[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 24 (Monday, February 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8566-8569]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02535]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0209; FRL-10019-69-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Sulfur Content Limitations for
Fuels

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of New Hampshire on March 11, 2019. This revision establishes
sulfur content limitations for fuels. In addition, the State requests
withdrawal from the SIP of the existing sulfur limitations regulation,
which will be superseded if and when EPA takes final action on the
State's revised sulfur limitations regulation. The intended effect of
this action is to propose approval of the State's March 11, 2019
submittal into the New Hampshire SIP. This action is being taken under
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2020-0209 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1697, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. New Hampshire's SIP Revision
III. EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revision
    a. Liquid Fuels
    b. Solid Fuels
    c. Gaseous Fuels
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    New Hampshire's Env-A 400 Sulfur Content Limits of Fuels was
approved by EPA as a revision to the New Hampshire SIP on August 14,
1992 (57 FR 36603). Env-A 400 Sulfur Content Limits of Fuels was
subsequently renumbered by the state as Env-A 1600 Fuel Specifications
(Env-A 1600). Env-A 1600 was submitted to EPA as a revision to the SIP
in 2003 with a subsequent amendment submitted in 2015. However, New
Hampshire withdrew both submittals prior to EPA action. Effective July
1, 2018, New Hampshire's Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 125-C:10-d
was amended to reduce the sulfur limits in liquid fuels imported into
or distributed within the State. The State's March 11, 2019 SIP
submittal of revised Env-A 1600 Fuel Specifications implements the
state statute, (RSA) 125-C:10-d as amended.
    Env-A 1600 is intended to prevent, abate, and control the use of
fuels containing specific pollutant elements and compounds. In
conjunction with the submittal of Env-A 1600, on May 22, 2019, the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES)

requested removal of Env-A 400 Sulfur Content Limits in Fuels, which
currently exists in the New Hampshire SIP but has been superseded as a
matter of state law by Env-A 1600. Env-A 400 is now a state regulation
unrelated to sulfur limitations in fuels.

II. New Hampshire's SIP Revision

    On March 11, 2019, the NH DES submitted a SIP revision to EPA. This
SIP revision includes Env-A 1600 Fuel Specifications, with amendments
to Env-A 1603 and 1604 Sulfur Content Limitations effective December
21, 2018. The amended Env-A 1603 and 1604 lower the allowable limits
for the sulfur content of liquid and solid fuels. The submitted Env-A
1600 removes the provisions of the EPA's previously approved Env-A 400
related to sulfur content requirements for natural gas, as explained
below in section III.c.

III. EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revision

a. Liquid Fuels

    The previous SIP-approved Env-A 400 generally allowed for the use
of distillate oil (No. 2), No. 4 oil, and residual oil (Nos. 5 and 6)
with a sulfur in fuel limit containing 0.4% sulfur by weight, 1% sulfur
by weight, and 2% sulfur by weight, respectively.\1\ The submitted
revised Env-A 1603 prohibits on and after July 1, 2018 the importation
of, and prohibits on and after February 1, 2019 the sale or
distribution (except for fuel remaining in storage for a device not
requiring a permit pursuant to RSA 125-C:11) of, fuels having a sulfur
content in excess of the limits contained in Table 1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The residual oil limit for the Androscoggin Valley Air
Quality Controls Region was 2.2% by weight.

             Table 1--Revised Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Fuel type                        Percent by weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 2 oil, also referred to as distillate   0.0015% (15 parts million
 oil.                                        (ppm)).
No. 4 oil.................................  0.25% (250 ppm).
No. 5 oil or No. 6 oil, also referred to    0.5% (500 ppm).
 as residual oil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Env-A 1603, Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels prohibits
the use of subject fuels at a stationary source or unit, and prohibits
any person from supplying such fuels, having a sulfur content in excess
of that in Table 2:

