18	expanding quickly with the growing concern around and

 19	acknowledgment of negative environmental health and

 20	economic impacts of fossil fuel powered vehicles.

1   affordably.  We have real pollution which creates

2

  problems.	T

echnology has been proven and we're

  3	betting our money on it and is available today.

  4	My current team supports the Clean Air Act

  5	and the medium- and heavy-duty policies in question.

  6	EPA can ensure that this transition happens in a

  7	timeframe that can address the most pressing emission

  8	issues that we face.

  9	Transportation is the single largest source

 10	of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

 11	Their diesel power vehicles represent a small fraction

 12	of the nation's fleet and a majority of the planet

 13	warming emissions that contribute to our pollution

 14	such as nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and very fine

 15	particles (unintelligible) and the toxic mixture of

 16	other (unintelligible) including benzene a known

 17	carcinogen.	Diesel emissions account for nearly a

 18	quarter of the nation's transportation sector

 19	emissions comprising 90 percent of the total energy

 20	related CO emissions in 2019, according to the Energy

  1	upgrading the requests for Waivers, the EPA would

  2	(unintelligible) several years of California

  3	heavy-duty truck regulations creating major

  4	applications for California's climate goals.

  5	That only affects other states that have

  6	adopted California's strict regulations for Zero

  7	Emissions for heavy-duty trucks.	Regulations that are

  8	effective are California's heavy-duty Omnibus Rule to

  9	curb nitrogen oxide emissions from diesel trucks by

 10	90 percent starting in Model Year 2027.	Massachusetts

 11	has adopted California's rule (unintelligible) in

 12	2025.

 13	The second regulation is EPA's Truck Rules

 14	which require a percentage of new trucks to be

 15	zero-emissions.	Other states have adopted this

 16	regulation:	Washington, New York, New Jersey and

 17	Massachusetts.	Maine, Colorado, Connecticut,

 18	Maryland, and Vermont are ready to adopt this Rule as

 19	well.	Policy makers and stakeholders across the

 20	country are clearly in support of these Regulations

  1	THE MODERATOR:	As a reminder, speak slowly

  2	and clearly so the court reporter and interpreters can

  3	accurately capture your testimony.

  4	Our next speaker will be Den Mark Wichar, but

  5	I can't find you in the list of attendees.	If you

  6	joined by a different name, can you please raise your

  7	hand, or if you are on the phone, select Star-9 to

  8	raise your hand.	I'm not seeing any raised hand, so

  9	we'll move on to the next speaker, Victoria Paykar.

 10	State your name and affiliation for the record.

 11	MS. PAYKAR:	Good afternoon to all of the EPA

 12	advocates that have been testifying.	My name is

 13	Victoria Paykar.	I am the Oregon Transportation

 14	Quality Manager at Climate Solutions.	I'm calling in

 15	today from Portland, Oregon.	Climate Solutions is a

 16	nonprofit in the Pacific Northwest working to

 17	accelerate Clean Energy solutions at the time of

 18	crisis.

 19	On behalf of Climate Solutions, I am

 20	testifying today in strong support of the Clear Air

  1	events fueled by climate change such as heat waves,

  2	climate fires, floods and more.

  3	Climate Solutions spent last year working

  4	with the people of Oregon and Washington to ensure the

  5	Pacific Northwest follows California in adopting the

  6	Clean Truck Rules.	As part of a strong statewide

  7	coalition, we joined advocates across the Pacific

  8	Northwest with the goal of reducing public health

  9	harms, achieving our greenhouse gas reduction targets

 10	in the transportation sector, and supporting a just

 11	transition.

 12	While EPA has proposed new vendors to reduce

 13	pollution from (unintelligible) vehicles and engines,

 14	research shows that these measures are inadequate to

 15	achieve the scientifically determined emission

 16	reductions we need in the sector that corresponds with

 17	our (unintelligible) working on the reduction with the

 18	Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as

 19	necessary.

 20	Meanwhile California Air Research supports

  1	U.S. largest source of emissions.	Medium- and

  2	heavy-duty vehicles make up 26 percent of the

  3	transportation emissions despite comprising just 10

  4	percent of vehicles on U.S. roads.	Toxic pollution is

  5	linked to higher rates of cancers, heart disease,

  6	respiratory disorders and premature death.	This

  7	pollution disproportionately harms low income and

  8	black and people of color who often live adjacent to

  9	highways, ports and other pollution hot spots due to

 10	housing (unintelligible) and economic policies.

 11	The Advanced Clean Trucks Rule and the Low

 12	NOx Omnibus Rule are powerful and complimentary rules

 13	that must be translated together in order to justify

 14	zero-emission in the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle

 15	market while curbing toxic pollution from the

 16	continued sale of diesel engines.	It is vital that as

 17	we advance the rule to transition to Zero-Emission

 18	trucks, the Low NOx rule is also placed

 19	(unintelligible) as soon as possible.

 20	Securing a (unintelligible) transition to

  1	planning on adopting the Clean Truck Rule are waiting

               2	on EPA Clean Air Act Exemption Waiver in order to

  3	enact these Rules as well.	Our states are counting on

               4	these regulations to meet our pollution reduction

  5	goals.	California has led and continues to lead the

               6	177 Clean Air Act states for responsible emission

              7	standards that meet the climate crisis and improve

               8	public health.	We are counting on you to meet the

              9	demands of what science requires of us in order to

 10	mitigate extreme effects of climate change hence

 11	improving the public health of Americans.

 12	Thank you so much for your consideration and

 13	for your time.

 14	THE MODERATOR:	Thank you for your comment.

 15	Next speaker is George Marlin.	I can't find you in

 16	the list of attendees.	If you have joined us under a

 17	different name, please raise your hand.	If you are

 18	calling in by phone, you can do that by selecting

 19	Star-9.	Still not seeing George.	We've move on to

 20	the next speaker, Tom Jordan.	State your name and

              1	that are required to be met to grant a Waiver under

              2	Section 209 have been met.	We believe the answer an

  3	all three cases is yes.	First, California needs

  4	approval of the Waivers due to compelling and

              5	extraordinary conditions.	The eight counties in the

              6	San Joaquin Valley face one of the most challenging

  7	air quality situations in the nation.	This is

  8	primarily due to the valley's topography, climate and

              9	geography and the presence of the major north/south

 10	freight corridor on the West Coast.

 11	The San Joaquin Valley is an extreme

 12	(unintelligible) for the National Air Quality Standard

 13	for Ozone and is a serious nonattainment area of pm

 14	2.5.	Heavy-duty truck emissions is the single largest

            15	source of nitrogen oxide emissions in the San Joaquin

 16	Valley and these emissions are the primary driver of

 17	ozone and pm 2.5 formation in the region.

                18	In 2018, the San Joaquin Valley Air District

            19	and CARB submitted plans to attain the 1997, 2006 and

 20	2012 pm standards.	These plans are control measures

  1	California will be finalizing and submitting plans to

  2	demonstrate attainment under the 2015 ozone standards.

  3	In order to attain that standard, both the San Joaquin

  4	Valley and Southcoast Air Quality Management District

  5	will need the emission reductions from the Waivers

  6	that CARB has requested approval of to reach

  7	attainment.

  8	Second, the standards proposed by California

  9	are more stringent and health protective than EPA

 10	requirements.	An analysis of the measures submitted

 11	by California shows significant additional emission

 12	reductions over existing Federal measures.	The

 13	District has petitioned EPA to adopt more national

 14	controls and has requested that those controls at

 15	least match the controls that have been adopted in

 16	California in order to better control vehicles from

 17	out of state that travel through our region.

