytime on the CSB section at fema.gov.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the published FIRM is indicated in the fourth column of the
table. No direct federal financial assistance (except assistance
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for
construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for
communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than
a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone
areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42
U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of
federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the
date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and
public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and
unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been
adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the
community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary
action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--COMMUNITIES ELIGIBLE FOR THE SALE OF INSURANCE

0
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  List of eligible communities.

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Date certain  Federal
       State and location           Community    Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of    Current effective map     assistance no longer
                                       No.                   flood insurance in community                         date              available in SFHAs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Region V

Wisconsin:
    Argyle, Village of,                 550224  June 24, 1975, Emerg; August 15, 1979, Reg; December    Dec. 17, 2020..........  Dec. 17, 2020.
     Lafayette County.                           17, 2020, Susp.
    Belmont, Village of,                550225  July 25, 1975, Emerg; December 4, 1986, Reg; December   ......do *.............   Do.
     Lafayette County.                           17, 2020, Susp.
    South Wayne, Village of,            550231  January 29, 1987, Emerg; January 29, 1987, Reg;         ......do...............   Do.
     Lafayette County.                           December 17, 2020, Susp.

           Region VII

Iowa:
    Aplington, City of, Butler          190335  September 3, 2010, Emerg; September 16, 2011, Reg;      ......do...............   Do.
     County.                                     December 17, 2020, Susp.
    Aredale, City of, Butler            190035  November 3, 1975, Emerg; August 19, 1986, Reg;          ......do...............   Do.
     County.                                     December 17, 2020, Susp.
    Butler County,                      190850  July 5, 1994, Emerg; November 6, 2000, Reg; December    ......do...............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                       17, 2020, Susp.
    Clarksville, City of, Butler        190336  October 28, 1985, Emerg; September 6, 1989, Reg;        ......do...............   Do.
     County.                                     December 17, 2020, Susp.
    Dumont, City of, Butler             190036  July 21, 1975, Emerg; August 1, 1986, Reg; December     ......do...............   Do.
     County.                                     17, 2020, Susp.
    Greene, City of, Butler             190037  July 8, 1975, Emerg; October 15, 1982, Reg; December    ......do...............   Do.
     County.                                     17, 2020, Susp.
    New Hartford, City of,              190038  November 6, 1974, Emerg; September 29, 1986, Reg;       ......do...............   Do.
     Butler County.                              December 17, 2020, Susp.
    Parkersburg, City of, Butler        190337  N/A, Emerg; February 21, 2014, Reg; December 17, 2020,  ......do...............   Do.
     County.                                     Susp.
    Sheldon, City of, O'Brien           190216  July 25, 1975, Emerg; September 18, 1985, Reg;          ......do...............   Do.
     County.                                     December 17, 2020, Susp.
    Shell Rock, City of, Butler         190338  October 1, 1991, Emerg; May 1, 1992, Reg; December 17,  ......do...............   Do.
     County.                                     2020, Susp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*......do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

Katherine B. Fox,
Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration--FEMA Resilience, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-27340 Filed 12-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


 TESTIMONY OF DR. JOEL BALBIEN

AUGUST 30, 2007 EPA OZONE HEARINGS

Hello, my name is Dr. Joel Balbien, and I am speaking today as a Private
Citizen.  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today on
EPA’s proposal to revise the national air quality standard for ozone.

I am pleased that the Environmental Protection Agency is taking a step
toward cleaner air by proposing to strengthen the ozone air quality
standard.  According to the American Lung Association, the Los
Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside Metropolitan area is the most polluted in
the country for both Ozone and Particulates with an at risk population
of nearly 3.8 million people in LA county alone.  While, non-attainment
regions like southern California face great technological and economic
challenges in meeting even the existing and scientifically inadequate
standard, these local efforts will have a greater likelihood of success
if our appliances, transportation and capital equipment imported into
southern California are engineered under tighter national emission
standards.