         Table 2--State Approved Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Fuel type                        Percent by weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JP-4 aviation fuel........................  0.4% (4,000 parts million
                                             (ppm)).
Aviation gasoline.........................  0.05% (500 ppm).
Kerosene-1 oil............................  0.04% (400 ppm).
Kersonene-2 oil and Jet A, A-1, B, and JP-  0.3% (3,000 ppm).
 8 aviation fuels.
Used oil..................................  2%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sulfur in fuel limits for these fuel types are not specified in the
previously SIP-approved Env-A 400 and therefore this strengthens the
SIP.
    EPA finds that Env-A 1600 contains fuel sulfur limits which are
more stringent than those in the original rule (Env-A 400), and in
addition, includes sulfur limits for additional fuels (kerosene and
several grades of aviation fuel) which have not been previously
addressed in the SIP.

b. Solid Fuels

    For solid fuel, the previous SIP-approved Env-A 400 required the
use of coal with a maximum sulfur content of 2.8 pounds sulfur per
million BTU gross heat content for existing sources, a three month
weighted average of 2.0 pounds sulfur per million BTU for coal received
for use in any stationary source for the generation of heat or power,
and 1.5 pounds sulfur per million BTU gross heat content for sources
placed in operation after April 15, 1970. Env-A 1604 Sulfur Content
Limitations for Solid Fuels limits the maximum sulfur content in coal
to the following:

             Table 3--Revised Sulfur Content of Solid Fuels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Percent by weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal-burning device placed in operation     2.8 pounds per million BTU
 before April 15, 1970.                      (lb/MBTU) gross heat
                                             content.
Coal-burning device placed in operation on  1.5 lb/MBTU gross heat
 or after April 15, 1970.                    content.
                                            1.0 lb/MBTU gross heat
                                             content average over any
                                             consecutive 3-month period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Env-A 1604 is silent on the previously approved three-month weighted
average of 2.0 pounds sulfur per million BTU for coal received for use
in any stationary source for the generation of heat or power. However,
NH DES's SIP submission points out that current federally approved
permit operating conditions for the two stationary sources in the State
put into operation prior to April 15, 1970 are more stringent than the
previously approved sulfur in coal requirement in Env-A 400.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The coal sulfur limit of 2.0 lb sulfur per MMBtu is
equivalent to an emission limit of 4.0 lbs SO2/MMBtu
averaged over any consecutive 3-month period. The subject
facilities, Merrimack Station and Schiller Station, have federally
enforceable SO2 permit limits of 0.39 lb/MMBtu (7-day
rolling average) and 0.83 lb/MMBtu (24-hr calendar average),
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Gaseous Fuels

    SIP-approved Env-A 400 requires that gaseous fuel (natural and
manufactured gas) shall contain no more than 5 grains per 100 cubic
feet of sulfur, calculated as hydrogen sulfide (H2S), at
standard conditions. Env-A 1600 does not include sulfur limits for
gaseous fuels. New Hampshire's SIP submittal points out that the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) determines the allowable
sulfur content of natural gas in interstate pipelines. In addition, New
Hampshire's SIP submission states that Subchapter C of EPA regulations
at 40 CFR 79.55 specifies that propane-based fuel, defined as ``gaseous
motor vehicle fuel, marketed commercially as liquified petroleum gas
(LPG), whose primary constituent is propane'' shall have a sulfur
limit, including odorant, as specified in the table below. In addition,
commercial propane is sold in several grades and each grade has a
sulfur content specification (also shown in the table 4 below) as
published by the Gas Processor's Association.