 18	Finally, the EPA has requested and answered

 19	the question of Waiver Request meet the phase-in

 20	requirements of Section 202.	California in some cases

             1	Joaquin Valley and it included demonstration of ultra

             2	Low NOx engines, .02 (unintelligible) diesel fuel for

  3	heavy-duty trucks and the deployment of battery

  4	electric vehicle trucks.	Additionally we believe that

  5	the public record and compliance dates proposed by

             6	CARB meet the lead time requirements of Section 202.

  7	The District strongly encourages EPA to

             8	authorize these Waivers as expeditiously as possible,

             9	especially given the urgent need for these emissions

 10	for reduction for the upcoming plans to attain the

 11	2015 standards.

 12	Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

 13	THE MODERATOR:	Thank you for your comment.

            14	At this time we have no one scheduled to speak during

            15	the current time slot.	If there was anyone scheduled

            16	to speak earlier and if you were unable to speak, you

 17	can now do so.	Please raise your hand in Zoom using

 18	the raise hand function at the bottom of your screen

 19	or dial Star-9, if you have joined us by phone.

              20	I'm not seeing any raised hands.	Looking at                                           1	did we want to see if anyone from the next speaker

  2	block is on already and we can roll right into those

  3	folks and see what that looks like, if you don't mind.

  4	THE MODERATOR:	We do.	I am seeing a raised

  5	hand from -- two raised hands now from Veena and

  6	Marven.	I will start with Veena here.

  7	Did someone -- there we go.	Veena, you are

  8	now a panelist.	Could you state your name and

  9	affiliation for the record?

 10	MS. DHARMARAJ:	Good afternoon.	I am Veena

 11	Dharmaraj, Director of Transportation at the

 12	Massachusetts Chapter of the Sierra Club.	Thank you

 13	for the opportunity to testify.

 14	I am here to urge you to issue California the

 15	Waivers for Advanced Heavy Omnibus Rules quickly and

 16	in full.	Issuing these Waivers will save lives,

 17	create new green jobs and help mitigate the

 18	advancement of climate change.	Massachusetts adopted

 19	both the ACT and Clean Truck Rules earlier this year.

 20	These regulations are crucial in fighting against

  1	health, economic and climate benefits to our

  2	communities.

  3	Transportation electrification is also a key

  4	strategy that Massachusetts is pursuing to reduce

             5	emissions from the sector to reach net zero by 2050.

             6	The Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan call

  7	for 50,000 medium and heavy-duty electric vehicles on

  8	our roads in this decade.	We are also signatory to

  9	the multistate MOU tracks and targets the purchase of

 10	medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales to zero-emission

 11	by 2030.	There's no time to lose if we are to meet

 12	those goals.

 13	Several states, including Massachusetts, as

 14	well as manufacturers are already moving toward

 15	transition to electric trucks to clean up deadly

 16	diesel pollution combat the climate crisis.	To

 17	encourage faster adoption, Massachusetts has set up EV

 18	truck rebates to reduce upfront costs of electric

 19	trucks and is offering advisory services to help fleet

 20	operators plan this transmission.

               1	the strongest Clean Truck Rules now.	Any delay or

  2	partial Waiver will be disastrous.	It will prolong

              3	the suffering of those experiencing the results of

  4	truck pollution and send a wrong signal to

  5	manufacturers and states that have adopted a plan to

  6	adopt these regulations.

  7	In conclusion, I ask that the EPA approve the

  8	Waivers to California in full granting California

  9	these Waivers will slash air pollution, provide

 10	regulatory certification to vehicle manufacturers,

 11	create jobs and ensure an adequate supply of electric

 12	trucks consumers in the Commonwealth.

 13	Thank you so much for your consideration.

 14	THE MODERATOR:	I am going to pass it over

 15	to, before we move on to the next speaker, I'm going

 16	to pass it over to my colleague, Kayla Steinberg to

 17	continue with moderating this hearing.	Thank you.

 18	THE MODERATOR:	The next speaker willing Joan

 19	Schiller.	State your name and affiliation for the

 20	record.

  1	Director of the Inova Schlar Cancer Center in Fairfax,

  2	Virginia.	Before that, was Deputy Director of the

  3	University of Texas, Southwestern Comprehensive Cancer

  4	Center in Dallas.

                 5	I have published extensively on lung cancer.

  6	I have served on numerous leadership positions on

  7	professional cancer organizations and have served on

  8	committees for the National Cancer Institute, American

  9	Cancer Society, and American Society for Political

 10	Oncology and others.

 11	I know you have heard today extensive

 12	testimony about the impact of the burning gas and

 13	diesel on climate and health.	I am not going to take

 14	up your time to reiterate those points here.	Instead,

 15	I would like to address one health problem you may not

 16	have considered and that is lung cancer.

 17	Lung cancer is responsible for nearly one

 18	quarter of cancer deaths in the U.S. each year, about

 19	180,000 Americans.	It kills more Americans each year

 20	than does breast cancer, colon and prostate combined.

  1	Even with the newer -- of the many newer more

  2	effective treatments that have become available, the

  3	five-year survival for patients diagnosed with

  4	metastatic lung cancer is only six percent.	Lung

  5	cancer is a disease you do not want to get.	So why do

  6	I mention these dismal statistics?	Because air

  7	pollution is a Class 1 carcinogen as labeled by the

  8	International Agency for Research on Cancer.

  9	So the word carcinogen means it causes

 10	cancer.	And the cancer air pollution causes is lung

 11	cancer.	Air pollution is responsible for about

 12	14 percent of all lung cancer deaths worldwide and

 13	causes lung cancer even in people who have never

 14	smoked.	I saw these patients every day in my

 15	practice.	I recall a 35-year-old woman, never smoked,

 16	who presented with non-small cell lung cancer that had

 17	spread to her bones, brains and other lung.	She was a

 18	gastroenterologist, a physician, a mother of two and a

 19	long-distance runner, and she died of metastatic lung

 20	cancer two years after her diagnosis.

             1	that they survived long enough to see their children

              2	graduate high school and become independent adults.

               3	While we'll never know if air pollution was

             4	responsible for their particular lung cancers, we do

             5	know the incidence of lung cancer in people who have

             6	never smoked is rising, particularly in young women.

                 7	As you heard, more than 45 million people in

              8	the U.S. live within 300 feet of a major roadway or

              9	transportation facility.	And 72 million people live

            10	within 200 meters of a truck freight route.	People of

            11	color and those with lower incomes are more likely to

            12	live near truck routes.	So many millions of people in

 13	the U.S. are being exposed to these carcinogens.

 14	As an oncologist, my colleagues and I have

           15	seen the impact of air pollution firsthand on patients

 16	with no history of smoking developing lung cancer,

 17	patients unable to access cancer care due to the

            18	disruptions associated with floods and hurricanes and

            19	other extreme weather events.	And patients with lung

           20	cancer who are heavily impacted by air pollution, heat                                           1	We must prevent these tragic deaths from lung

              2	cancer from happening.	We strongly urge the EPA to

           3	approve California's Waiver Request in full allowing

             4	the state to create the strongest possible limits on

              5	heavy-duty vehicle pollution thus saving lives from

  6	this terrible disease.	I thank you.

                  7	THE MODERATOR:	Thank you for your comment.

  8	As a reminder, if you are speaking today, you

              9	will receive a notification on your screen that you

 10	are being promoted to the role of panelist shortly

 11	prior to your speaking time.	You must click to accept

 12	that invitation to be able to be able to unmute when

 13	called to testify.	This will also allow to you turn

 14	on your camera which we encourage you to do.

                15	Speakers connected by telephone unmute their

 16	phone by pressing Star-6 when called to testify.