Unfortunately, even EPA’s proposal falls short of the ozone standard
its own scientific advisors said is necessary to protect public health.
Furthermore, its proposal leaves open the possibility of not
strengthening the ozone standards at all, which may in turn leave many
non-attainment regions of the country, like southern California
vulnerable to a plateau in air quality improvements.

Ozone is a powerful pollutant that can burn our lungs and airways,
causing health effects ranging from coughing and wheezing to asthma
attacks and even premature death. Children, teenagers, senior citizens,
and people with lung disease are particularly vulnerable to the health
effects of ozone.  New clinical studies of otherwise healthy adults have
found decreased lung function, increased respiratory symptoms,
inflammation, and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection at
or below the current standard of 0.08 parts per million.

The independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee reviewed a 2,000
page summary of the scientific research of the health impacts of ozone
and unanimously concluded that the current ozone standard is not
adequate to protect human health.   As a result, the Committee
recommended setting a new ozone standard in the range of 0.060 to 0.070
parts per million.

EPA’s proposal to strengthen the standard to within a range of 0.070
to 0.075 parts per million, or even retain the current ozone standard is
weaker than what the agency’s scientific advisors say is necessary to
protect public health.  In effect, EPA’s proposed standards would
protect millions of Americans but would continue to leave millions
more—particularly those with lung disease or who are otherwise
sensitive to air pollution, and in all likelihood, millions of people in
southern California—exposed to the harmful effects of dirty air.  I
agree with the scientific consensus and EPA Administrator Johnson that
the current standard is not good enough to protect public health.

Every American deserves to breathe clean air.  Those of us that live and
breathe in southern California, recognize that both government and
industry need very challenging macro air quality targets in order to
develop and deploy the regulatory strategies and technologies required
to achieve a significant improvement in air quality in our region, and
thereby protect the population.  EPA should reject industry pressure to
retain the current standard, listen to its own scientific advisors, and
instead adopt an ozone standard of 0.060 parts per million with no
“rounding loophole.”

It should also be noted that the incremental cost benefit analysis
utilized by air quality regulators, that assumes actual achievement of
the existing ozone and particulate standards nationwide, may
significantly underestimate the real health and other benefits of a
lower ozone standard consistent with the scientific evidence.  In
addition, many of the technological solutions for reducing ozone
precursors, motivated in part by a tougher ozone standard, will also
reduce dangerous diesel particulates, air toxins, unregulated greenhouse
gas emissions, and fuel consumption, thereby multiplying net benefits by
orders of magnitude.

Our president often talks about the importance of technology,
innovation, and entrepreneurship in solving our environmental and
energy-related problems.  However, it is very unlikely that these new
technologies will be developed and commercially adopted by industry and
consumers unless there are strong economic and regulatory incentives
that internalize the external costs of more inefficient and polluting
systems.

Imagine what our environmental and energy security situation in our
country would be today if back in 1985, the Congress, with the support
of the Department of Transportation and EPA, had the wisdom and
foresight to set a CAFÉ target of 40 or even 50 miles per gallon, and a
simultaneous ULEV mandate for all light duty vehicles purchased in the
United States by 2005.    If this had occurred, many of us would be
driving vehicles today with aerodynamic bodies made out of light-weight
composite materials, rolling on low resistance tires, powered by smart
internal combustion engines, clean-diesel, and Air or Plug In hybrid
drive trains.  In addition, the U.S. automotive industry, instead of
laying-off workers and losing market share to the Japanese, would be
leading the world in clean and efficient vehicles.   Regulated and
unregulated emissions would have been cut dramatically improving air
quality and lowering Green House Gas emissions.

In a similar manner, the EPA can help clean up our air here in southern
California and throughout the nation and drive the engine of
environmental innovation nationwide by focusing on the science, setting
aggressive macro targets for industry, and promoting market based
solutions where feasible to help industry and government meet the macro
standards at the lowest possible cost.

Thank you again for this opportunity to speak to you today.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3