                                    Table 4--Sulfur Content of Gaseous Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                gr/100 scf (as  gr/100 scf (as
                              Fuel                                 ppmvd (as S)        H2S)             S)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Gas.....................................................             338             0.3              20
Natural Gas & Manufactured Gas..................................             338            0.25              20
EPA 40 CFR 79.55 Table F94-B Propane Based Fuel Specifications..  ..............  ..............             7.7
GPA HD-5 Propane (industry standard)............................             169              10              10

Commercial Propane (industry standard)..........................             254              15              15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act provides that EPA shall not
approve any implementation plan revision if it would interfere with any
applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable progress,
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As noted above, Env-A
1600 as a whole contains more stringent sulfur in fuel limits than the
current SIP-approved rule (Env-A 400). Even though Env-A 1600 does not
contain limits for sulfur in gaseous fuels (HD-5 Propone and Commercial
Propane), the lowering of the allowed sulfur in fuel content of the
solid and liquid fuels will result in an overall reduction in the
sulfur content of fuels. Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that the
requirements of section 110(l) have been met.
    The rule contains a provision whereby the State may, upon
application, allow suppliers to defer compliance with sulfur content
emission limits of the rule during fuel supply shortages, provided that
compliance is not deferred for more than 90 days. Additional requests
to defer compliance may be made if the supply shortage continues longer
than 90 days. The regulation requires the supplier to: (1) Describe
efforts made to obtain compliant fuel, (2) indicate how much compliant
fuel the supplier has at the time of the request, and (3) provide an
estimate of the duration of the shortage. The rule requires that the
State confer with EPA upon receipt of a deferral request. In addition,
the rule requires that the State notify EPA within 5 days of issuing an
order deferring compliance.
    In a letter dated November 20, 2020, NH DES provided additional
information on the possible impact of granting a deferral request
during a supply shortage.\3\ NH DES conservatively estimated that the
granting of a temporary statewide sulfur in fuel deferral would only
increase the SO2 emissions by an average of 1.9 lb
SO2 per square mile per day. NH DES further clarifies that
the adoption of the low sulfur in fuels limits is SIP strengthening and
considered one component of the State's Regional Haze strategy. Based
on modeling conducted in support of regional haze plan development, a
temporary deferral of the sulfur in fuel requirements would not cause
significant degradation of visibility. Finally, NH DES highlighted the
establishment of the Department of Energy Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve (NEHHOR), a one-million-barrel supply of ultra-low sulfur
distillate which can be released should a disruption in supply
occur.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The NH DES letter dated November 20, 2020, signed by Craig
A. Wright is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
    \4\ https://www.energy.gov/fe/services/petroleum-resrves/heating-oil-reserves as visited on July 8, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since (1) the supplier must demonstrate that certain conditions are
met, (2) the deferral of the emission limits may not be permanent or
open-ended, (3) such deferral requires notification to EPA, (4) such a
temporarily deferral will not result in a significant increase in
SO2 emissions or visibility impairment, and (5) the
unlikelihood of such a request due to the NEHHOR, we propose to find
the provision approvable.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Env-A 1600, Fuel Specifications, which
was submitted to EPA by New Hampshire on March 11, 2019. In addition,
EPA is proposing to remove previously SIP approved Env-400, Sulfur
Content of Fuels, which has been superseded by Env-A 1600 as a matter
of state law. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed
in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be
considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in
the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference New Hampshire's regulation Env-A 1600 Fuel Specifications as
discussed in section III. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). EPA is also proposing to remove provisions of Env-A 400
Sulfur Content Limit in Fuels, approved August 14, 1992 (57 FR 36603)
from the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated
by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or

safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 3, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2021-02535 Filed 2-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Infrastructure investment will be the grease to end Washington gridlock

Trump’s call for new roads, bridges and other public works finds wide support

Banking regulations face rollbacks under Trump administration

Clinton right on infrastructure, but more needed

Congresswoman presses regulators on Volcker Rule data

                                See All Finance

Did Policymakers Get Post-Crisis Financial Regulation Right?

Did Policymakers Get Post-Crisis Financial Regulation Right?

What Does a Trump Presidency Mean for Infrastructure?