 17	Also a reminder to speak slowly and clearly

 18	so that our court reporter and interpreters can

            19	accurately capture your testimony.	If you cannot get

 20	through your prepared remarks in the five minutes

                  1	So the next speaker will be Marven Norman.

  2	Please state your name and affiliation for the record.

  3	MR. NORMAN:	My name is Marven Norman, a

             4	Policy Specialist for the Center of Community Action

             5	and Environmental Justice and a resident of Southern

  6	California, the City of San Bernardino.	And I am

  7	coming today on the, the, the proposal to make --

  8	grant California's Waivers and to talk about how that

  9	is just -- should be carried through.

 10	California, of course, has been given the

 11	opportunity to be granted a Waiver as long as it is

 12	meeting certain parameters, which we believe that the

 13	state has more than met so far.	We have been part of

 14	the, the, uhm, the community in helping lead CARB with

 15	their development of the proposals that they are now

 16	requesting Waiver for.	And we hope that the -- all

 17	this work has not been in vein.	We've determined if

 18	the Waiver is not granted, they would then have to

 19	basically start over, which could set back our

 20	communities by several years and throw into chaos all

  1	Administration, they have spoken, and they have noted

  2	the importance of prioritizing environmental justice

  3	and making sure that the community that's historically

  4	been disenfranchised or beginning to be made whole.

  5	And so with the truck rule, this is one way to

  6	definitely make sure that happens.	But that leads to

  7	Waivers.	These tools are really necessary for

  8	reducing the dangerous air pollution that impacts

  9	other communities here in Southern California and

 10	other similar environmental justice communities around

 11	the nation and that we want to make sure that these

 12	communities are allowed the opportunity to live full

 13	and productive lives absent pollution that comes from

 14	the heavy duty, uhm, uhm, trucking usage that, that

 15	currently happens because of diesel use.

 16	So we need our communities and the states

 17	that are opting into the Waiver to be able to have

 18	access to the policies and programs that get the most

 19	stringent reductions and they can't do that if they

  1	states have, if they are going to do more than the EPA

  2	does on its own.

  3	So we're calling on the EPA to make sure that

  4	we don't -- that you don't water down the standards

  5	and, and reject the Waiver and send everything into

  6	chaos.	We also need to know -- need to note that the

  7	there really should be a longer public notification

  8	window.	Because these, obviously, are very technical

             9	details and documents and we need time to be able to

 10	look through and get the information from them that

 11	is, that is relevant to our communities and learn how

 12	it impacts us.

 13	And so we are calling on you to increase that

 14	notice period that we can make sure all voices from

 15	our communities are heard.	And then, EPA, we really

 16	hope that you will continue to support more of the

 17	Waivers and allow California to set its own standards

 18	be able to --

 19	(Audio was lost)

  1	if you are having technical issues.

  2	MR. NORMAN:	I just saw the chat.	Yeah, I

  3	guess I will just say that we are hoping that the

  4	Waiver cannot be, uhm, denied and that it will stay

  5	and allow California to set the standards that we need

  6	to be able to keep our community safe.	Communities

  7	around the country are counting on you to keep them

  8	safe as well.	Thank you.

                  9	THE MODERATOR:	Thank you for your comment.

 10	For attendees that just joined and plan on

 11	speaking in this block, we're going a little bit out

 12	of order.	We started early.	Do not worry, we'll

 13	circle back to you.

 14	Our next speaker is Lindsey Mendelson.	State

 15	your name and affiliation for the record.

 16	MS. MENDELSON:	Thank you.	I think -- I'm

 17	just having trouble.	If the host can allow me to

 18	share my video -- oh, there we go.	My name is Lindsey

 19	Mendelson.	I'm the Transportation Representative with

 20	the Maryland Sierra Club.	Thank you for giving me the

              1	request in full in order to protect the public from

  2	breathing in pollution from medium- and heavy-duty

  3	vehicles that harm our health and also accelerates the

  4	climate crisis.

  5	I'm here to tell you that California's

  6	authority under the Clean Air Act to set emission

  7	standards is of great importance to Section 177 states

  8	and also in Maryland.	I live 1300 feet from Route 1

  9	Highway in Prince George's County that I cross daily,

 10	and I often see noisy, heavy-duty trucks especially

 11	when I am waiting at the bus stop on the road.	And I

 12	am worried about what this exposure to this pollution

 13	will have on my health in the long-term today.	And

 14	what the air quality index is for and I don't want to

 15	continue to look at the index every day to see if it

 16	is healthy to go outside and exercise.

 17	I also know that so many people in Maryland

 18	are at a high risk of breathing in this heavy

 19	pollution, especially communities that continue to

 20	face economic and racial injustices due to decades of

  1	heavy-duty trucks and buses make up only 9 percent of

  2	state's 4.2 million registered vehicles but they

  3	contribute a disproportionate 39 percent of nitrous

  4	oxide emissions and 48 percent of particulate matter.

  5	In the Baltimore region, nitrogen dioxide

  6	pollution contributes to more than 1300 cases of new

  7	cases of childhood asthma each year, and in some parts

  8	of Baltimore city as many as one in four new asthmas

  9	cases are attributable to this pollution.

 10	But it doesn't have to be this way.	Based on

 11	data from the recent International Council on Clean

 12	Transportation report, help like the Advanced Clean

 13	Truck Rule, which if this will be granted a Waiver,

 14	would avoid over 230 hospital admissions and emergency

 15	room visits, 270 premature deaths, and 116,000 cases

 16	of respiratory illnesses like asthma.

 17	This Waiver is of great importance and would

 18	allow us to adopt both the Advanced Truck Rule and

 19	heavy-duty NOx Rule as well.	This past year, the

 20	Maryland General Assembly adopted the Climate

  1	the state.	Allowing these policies to be adopted and

  2	enforced are critical to allowing our state to meet

  3	our climate target as well as the sales targets under

  4	the Memorandum of -- understanding that Maryland

  5	signed on to a few years ago.

  6	Therefore, in summary, I urge the

  7	administration to approve the Waivers in full to grant

             8	California the authority to create life-saving rules

  9	that will happy Marylanders breathe easier and also

 10	help our state meet our climate target.

 11	Thank you very much.

 12	THE MODERATOR:	Thank you for your comment.

 13	I know we have a couple more attendees that

 14	just joined.	So I just want to repeat, as a reminder,

 15	if you are speaking today you will receive a

 16	notification on your screen that you are being

 17	promoted to role of panelist shortly prior to your

 18	speaking time.	You must click to accept that

 19	invitation to unmute when you are called to testify.

 20	This will also allow you to turn on your camera, which

  1	clearly so the court reporter and interpreters can

  2	accurately capture your testimony.	If you cannot get

  3	through your prepared remarks in the five minutes

  4	allowed, you are welcome to submit your document to

  5	the docket list for consideration.

  6	I see some people have also joined from

  7	previous panels who did not get to speak.	If we have

  8	a chance at the end or while we are waiting for others

  9	to join, we'll get to you.

 10	Our next speaker will be Brian Urbaszewski.

 11	State your name and affiliation for the record.

 12	MR. URBASZEWSKI:	My name is Brian

 13	Urbaszewski.	Can I be heard now?

 14	THE MODERATOR:	Yes, we can hear you.

 15	MR. URBASZEWSKI:	Good afternoon.	My name is

 16	Brian Urbaszewski.	I am testifying as the Director of

 17	Environmental Health Programs at Respiratory Health

 18	Association in Chicago, a lung health nonprofit

 19	founded in 1906 that aims to prevent lung disease,

 20	promote clean air, and help people live better through

  1	Certification Regulations, the Omnibus Low NOx

  2	Regulation and Heavy-Duty Emission Warranty

  3	Regulation.

  4	My organization just released a report

  5	looking at the health impacts from diesel engine

  6	exhaust in Illinois.	The results were shocking enough

  7	to be covered local papers and radio stations

  8	statewide.	Over 400 deaths each year and 5,000 asthma

  9	attacks a year are attributed to diesel exhaust in

 10	Illinois.	This was only from pm 2.5 not including the

 11	effects of ozone, smog-forming NOx, nor the CO2

 12	fueling global warming and consequent harms in the

 13	Midwest.

 14	This is third time I'm speaking for EPA this

 15	year.	All had to do with the air quality in Illinois.