What a Trump Presidency Means for Financial Regulation

Four Takeaways from the Fed’s Proposed Stress Test Changes

The argument for/against earmarks

The first step to fixing long lines at the polls

Bring back earmarks

Voting Officials Are Fed Up With Donald Trump’s Talk Of A ‘Rigged’ Election

Congress struggles with full agenda before November elections

                                See All Governance

Rebalancing the Federal–State Partnership

Healthy Congress Index

Analyzing the 2016 Election

Virginia Rolls Out Voter Registration Modernization at DMV

The 26th Amendment Turns 45

Bipartisan action will accelerate cures for Americans

Affordable housing, quality healthcare can let seniors age in place

How Quickly Could Obamacare Be Erased?

What Opportunities Will Congress And President Have To Improve Health Policy?

Linking housing, health care for aging seniors

                                See All Health

Exploring the Role of the Business Community in Improving Health

Improving Care for Individuals Dually Eligible for Medicare and Medicaid

21st Century Cures Act Big Win for Patients

Realizing the Promise of Medical Innovation

Healthy Aging Checklist

Affordable housing, quality healthcare can let seniors age in place

Linking housing, health care for aging seniors

Put an End to Senior Homelessness

Integrating Health Care And Housing To Promote Healthy Aging

America's elderly desperately need more affordable housing

                                See All Housing

Healthy Aging Begins at Home

The Impact of the 2016 Elections on GSE Reform

Enhancing Access to Credit with New Scoring Tools

Healthy Aging Checklist

FHFA’s Credit Risk Program and the Future of GSE Legislation

Muslim Registry “Easy” To Reinstate But “Ineffective”

The Immigration Debate in the Age of Trump

Trump’s plan to subject immigrants to “ideological tests"

Many What-Ifs in Donald Trump’s Plan for Migrants

Migrant surge signals systemic problems in immigration enforcement

                                See All Immigration

Balancing Priorities: Immigration, National Security, and Public Safety

Addressing Unauthorized Immigrants in America

The Political Obstacles to Immigration Reform

Immigration and National Security: Balancing Interests

Administration Attempts to Adapt as Central American Flow Continues

To secure homeland, clean up Congressional oversight

Erdogan’s crackdown on pro-Kurdish party

Get Ready to Walk Away from Incirlik

Four maps that explain the chaos of the Middle East

The government is unprepared for a cyber attack

                                See All National Security

U.S. Middle East Policy from Obama to Trump

Beyond the Myth of Partnership: Rethinking U.S. Policy Toward Turkey

Trump in the Middle East: A New Strategy or More of the Same?

The Alternatives to Incirlik

Mosul: What Are We Fighting For?

									<img width="280" height="280" src="./BPC_2016_Interactive_ Impacts of the Final Clean Power Plan _ Bipartisan Policy Center_files/blank.gif" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image lazy asleep wp-post-image" alt="Alt" data-original="/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-280x280.jpg" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-100x100.jpg 100w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px"><img width="280" height="280" src="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-280x280.jpg" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image wp-post-image" alt="Alt" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/grumet-100x100.jpg 100w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px">

						            	Jason Grumet

						            	President

Jason Grumet, founder and president of BPC, is respected on both sides of the aisle for his innovative approach to improving government effectiveness. Grumet’s first book, City of Rivals: Restoring the Glorious Mess of American Democracy, was released in September 2014.

Read More

												 See Publications

 Contact

									<img width="280" height="280" src="./BPC_2016_Interactive_ Impacts of the Final Clean Power Plan _ Bipartisan Policy Center_files/blank.gif" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image lazy asleep wp-post-image" alt="Alt" data-original="/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-280x280.jpg" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-330x330.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-100x100.jpg 100w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px"><img width="280" height="280" src="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-280x280.jpg" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image wp-post-image" alt="Alt" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-330x330.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar-100x100.jpg 100w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Snowe-Sidebar.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px">

						            	Olympia Snowe

						            	Board Member and Senior Fellow; Former Senator from Maine

Olympia Snowe is a member of BPC’s board of directors, a BPC senior fellow, and a co-chair of BPC’s Commission on Political Reform. She was the first woman in U.S. history to serve in both houses of a state legislature and both houses of Congress.