 16	I spoke in front of the Agency because Illinois failed

 17	to meet the legal requirements for the 2008 Ozone

 18	standard in Metropolitan Chicago, which must now be

 19	bumped to severe nonattainment.	It also failed to

 20	meet the 2015 Ozone Standard and should be bumped up

  1	such zero-emission-Emission vehicles.	Standards that

  2	would help both reduce harmful local emissions that

  3	contribute to ozone and pm 2.5 levels in Illinois, as

  4	well as greenhouse gases.

  5	In addition to the direct pollutant inflation

  6	threats of illness and premature death, greenhouse

  7	gases are also a health threat.	Hotter, longer

  8	summers with higher temperatures lead to elevated

  9	ozone levels.	More and longer climate change lead to

 10	wildfires.	Many -- hundreds of miles of land are

 11	increasing pm 2.5 emissions in the Midwest and hotter

 12	and longer heatwaves kill and sicken more people.

 13	These threats disproportionately harm already

 14	vulnerable populations like children, elders, and

 15	those living with chronic lung and heart disease.

 16	Approximately a million people live in

 17	Illinois with asthma.	It has been shown that

 18	minorities have a disproportionate exposure to air

 19	pollution and worse asthma outcomes than prevalence

 20	levels would predict.	We found that asthma

  1	are 4.3 times more likely to wind up in the emergency

  2	room with asthma.	That is why we're trying to reduce

  3	mobile source air pollution that exacerbates asthma

  4	and other lung diseases.

  5	Communities of color are more concentrated in

  6	urban environments and face the highest diesel engine

  7	exhaust threats.	And people in EJ communities in

  8	close proximity to major concentrations of diesel

  9	vehicles at ports, rail yards, and mobile facilities

 10	in warehouse districts, in particular, are put at the

 11	highest risk.	We want to adopt California Vehicle

 12	Emission Standards in Illinois, that offer greater

 13	health protection for Illinois residents and allowed

 14	by the Clean Air Act.

 15	People here are urging our Governor to do

 16	more to reduce air pollution by adopting California

 17	Vehicle Standards such as the ACT and NOx Omnibus

 18	Rules.	We now have that option because Illinois has

 19	used all of the options that are more stringent and

 20	offer greater health protection than the Federal

  1	continue to follow decades-long precedent and approve

  2	the Waiver requested by California for its truck

  3	regulations.	And specifically the Waivers for the

  4	Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, the Advanced Clean Truck

  5	Rule, and the Heavy-Duty Emission Warranty Regulation

  6	Amendments.

  7	My organization fears that any partial denial

             8	of the more protective rules of California and other

  9	states have adopted will have to redo them, require

 10	them to go through an additional time-wasting exercise

 11	that not only makes them weaker and less protective,

 12	but wastes precious months and possibly years where

 13	people would otherwise be breathing cleaner air.

 14	The decision you face affects far more than

 15	the state of California.	Don't take away tools that

 16	can make the air cleaner and people healthier in

 17	states like Illinois.	In this decision, the lives and

 18	health of Americans must outweigh any business calls

 19	for less regulations and higher profitability.

  1	remarks in the five minutes allowed by speaking more

  2	slowly, you are welcome to submit them to the docket

  3	listed on the screen for consideration.

                   4	Our next speaker is Morgan Folger.	State

  5	your name and your affiliation for the record.

                 6	MS. FOLGER:	I'm Morgan Folger, like the

               7	coffee.	I am the Designation Zero Carbon Campaign

               8	Director with Environment America.	I am speaking

  9	today on behalf of Environment American's members and

 10	supporters across the country who want clean air and a

 11	healthy climate.

 12	Thank you EPA for your actions so far for

 13	cleaner trucks.	I urge you to approve California's

 14	Waiver Request in full so that we can move ahead with

 15	Rules for cleaner trucks.

 16	Each year pollution from cars, trucks and

 17	other vehicles cut short an estimated 58,000 lives,

 18	increases lung cancer, stroke and disease and other

 19	illnesses.	Trucks and buses are everywhere in our

  1	nitrogen oxide emissions and it is the heavy-duty

  2	vehicles that are, uhm, being considered to reduce

  3	pollution, make up only ten percent of the vehicles on

  4	our roads, and they contribute 45 percent of the

  5	transportation sector's nitrogen oxide pollution.

  6	Limiting the smog pollution from trucks will

  7	help save lives and more needs to be done to help curb

  8	health threatening air pollution especially from

  9	trucks.

 10	For California and many states across the

 11	country, those states are dealing with incredibly poor

 12	air quality working to do everything to clean up that

 13	pollution.	According to reports by Environmental

 14	Health California Research and Policy Center, over 28

 15	million Californians, about 70 percent of the state's

 16	population, experience over a hundred days of

 17	unhealthy air quality in 2020.	And 98 percent of

 18	California's population experience at least a month of

 19	higher days.

  1	transportation.

  2	So states should continue to lead the way

  3	towards that cleaner technology including

  4	zero-emission-Emission trucks which can help them

  5	address those local air pollution problems and meet

  6	their climate goals.	States have always been the

  7	incubators for climate policy and better address the

  8	climate crisis and taking steps further than, you

  9	know, the bare minimum.

 10	For 50 years U.S. states have had the

 11	explicit right granted under the Clean Air Act to

 12	protect residents' health and choose cleaner truck

 13	standards that are safer than the Federal standards.

 14	Currently six states representing more than 20 percent

 15	of the medium- and heavy-duty truck market are

 16	committed to adopting the Advanced Clean Trucks

 17	mandates, and more are considering the Rule.	And

 18	these leadership states are preparing for these

 19	all-electric trucks, and we shouldn't hold them back

 20	from making progress for cleaner air.

  1	Environmental Protection Agency can enforce stronger

  2	standards all across the country, not just in

  3	leadership states.

  4	And to the point that vehicle manufacturers

  5	are going to face challenges, the technology is

  6	already there to meet stronger standards.	I've been

  7	to many electric vehicle showcases, and actually one

  8	at the Department of Transportation just a couple

  9	weeks ago, where you can see the electric trucks

 10	firsthand are ready to roll onto our streets.	There's

 11	an electric semi-truck.	There are electric refuse

 12	trucks, school and transit and shuttle buses, terminal

 13	trucks for distribution centers and warehouses,

 14	electric postal trucks, and so many more that are

 15	already developed and ready to be deployed.

 16	And as states move ahead with these Rules, it

 17	will help grow even more investment in this new market

 18	for cleaner vehicles.	And these are the things we

 19	need in order to protect our planet.

  1	THE MODERATOR:	Thank you for your comment.

  2	Our next speaker is Greg Ohadoma.	State your

  3	name and affiliation for the record.

  4	MR. OHADOMA:	Good afternoon.	Greg Ohadoma.

  5	I'm the Policy Associate with the Northeast Community

  6	Council for NECEC.	NECEC's mission is for a just

  7	transition to a clean energy economy across New

  8	England and New York.

  9	I am here today to urge EPA to approve

 10	California's Waiver request in full, allowing

 11	California to create the strongest possible limits on

 12	heavy-duty vehicle pollution and to accelerate the

 13	transition to zero-emission-Emission vehicles.

 14	It is now clearer than ever that we must stop

 15	climatic decarbonization of our transportation sector.

 16	Moreover, giving states the option to adopt the

 17	earliest and strongest possible clean electric truck

 18	standards is necessary to promote environmental

 19	justice and to provide relief to our freight corridor

  1	If the EPA were to deny even part of the

  2	California Waiver Request, it represents a serious

  3	attack on communities.	The adoption of the ACT Rules

  4	will reduce the disproportionate burden of diesel

  5	emissions on environmental justice communities for far

  6	too long.	In delaying the Clean Trucks and Electric

  7	Truck Standards will prolong the suffering experienced

  8	by these communities that are living daily with

  9	impacts from racism, generations of marginalization of

 10	single families and redlining that make them

 11	vulnerable to pollution effects.

 12	The disproportionate impacts from air

 13	pollution on the environmental justice communities is

 14	one of the most extreme examples of racism that we see

 15	in our country today.	By approving the Waiver, we

 16	have an opportunity to right the wrongs of the past

 17	and build a clean future.

 18	And I would also like to note that the ACT

 19	Rule is not only a social market driver, the ACT rule

  1	So again, I want to note that NECEC urges the

  2	EPA to grant California the authority to create

  3	life-saving changes to reduce pollution and to

  4	accelerate the transition to zero-emission-Emission

  5	electric trucks and buses.

  6	Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

  7	THE MODERATOR:	Thank you for your comment.

  8	Our next speaker is Britt Carmon.	State your

  9	name and affiliation for the record.

 10	MS. CARMON:	Thank you.	Good afternoon.	I

 11	am Britt Carmon.	I'm a Senior Advocate for Clean

 12	Vehicle and Fuel at the Natural Resources Defense

 13	Council or NRDC.

 14	I'm here today on behalf of NRDC and its

 15	3 million members and activists who support our

 16	efforts to safeguard the rights of all people to clean

 17	air, clean water, and a healthy planet.	Eliminating

 18	heavy-duty vehicle and engine pollution is essential

 19	for protecting human health, community and our planet.

  1	Zero-Emission Powertrain Certification Regulation and

  2	Heavy-Duty Emission Warranty Regulation Amendment.

  3	For more than 50 years, such Waivers have

  4	allowed states to protect their citizens by adopting

  5	timely emission standards that exceed those at the

  6	Federal level.	The state level action is critically

  7	important especially for frontline communities.

  8	According to EPA's own estimates, approximately

  9	39 million people in the United States are exposed to

 10	elevated levels of diesel pollution and most of those

 11	who are exposed are low income people of color for

 12	decades.	Environmental Justice advocates have called

 13	for an end to the disparate impact that these

 14	frontline communities continue to experience.

 15	Anything less than fully granting these

 16	Waivers ignores the goal and is contrary to the

 17	Administration's commitment to Environmental Justice

 18	being a top priority, and stand in solidarity with

 19	these frontline communities and with the Moving

 20	Forward Network in calling on EPA to fully act in

  1	would cut Heavy-Duty NOx emissions by 90 percent

  2	resulting in approximately 2,480 avoid premature

  3	death, and over 2,000 avoid hospitalizations in

  4	California alone by 2050.	This translates to a total

  5	state health benefit of 23 billion from 2024 to 2050.

  6	Zero-Emission reduction and health benefits

  7	are also projected to improve in states that have

  8	adopted or considering to adopt the Omnibus Rule.	EPA

  9	is also considering the Waiver Request for Advanced

 10	Clean Trucks and other company rules.	If this Waiver

 11	is fully granted, this rule will increase

 12	zero-emission-Emission truck sales up to 40 to 75

 13	percent by 2035.	As well as the sales will create

 14	thousands of new jobs and cut toxic pollution

 15	communities.

 16	These emission reductions are vital.	And if

 17	a full Waiver is not granted, many of these vulnerable

 18	frontline communities will be exposed to higher

 19	pollution.

 20	With regards to the Final Waiver Request

  1	engine emissions control systems continue to function

  2	as designed throughout the engine's life.	So that

  3	emissions from that technology can remain as low as

  4	possible.

  5	In conclusion, anything less than the full

  6	approval of the three Waiver request under

  7	consideration by EPA is unacceptable.	Granting a

  8	partial Waiver will unnecessarily delay these

  9	life-saving emissions reductions and would have

 10	far-reaching impacts outside of California.

 11	For example, if the implementation of the

 12	Advanced Clean Trucks or Heavy-Duty Omnibus

 13	Regulations is delayed by two years, approximately

 14	39,000 tons of NOx benefits will be lost.	This will

 15	result in 480 premature deaths, and over 390

 16	hospitalizations in California alone.

 17	Additionally, not approving the full Waiver

 18	Request would fail to uphold this Administration's

 19	commitment to prioritize the EJ communities.

 20	The Trump Administration's Waiver action runs

                1	For new attendees, just so you know, we're

  2	going a little bit out of order.	Wait until you

  3	receive a notification on your screen that you are

              4	being promoted to the role of panelist.	You should

  5	get this shortly before your speaker time.	You must

  6	click that to accept the invitation to unmute when are

  7	called to testify.	This will allow you to turn on the

  8	camera, which we encourage you to do.

                  9	If you are connected by telephone, you can

 10	unmute by pressing Star-6 when called to testify.

 11	Also, speak slowly and clearly so the court

 12	reporter and interpreters can accurately capture your

 13	testimony.	If you do not get through your prepared

 14	remarks by speaking more slowly, you are welcome to

 15	submit it to the docket listed on the screen for

 16	consideration.

 17	The next speaker is Jaimini Parekh.	State

 18	your name and affiliation for the record.

 19	MS. PAREKH:	My name is Jaimini Parekh.	I'm

 20	an attorney with Earthjustice in our Northwest office.

  1	in Washington and represented the Natural Resources

  2	Defense Counsel, and DRCC Coalition comments.

  3	DRCC is a environmental justice organization

  4	that seeks to elevate the concerns of communities like

  5	the Duwamish Valley who are heavily impacted by goods

  6	movement pollution.

  7	We urge the EPA to adopt full the Waiver that

  8	would allow California to adopt the Advanced Clean

  9	Truck Rule, and Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule as well as

 10	other standards at issue approval.	These Waivers have

 11	allowed California to set emission standards that

 12	exceed those at the national level and allow other

 13	states to adopt more stringent standards.	In fact,

 14	the only way states can require more stringent

 15	emission standards than exists at the national level

 16	is adopting California's more stringent and protective

 17	those standards.	Washington's legislature recently

 18	required adoption of all of California's Mobile

 19	emission standards.

 20	EPA should continue to uphold its

  1	Washington's air quality.	The vast majority of trucks

  2	in the state use diesel-powered engines.

  3	Seventy-five percent of all trucks and up to

  4	97 percent of heaviest classes use these engines.

  5	They are the largest source of diesel exhaust in the

  6	state and these Rules, the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule and

  7	the Advanced Clean Truck Rule will have a major

  8	beneficial impact in reducing NOx pollution as well as

  9	reducing greenhouse gas pollution from the

 10	transportation sector in Washington.

 11	Diesel pollution has a major health impact on

 12	social justice communities in Washington and this

 13	pollution is disproportionately concentrated in high

 14	traffic corridors which often means communities of

 15	color and middle and low income communities like the

 16	Duwamish Valley communities are often located in close

 17	proximity to ports, railyards and distribution centers

 18	as sequence to of history land-use patterns and

 19	environmental racism.

 20	Residents of Duwamish Valley living in the

             1	pollution coming from commercial trucking is harming

  2	the health of their families.

  3	Of great concern, diesel pollution is a major

             4	and primary factor to cancer risk in Seattle.	Diesel

             5	risk contributed to over 70 percent of the potential

             6	cancer risk at sites the study evaluated in Seattle.