Read More

												 See Publications

									<img width="280" height="280" src="./BPC_2016_Interactive_ Impacts of the Final Clean Power Plan _ Bipartisan Policy Center_files/blank.gif" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image lazy asleep wp-post-image" alt="Alt" data-original="/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-280x280.jpg" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-100x100.jpg 100w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px"><img width="280" height="280" src="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-280x280.jpg" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image wp-post-image" alt="Alt" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Cisneros-Sidebar-100x100.jpg 100w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px">

						            	Henry Cisneros

						            	Board Member; Co-Chair, Housing Commission and Immigration Task Force; Former Secretary of HUD

Henry Cisneros, a BPC board member, co-chairs BPC’s Housing Commission, Immigration Task Force, and Senior Health and Housing Task Force. He served as the secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in President Bill Clinton’s administration.

Read More

												 See Publications

									<img width="280" height="280" src="./BPC_2016_Interactive_ Impacts of the Final Clean Power Plan _ Bipartisan Policy Center_files/blank.gif" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image lazy asleep wp-post-image" alt="Alt" data-original="/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-280x280.jpg" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-330x330.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-100x100.jpg 100w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px"><img width="280" height="280" src="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-280x280.jpg" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image wp-post-image" alt="Alt" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-330x330.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar-100x100.jpg 100w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Rivlin-Sidebar.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px">

						            	Alice M. Rivlin

						            	Co-Chair, Debt Reduction Task Force; Former Director of the Office of Management and Budget

Alice M. Rivlin co-chairs BPC’s Debt Reduction Task Force. She was director of the White House Office of Management and Budget in the first Clinton administration and served as vice chair of the Federal Reserve Board from 1996 to 1999.

Read More

												 See Publications

									<img width="280" height="280" src="./BPC_2016_Interactive_ Impacts of the Final Clean Power Plan _ Bipartisan Policy Center_files/blank.gif" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image lazy asleep wp-post-image" alt="Alt" data-original="/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-280x280.jpg" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web.jpg 350w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-330x330.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-100x100.jpg 100w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px"><img width="280" height="280" src="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-280x280.jpg" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image wp-post-image" alt="Alt" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web.jpg 350w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-330x330.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Hoagland-Web-100x100.jpg 100w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px">

						            	G. William Hoagland

						            	Senior Vice President

G. William Hoagland is a BPC senior vice president. In this capacity, he helps direct and manage fiscal, health, and economic policy analyses. Before joining BPC in September 2012, Hoagland served as vice president of public policy for CIGNA Corporation.

Read More

												 See Publications

 Contact

									<img width="280" height="280" src="./BPC_2016_Interactive_ Impacts of the Final Clean Power Plan _ Bipartisan Policy Center_files/blank.gif" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image lazy asleep wp-post-image" alt="Alt" data-original="/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-280x280.jpg" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-330x330.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-100x100.jpg 100w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px"><img width="280" height="280" src="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-280x280.jpg" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image wp-post-image" alt="Alt" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-330x330.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar-100x100.jpg 100w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Glickman-Sidebar.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px">

						            	Dan Glickman

						            	Senior Fellow; Former Secretary of Agriculture

Dan Glickman is a BPC senior fellow and co-chairs its Commission on Political Reform, Democracy Project, and Prevention Initiative. After serving Kansas for 18 years in the House of Representatives, he was the secretary of agriculture from March 1995 until January 2001.

Read More

												 See Publications

									<img width="280" height="280" src="./BPC_2016_Interactive_ Impacts of the Final Clean Power Plan _ Bipartisan Policy Center_files/blank.gif" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image lazy asleep wp-post-image" alt="Alt" data-original="/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-280x280.jpg" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-100x100.jpg 100w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px"><img width="280" height="280" src="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-280x280.jpg" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image wp-post-image" alt="Alt" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kean-Sidebar-100x100.jpg 100w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px">

						            	Thomas H. Kean

						            	Co-Chair, National Security Program; Former Governor of New Jersey

Thomas H. Kean co-chairs BPC’s National Security Program. Kean served as governor of New Jersey from 1982 to 1990, and was the president of Drew University from 1990 to 2005. He also served as chairman of the 9/11 Commission from 2002 to 2004.

Read More

												 See Publications

									<img width="280" height="280" src="./BPC_2016_Interactive_ Impacts of the Final Clean Power Plan _ Bipartisan Policy Center_files/blank.gif" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image lazy asleep wp-post-image" alt="Alt" data-original="/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-280x280.jpg" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-330x330.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-100x100.jpg 100w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px"><img width="280" height="280" src="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-280x280.jpg" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image wp-post-image" alt="Alt" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-330x330.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar-100x100.jpg 100w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Domenici-Sidebar.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px">

						            	Pete V. Domenici

						            	Senior Fellow and Co-Chair, Debt Reduction Task Force; Former Senator from New Mexico

Pete V. Domenici is a BPC senior fellow and co-chair of its Debt Reduction Task Force, Health Care Cost Containment Initiative, and Task Force on Defense Budget and Strategy. He served as chairman and ranking minority member of both the budget and energy committees.

Read More

												 See Publications

									<img width="280" height="280" src="./BPC_2016_Interactive_ Impacts of the Final Clean Power Plan _ Bipartisan Policy Center_files/blank.gif" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image lazy asleep wp-post-image" alt="Alt" data-original="/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-280x280.jpg" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-330x330.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-100x100.jpg 100w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px"><img width="280" height="280" src="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-280x280.jpg" class="attachment-expert_thumb wp-post-image wp-post-image" alt="Alt" srcset="http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-280x280.jpg 280w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-150x150.jpg 150w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-300x300.jpg 300w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-120x120.jpg 120w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-200x200.jpg 200w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-250x250.jpg 250w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-330x330.jpg 330w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar-100x100.jpg 100w, http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Frist-Sidebar.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 280px) 100vw, 280px">

						            	Bill Frist

						            	Senior Fellow, Former Senate Majority Leader

Bill Frist is a BPC senior fellow and co-chair of its Health Project. In addition to being a nationally recognized heart and lung transplant surgeon, he was Senate majority leader from 2003 to 2007.

Read More

												 See Publications

					See all experts

About BPC

Who We Are

Magazine

Leadership

Experts

Staff

Careers

Internships

Privacy Policy

Events

Upcoming Events

Past Events

Research

Reports

Blog

Data and Resources

Infographics

Letters and Testimony

Special Initiatives

American Energy Innovation Council

CEO Council on Health and Innovation

Executive Council on Infrastructure

Contact

Media Center

Subscribe

Contact Us

Support Us

                <form role="search" method="get" class="search-form form-inline" action="http://bipartisanpolicy.org/">

                        <input class="form-control searchfield" type="search" name="s" placeholder="Search BPC" tabindex="1">

                </form>

Interactive: Impacts of the Final Clean Power Plan

In June 2016, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Energy Project released a new analysis of the transitioning electric power sector and projected impacts of the final Clean Power Plan.

This includes:

High-level insights

Key findings about the impact of the evolving baseline

Key findings about various Clean Power Plan compliance pathways

Graphs at the U.S. and regional level

For additional graphs at the U.S. and regional level, sort by topic, runs, and regions below:

Topics

 See All Topics

Electric Sector CO2 Emissions

Covered Emissions Compared to Mass Goal

ERC/Allowance Prices

Incremental Nuclear Retirements

Incremental Coal Retirements

Generation Mix

New NGCC Builds

NGCC Capacity Factors

Runs

 See All Runs

Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N), Patchwork (existing)

Reference, No CPP (high gas), Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, high gas)

Existing + new unit affected CO2, Mass Goal, Reference, No CPP (EE), Mass (E+N, EE)

Incremental to Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing)

Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing)

Incremental to Reference, Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

Incremental to Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N), Patchwork (existing)

Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N)

Existing + new unit affected CO2, Mass Goal, Reference, Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, High Gas Price), Dual Rate, Patchwork (E+N)