  7	The transportation sector is also the largest

             8	contributor in greenhouse gas emissions in the state

  9	of Washington and accounts for close to half of the

 10	state's greenhouse gas emissions.

 11	Transportation-sectors emissions are a principal

 12	factor causing an increase in total statewide

 13	emissions.	On-road emissions from gasoline and diesel

 14	account for 30.8 percent of Washington's total GHG

 15	emissions with diesel vehicles contributing 8 percent

 16	of the total statewide GHG emissions.

 17	We strongly urge EPA to adopt the full Waiver

 18	for the Advanced Clean Truck Rule, Heavy-Duty Omnibus

 19	Rule and other rules.	Doing so will help clean up

 20	toxic diesel pollution, help Washington achieve its

  1	THE MODERATOR:	Thank you for your comment.

  2	The next speaker will be Jack Symington.

  3	State your name and affiliation for the record.

  4	Jack Symington, I am not sure if you are

  5	trying to speak, but you are muted currently.

  6	MR. SYMINGTON:	Can you hear me now?

  7	THE MODERATOR:	I can hear you now.

  8	MR. SYMINGTON:	Appreciate the opportunity to

  9	make a comment at this Waiver of the California's

 10	Heavy-Duty program, the California Air Resources

 11	Board, and the agency in the environmental communities

 12	and the nonprofits have been working tirelessly for

 13	years and decades in ensuring that we can protect our

 14	air, that we can build an economy that advances the

 15	environmental and climate goals that we need.

 16	The Los Angeles Clean Tech Incubator focuses

 17	on the developing an inclusive green economy.	And

 18	this rule really, you know, the granting of these

 19	Waivers are really necessary for both of those things,

 20	not only to make it inclusive to ensure that the

  1	Zero-Emission technology becomes ever more needed to

  2	provide for the logistics needs, uhm, of California

  3	and the greater world.	It's really an opportunity not

  4	only for California to lead the world but the United

  5	States to be a leader.	A failure to grant the Waivers

  6	would have quite a chilling effect on companies that

  7	have invested in our leaders both nationally and

  8	globally in some of these zero-emission-Emission

  9	technologies.

 10	And so I would certainly encourage the EPA to

 11	grant these Waivers so that California and the U.S.

 12	can continue to lead in the development of these

 13	technologies and that the people of California

 14	suffering from the worst impacts of goods movement and

 15	that all Americans receive some respite from the

 16	pollution.

 17	I certainly urge you to grant these Waivers

 18	and I'm happy to relinquish the remainder of my time.

 19	Thank you.

 20	THE MODERATOR:	Thank you for your comment.

  1	grant the Waiver for these Rules.	These policies, you

  2	know, the ACT and HDL and others are necessary tools

  3	for reducing dangerous air pollution that continues to

  4	plague many of our environmental justice communities

  5	across the nation from numerous and deadly toxic

  6	diesel pollution, including my own.	I live in a

  7	hybrid community and it is really, really important to

  8	my neighbors and our community members here in the

  9	region.

 10	Our communities and our state should have

 11	access to policies and programs that call for the most

 12	stringent emission reduction projects.	These are

 13	Rules that save lives.	I really encourage EPA to

 14	approve the Waivers.

 15	Thank you very much.

 16	THE MODERATOR:	Thank you for your comment.

 17	The next speaker is Akashdeep Singh, but I

 18	don't see your name in the attendees list.	If you are

 19	present, please raise your hand.	If you are joining

 20	by phone -- although I don't see anybody joining by

  1	present, please raise your hand or press Star-9 so

  2	that I can raise you to a panelist.

  3	At this time we have no one else scheduled to

  4	speak during this time spot.	I can see, however that

  5	we have a speaker who is registered at a previous

  6	speaker block.	So, Angelique Espinoza, you may give

  7	your testimony now.	State your name and affiliation

  8	for the record.

  9	MS. ESPINOZA:	Thank you.	My name is

 10	Angelique Espinoza, Policy Director for Good Business

 11	Colorado.	I'm very pleased to be here today.	Thank

 12	you for the opportunity to speak.

 13	I'm working with a coalition to pass a

 14	similar Clean Trucks Rules in the state of Colorado.

 15	And I have business members across the state, over

 16	430, mostly small business members across the state

 17	who embrace the values of environmental sustainability

 18	and equitable communities as well as profitable

 19	business.	And these businesses by and large

 20	landscaper, caterers, solar installers, may have one

             1	their outside active summer camps when they have air

  2	quality like we are experiencing now.

                 3	And, of course, we have a lot of tourism and

             4	that tourism is largely dependent on having clean air

             5	and clean water and the beautiful space that we have

  6	in Colorado for people to enjoy.	As well as

  7	breweries, distilleries, people who also depend on

  8	clean water and the opportunity for people to sit

  9	outdoors and enjoy dining in the summertime.

 10	All of this to say that the business

 11	community that I speak with is very concerned about

 12	the air pollution as something that is causing them

 13	negative economic impacts right now.	Not at some time

 14	in the future, which we know is also coming, but

 15	really right now.	And they want to start replacing

 16	their vehicles with electric vehicles.	And they know

 17	that because they are smaller business it is going to

 18	take some time before they are able to buy those used

 19	from the larger businesses who are going to be getting

 20	the first ones that are coming off the line.	And with

  1	members in ensuring that if we're able to pass Clean

  2	Trucks Rules in Colorado, we will be able to enact and

  3	enforce them.	Your decision on California's Rules has

  4	a direct impact, of course, on us for the future.

                  5	So I would urge you today to please ensure

              6	that California is able to enact the laws that they

  7	have to get more clean trucks on the roads.	We know

              8	that they are, in fact, more affordable to own and

  9	operate over the long haul -- forgive the pun -- and

 10	that it is better for all of us if we get this

 11	polluting vehicle off the roads and enable business

 12	communities to embrace and be able to use the

 13	zero-emission-Emission vehicles.

 14	I would just point out that in addition to

 15	the smaller businesses that I work with, I was very

            16	pleased to see a letter from an association of truck

 17	manufacturers who actually support the Clean Trucks

 18	Rules.	And I saw a lot of large manufacturers of

 19	clean trucks who really embrace this opportunity to

 20	accelerate their production of clean trucks, both

  1	really appreciate your service.	I know that it is a

              2	lot of work and that you -- that you put your heart

  3	and soul and your best thought into it.

  4	Thank you very much and thank you for the

  5	opportunity to speak today.

  6	THE MODERATOR:	Thank you for your comment.

  7	If there's anyone else online that was

  8	scheduled to speak on this panel or an earlier panel

  9	and was unable to do so at that time, please raise

 10	your hand using the Zoom function or Star-9 if you

 11	joined us by phone.

              12	I don't see anyone else raising their hand.

 13	However, we did start this session a little bit early.

 14	In order to allow people who are scheduled to speak

 15	later in the session the opportunity to join later,

 16	we're going to take a brief break and be back at 4:40

 17	to make sure that there's nobody else who wishes to

 18	speak.	Thank you.

 19	(Recess)

  1	you can raise your hand via the Zoom function or if

  2	you are calling in, you can press Star-9, and you can

  3	speak now.

  4	MR. SIMON:	I think if there's somebody that

  5	hasn't been registered we can allow that or somebody

  6	that's on tomorrow's panel that would like to go

  7	today, since we have a little bit of time, we're happy

  8	to hear from anybody else.

  9	THE MODERATOR:	Just raise your hand either

 10	in the Zoom function or Star-9 and we can raise you to

 11	panelist so you can speak.

 12	THE MODERATOR:	It looks like there are no

 13	more speakers.	So we're now at the end of our

 14	afternoon session.	We will be concluding the virtual

 15	hearing for today.

 16	Karl, are we ready to conclude?

 17	MR. SIMON:	Yes.	I want to thank our

 18	speakers today.	We really appreciate you taking the

 19	time to share your views with us.	We look forward to

  1	listed in the Federal Registered Notice.

  2	Thank you again.	Thanks to the EPA Team and

  3	our interpreters and court reporter for today's work

  4	as well too and we will see everybody starting at Noon

  5	tomorrow.	Correct, Kayla?

  6	THE MODERATOR:	Correct.	Noon tomorrow.	I

  7	believe you can use the same link that you joined

  8	today to join tomorrow.

  9	Thank you for your patience.	Those who had

 10	to reregister, you may be prompted to do that

 11	tomorrow.	If you run into any issues, feel free to

 12	E-Mail me.	I'm the one that sends you the invite.	It

 13	should be easy to find my E-Mail address.

 14	MR. SIMON:	Thank you all.	Have a great rest

 15	of your day.	See you all tomorrow.

 16	(The Public Hearing was concluded at 4:43

 17	p.m.)

 18

 19

 20

1

 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

2

  STATE OF MICHIGAN

      )

3

      ) SS

4

  COUNTY OF OAKLAND

      )

5

  6	I, Robin D. Gadwa, Certified Shorthand

  7	Reporter, do hereby certify that the above hearing

  8	was taken before me at the time and place hereinbefore

  9	set forth; that the foregoing statements made by

 10	the speakers were duly recorded by me stenographically

 11	and reduced to computer transcription; that this is a

 12	true, full and correct transcript of my stenographic

 13	notes so taken; and that I am not related to, nor of

 14	counsel to any of the parties, nor interested in the

 15	event of this cause.

 16

 17

 18	ROBIN D. GADWA, CSR-2607, RPR, FPR, FAPR

 19	Notary Public

 20	Oakland County, Michigan


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="18/06/2008 02:19:24 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register: May 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 29142]
[DOCID:fr19my06-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-358-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Proposed
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

May 12, 2006.
    Take notice that on May 9, 2006, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 414A.01, to become
effective July 1, 2006.
    Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its
customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7706 Filed 5-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Aminopyralid (005100, 005209, 005219) Screening Level Usage Analysis
(SLUA) Date: March 18, 2014

What is a Screening Level  Usage Analysis  (SLUA)?

o Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

o Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then
merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not
proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What does it contain?

o Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

oAgricultural  use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be
used on. 	.

o Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce
80% or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases,
depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

o Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each
agricultural  crop.

o Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., forthe states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assum ptions canI make abou t the reported data?

o Average  pou nds of active  ingredient applied- Values are calculated
by merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all
observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is

less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values
between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated
values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)

o Average percent of crop  treated - Values are calculated by merging
data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5. If the estimated  value
is less than 1, then the

value is labeled <1.

o Maximum percent of crop treated- Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

Wha t are  the data sou rces used?

o USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agricultu re's National
Agricultural Statistics Service)pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2012.

o Private pesticide market resea rch- pesticide usage data from 2004 to
2012.

o California Department of Pesticide Regu lation  (DPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR)  data for

2004 to 2011.

What  are  the limitations to the data?

o Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the
available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

o Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

o Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
q uantified. In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

o Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito
control, etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.

A sepa rate request must be made to receive these estimates.

o Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited
to.Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection
errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

                                                                March
18, 2014

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Aminopyralid (005100,
005209, 005219)

Sorted Alphabetically- Reporting Time:  2004-2012

Percent Crop Treated

CropAverage

Lbs. A.I. Applied Ann ually

Average

Maximum1Corn<500<1<2.52Fallow<500<1<2.53Pastu
re90,000<2.5<2.54Wheat1,000<1<2.5

All numbers rounded.

<500 	Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient

<2.5 	Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated

< I	Less than I  percent of crop treated

SLUA data sources include:

USDA-NASS (United States  Department  of Agriculture's  National
Agricultural Statistics Service) Private Pesticide Market Research

These results reOect amal gamated  data developed  by the Agency and are
releasable to the publi c.


                  Notice for Class of '85 Stakeholder Meeting
 Rulemaking:  Federal Implementation Plan Addressing Regional Ozone Transport for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(The Good Neighbor Plan)
 Topics Discussed:  emissions trading, daily backstop rate design and implementation, scheduling retirements, perspectives on dynamic emissions budget and bank conversion approaches
 Date: 4/27/2022

                                  Attendees:
Kimberly Malm Adelberg, Southern Co
Alex Geisler, LG&E KU Energy
Christina Akly, Florida Power & Light
Geoff Greene, Evergy
David Baez, Orlando Utilities Commission
John Hampp, Florida Power & Light
Nedin Bahtic, Lakeland Electic
Ryker Harger, Vistra
Kyle Boudreaux, Florida Power & Light
Jeff Hansen, Basin Electric Cooperative
Chris Bradley, Duke Energy
Laura Herron, OGE Energy
Art Brunson, PowerSouth Energy Cooperative
Travis Hicks, Southern Company
Byron Burrows, TECO Energy
 David Hillesheim, Xcel Energy
Stephen Cain, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Cooperation
Joseph Hoch, Alliant Energy
Ian Carstensen, Tucson Electric Power
Claudette Horn, PNM Resources
Rebecca Cash, LG&E KU Energy
Melissa Horton, Southern Company
Stan Chivers, Entergy
Joshua Hudson, PowerSouth Energy Cooperative
Angelique Collier, AES Corporation
Michael Hutcheson, Ameren
Renee Collins, Vistra
Mike Kafka, Duke Energy
Patrick Coughlin, Duke Energy
Ilan Kaufer, Florida Power & Light
Gordon Criswell, Talen Energy
Dustin Kilcrease, PowerSouth Energy Cooperative
Kelli Dowell, Entergy
Kris Knudsen, Duke Energy
Jeremy Duis, Evergy
Patti Leaf, Xcel Energy
Erin Fox Dukart, Basin Electric Cooperative
Paul Ling, Evergy
Craig Eckberg, NRG Energy
Ana Lopenowski, Salt River Project
James Edwards, Arizona Public Service Company (APS)
Bill Matthews, Cleco
Jeff Everett, OGE Energy
John McCreight, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative
Zig Fang, Tucson Electric Power
Justin McDaniel, PowerSouth Energy Cooperative
Laura Finley, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative
Brian McQuown, OGE Energy
Patrick Flowers, Xcel Energy
Anine Merkens, Basin Electric Cooperative
Susan Margaret Floyd, Entergy
David Mohon, Southern Company
Ford Benham, OGE Energy
David Monro, Portland General Electric
Edwin Much, Talen Energy
Kara Montalvo, Salt River Project
Maile Murray, Cleco
Justin Soderberg, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative
Deb Nelson, Great River Energy
Keith Stephens, PowerSouth Energy Cooperative
Chuck Paradzick, Salt River Project
Walter Stone, NRG Energy
David Paulin, Talen Energy
Linda Sullivan, National Grid
Derek Picklesimer, Duke Energy
Rob Talley, Orlando Utilities Commission
Michele Pluta, Alliant Energy
Gregory Terry, NextEra Energy
Doug Post, Cogentrix
Melissa Rhodes, PowerSouth Energy Cooperative
Jon Reimann, AES Corporation
Rona Birnbaum, EPA
Kristin Watt, Salt River Project
Garrett Powers, EPA
Cathy Waxman, National Grid
Eric Holdsworth, EEI
Melissa Weglarz, Minnesota Power
John Kinsman, EEI
Thomas Weissinger, Talen Energy
Riaz Mohammed, EEI
Cindy Whitaker, LG&E KU Energy
Melissa Horton, EEI
Steven Whitworth, Ameren
Venu Ghanta, EEI
Russell Wider, City of Tallahassee
Will Ruzicka, EPA
Jason Wilkerson, LG&E and KU Energy
Kate Corcoran, EPA
Dan Wilkus, Evergy
Michael Cohen, EPA
Liz Willoughby, Dominion Energy
George Bowker, EPA
Arthur Zimmerman, Xcel Energy
Liz Selbst, EPA
Terry Torrens, Orlando Utilities Commission
Beth Murray, EPA
David Triplett, Entergy
David Lifland, EPA
Rob Velasco, TECO Energy
Melanie LaCount, EPA
Cynthia Vodopivec, Vistra
Jeb Stenhouse, EPA
John Shortess, Entergy
Dan Schramm, EPA
 Justin Walters, Southern Company
Brian Fisher, EPA
Mike Geers, Duke Energy