Existing + new unit affected CO2, Mass Goal, Reference, Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, Banking), Mass (E+N, High Gas Price)

Existing unit affected CO2, Mass Goal, Reference, Mass (existing), Dual Rate, Patchwork (existing)

Existing unit affected CO2,Mass Goal, Reference, Mass (existing)

Existing unit affected CO2, Mass Goal, Reference, No CPP (EE), Mass (existing, EE)

Reference, Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, banking)

Reference, Mass (existing), Increased Stringency

Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N), Patchwork (existing)

Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing)

Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, banking), Mass (existing)

Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

Average Annual Comparison, Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing)

Average Annual Comparison, Reference, Mass (existing), Increased Stringency

Average Annual Comparison, Reference, Mass (existing), Mass (FP OBA), Mass (100% OBA)

Average Annual Comparison, Reference, No CPP (high gas), Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, high gas)

Average Annual Comparison, Reference, No CPP (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

Mass (E+N) Generation Mix Over Time

Reference Generation Mix Over Time

Reference, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Mass (FP OBA), Mass (100% OBA)

Reference, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Mass (FP OBA), Mass (100% OBA)

Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N), Patchwork (existing)

Reference, No CPP (high gas), Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, high gas)

Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, Banking), Mass (E+N, High Gas Price), Mass (existing)

Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, Banking), Mass (E+N, High Gas Price), Mass (existing)

Regions

 See All Regions

ERCOT

East

US

West

East - Average Annual Cost

Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N), Patchwork (existing),East

ERCOT - Average Annual Cost

Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N), Patchwork (existing),ERCOT

West - Average Annual Cost

Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N),West

US - Average Annual Cost

Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N), Patchwork (existing),US

East - Average Annual Cost

East,Incremental to Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N), Patchwork (existing)

ERCOT - Average Annual Cost

ERCOT,Incremental to Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N), Patchwork (existing)

West - Average Annual Cost

West,Incremental to Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N), Patchwork (existing)

US - Average Annual Cost

US,Incremental to Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N), Patchwork (existing)

East - Average Annual Cost

East,Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

ERCOT - Average Annual Cost

ERCOT,Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

West - Average Annual Cost

West,Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

US - Average Annual Cost

US,Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)


[Federal Register: February 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 25)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6164-6166]
[DOCID:fr08fe10-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61 and 121

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0100; Notice No. 10-02]
RIN 2120-AJ67

New Pilot Certification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This advance notice of proposed rulemaking requests public
comment on possible changes to regulations relating to the
certification of pilots conducting domestic, flag, and supplemental
operations. The purpose of this notice is to gather information on
whether current eligibility, training, and qualification requirements
for commercial pilot certification are adequate for engaging in such
operations. The FAA may use this information to determine the necessity
of establishing additional pilot certification requirements and to
determine what those new requirements might include.

DATES: Send your comments on or before April 9, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0100 using any of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and
follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to Docket Operations in Room
W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Docket Operations in Room
W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Holmes, Certification and
General Aviation Operations Branch, AFS-810, General Aviation and
Commercial Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the initiatives in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific question
number, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include
supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate
comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are
filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only one
time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this initiative,
we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date
for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period
has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or
delay. We may change this initiative in light of the comments we
receive.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://
www.regulations.gov;
    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket number or notice number of this rulemaking.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. This ANPRM is promulgated
under the

authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the
Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other
practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce
and national security.