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16329-16330]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06857]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0083; FRL-9924-74-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer
County Air Pollution Control District and the Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District
(PCAPCD) and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)
portion of

the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the surface coating of
plastic parts and products, metalworking fluids and direct-contact
lubricants. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATE: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by April 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number: EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0083 by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3024<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local
rules: PCAPCD Rule 249 and VCAPCD Rule 74.31. In the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these
local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we
believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive
adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based
on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment
on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so
anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: February 27, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-06857 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53151-53152]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21372]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0273; FRL-9931-70]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The ICR, entitled: ``TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for
Existing Chemicals'' and identified by EPA ICR No. 1188.12 and OMB
Control No. 2070-0038, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that
is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2016. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in
this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the
docket for public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0273, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about

dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Jeffrey Taylor, Chemical Control Division (7405-M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8828; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing
Chemicals.
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 1188.12.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0038.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on July 31,
2016. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after
appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or
by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
provides EPA with a regulatory mechanism to monitor and, if necessary,
control significant new uses of chemical substances. Section 5
authorizes EPA to determine by rule (i.e., a significant new use rule
or SNUR), after considering all relevant factors, that a use of a
chemical substance represents a significant new use. If EPA determines
that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, section 5
requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA
at least 90 days before they manufacture, import, or process the
substance for that use.
    EPA uses the information obtained through this collection to
evaluate the health and environmental effects of the significant new
use. EPA may take regulatory actions under TSCA section 5, 6 or 7 to
control the activities for which it has received a SNUR notice. These
actions include orders to limit or prohibit the manufacture,
importation, processing, distribution in commerce, use or disposal of
chemical substances. If EPA does not take action, section 5 also
requires EPA to publish a Federal Register notice explaining the
reasons for not taking action. This information collection addresses
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements inherent in TSCA section 5
significant new use rules.
    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40
CFR part 721). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice
confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim
of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance
with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 16.3
hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are companies that manufacture, process, import, or distribute
in commerce chemical substances or mixtures.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 6.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
1.1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 1,025 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $100,595. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $ 100,595 and an estimated cost of $ 0 for capital
investment or maintenance and operational costs.

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is a net increase of 289 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase reflects EPA's updating the number of
affected sites (from 4.24 to 6.06 per year), the average number of
SNUNs submitted annually (from 7 SNUNs to 10 SNUNS per year),
recalculating the average number of chemicals per SNUR (7 chemicals to
8 chemicals), and correcting rounding errors in the burden estimate for
completing a SNUN, (92.2 hours to 91.68 hours), and rule
familiarization (0.83 hours to 0.82 hours). Details about these changes
are found in the Supporting Statement. This change is an adjustment.

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

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

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: August 6, 2015.
James Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2015-21372 Filed 9-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26070-26071]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10533]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1512]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title
44, part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The
LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the
dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS
report in effect prior to this determination for the listed
communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard
determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: April 22, 2015.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Chief executive                         Online location of
        State and county           Location and  case      officer of         Community map        letter of  map       Effective date of     Community
                                          No.               community          repository             revision             modification          No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho: Ada......................  City Of Boise        The Honorable       City of Boise,      http://                August 3, 2015.......       160002
                                   (14[dash]10[dash]2   David Bieter,       Planning and        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   112P).               Mayor, City of      Development         lomc.
                                                        Boise, P.O. Box     Services, City
                                                        500, Boise, ID      Hall, 150 North
                                                        83701.              Capital
                                                                            Boulevard, Boise,
                                                                            ID 83701.

Illinois:
    Kane........................  City of Aurora       The Honorable       City Hall,          http://                August 6, 2015.......       170320
                                   (15[dash]05[dash]0   Thomas Weisner,     Engineering         www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   787P).               Mayor, City of      Department, 44      lomc.
                                                        Aurora, 44 East     East Downer
                                                        Downer Place,       Place, Aurora, IL
                                                        Aurora, IL 60505.   60505.
    Kane........................  (Unincorporated      The Honorable       Kane Village Hall,  http://                August 6, 2015.......       170896
                                   Areas) (15-05-       Christopher         Main Street, P.O.   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   0787P).              Lauzen, Kane        Box 167, Kane, IL   lomc.
                                                        County Chairman,    62054.
                                                        Kane County
                                                        Government
                                                        Center, 719 South
                                                        Batavia Avenue,
                                                        Building A
                                                        Geneva, IL 60134.
Massachusetts: Plymouth.........  Town Of Hingham      Ms. Irma Lauter     Town Hall 210       http://                August 14, 2015......       250268
                                   (15[dash]01[dash]0   Chair, Board of     Central Street      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   904P).               Selectman Town      Hingham, MA 02043.  lomc.
                                                        Hall 210 Central
                                                        Street Hingham,
                                                        MA 02043.
Michigan: Macomb................  Township of          Mr. Dan O'Leary     57900 Van Dyke      http://                August 3, 2015.......       260447
                                   Washington           Township            Avenue              www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   (14[dash]05[dash]8   Supervisor,         Washington, MI      lomc.
                                   670P).               Township of         48094.
                                                        Washington 57900
                                                        Van Dyke Road
                                                        Washington, MI
                                                        48094.
Minnesota: Clay.................  City Of Moorhead     The Honorable Del   500 Center Avenue   http://                August 14, 2015......       275244
                                   (15[dash]05[dash]0   Rae Williams,       Moorhead, MN        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   455P).               Mayor, City of      56561.              lomc.
                                                        Moorhead,
                                                        Moorhead City
                                                        Hall, 500 Center
                                                        Avenue, Moorhead,
                                                        MN 56561.
Missouri:
    Jefferson...................  City of De Soto (15- The Honorable       17 Boyd Street, De  http://                August 7, 2015.......       295263
                                   07-0329P).           Werner Stichling,   Soto, MO 63020.     www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                        Mayor, City of De                       lomc.
                                                        Soto, 17 Boyd
                                                        Street, De Soto,
                                                        MO 63020.
    Jefferson...................  (Unincorporated      The Honorable Ken   300 Main Street,    http://                August 7, 2015.......       290808
                                   Areas) (15-07-       Waller, Jefferson   P.O. Box 100,       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   0329P).              County Executive,   Hillsboro, MO       lomc.
                                                        Jefferson County    63050.
                                                        Administration
                                                        Center, 729 Maple
                                                        Street, Suite G30
                                                        Hillsboro, MO
                                                        63050.
Virginia: Fairfax...............  City Of Fairfax      The Honorable       10455 Amstrong      http://                August 7, 2015.......       515524
                                   (15[dash]03[dash]0   Scott               Street, Room 200,   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                   545P).               Silverthorne,       Fairfax, VA 22030.  lomc.
                                                        Mayor, City of
                                                        Fairfax, Fairfax
                                                        City Hall, 10455
                                                        Amstrong Street,
                                                        Room 316 Fairfax,
                                                        VA 22030.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-10533 Filed 5-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P