Background

    The Federal Aviation Administration is initiating this rulemaking
project to request recommendations from the public to improve pilot
performance and professionalism, issues which were also highlighted in
the Colgan Air (dba Continental Airlines Express) DHC-8 accident that
occurred on February 12, 2009, outside of Buffalo, New York. The
accident focused attention on whether a commercially-rated copilot in
part 121 operations receives adequate training. Specifically, does a
copilot's training include enough hours of training in various weather
conditions to be able to recognize a potentially dangerous situation
and respond in a safe and timely manner. The FAA requests
recommendations on whether the existing flightcrew eligibility,
training, and qualification requirements should be increased for
commercial pilots engaged in part 121 operations.
    In issuing this ANPRM, the FAA notes that we are currently
considering public comments to a notice of proposed rulemaking on the
Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers
(74 FR 1280; January 12, 2009). It proposed to enhance traditional
training programs for air carrier crewmember and dispatcher training by
requiring the use of flight simulation training devices for flight
crewmembers and including additional training requirements in areas
that are critical to safety. That NPRM did not address basic 14 CFR
part 61 pilot certification. This ANPRM is seeking comments on issues
relating to basic part 61 pilot certification, not air carrier hiring
or training requirements. Additionally, we are not seeking comment on
other existing part 121 requirements such as Pilot Record Improvement
Act (PRIA), drug and alcohol testing, mentoring, or crew pairing.

General Discussion and Request for Information

    In this ANPRM, the FAA requests comments and recommendations on the
following concepts for the purpose of reviewing current pilot
certification regulations. The sequence of these proposals does not
reflect any specific FAA preference. When submitting comments on any of
these concepts, please refer to the specific question number.
    1. Requirement for all pilots employed in part 121 air carrier
operations to hold an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate with
the appropriate aircraft category, class, and type rating, or meet the
aeronautical experience requirements of an ATP certificate:
    Section 61.155 describes the aeronautical knowledge required to
qualify for an ATP certificate. Section 61.159 describes the
aeronautical experience requirements, which specify a minimum of 1,500
flight hours. Currently, a pilot who serves as a Second-in-Command
(SIC) pilot crewmember is required to hold an instrument rating and
commercial pilot certificate. We request comments and recommendations
on the following issues relating to the option of requiring ATP
certificates for all pilot crewmembers in part 121 air carrier
operations:
    1A. Should the FAA require all pilot crewmembers engaged in part
121 air carrier operations to hold an ATP certificate? Why or why not?
    1B. If a part 121 air carrier pilot does not hold an ATP
certificate, should he or she nevertheless be required to meet the ATP
certificate aeronautical knowledge and experience requirements of Sec.
61.159, even if he or she is serving as SIC? Why or why not?
    2. Academic Training as a Substitute for Flight Hours Experience:
    The FAA seeks public comment on the concept of permitting academic
credit in lieu of required flight hours or experience.\1\ In
particular, we request comments on the following issues:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 14, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives
passed bill H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and Pilot Training and
Improvement Act of 2009. The bill is currently being considered by
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Under
this bill, all flight crewmembers who are engaged in part 121 air
carrier operations would be required to hold an ATP certificate. The
bill includes a provision that would allow credit toward flight
hours for an ATP certificate for specific academic training courses,
if the Administrator determines that the academic training courses
will enhance safety more than requiring full compliance with the
flight hours requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2A. Are aviation/pilot graduates from accredited aviation
university degree programs likely to have a more solid academic
knowledge base than other pilots hired for air carrier operations? Why
or why not?
    2B. Should the FAA consider crediting specific academic study in
lieu of flight hour requirements? If so, what kind of academic study
should the FAA accept, and to what extent should academic study (e.g.,
possession of an aviation degree from an accredited four-year aviation
program) substitute for flight hours or types of operating experience?
    2C. If the FAA were to credit academic study (e.g., possession of
an aviation degree from an accredited four-year aviation program and/or
completion of specific courses), should the agency still require a
minimum number of flight hours for part 121 air carrier operations?
Some have suggested that, regardless of academic training, the FAA
should require a minimum of 750 hours for a commercial pilot to serve
as SIC in part 121 operations. Is this number too high, or too low, and
why?
    3. Endorsement for Air Carrier Operations:
    The FAA believes that, although the flight hours required to
qualify for an ATP certificate can benefit pilots, experience is not
measured in flight time alone. Other factors, such as certain types of
academic training, practical training/experience, and experience in a
crew environment, are also important. A pilot's skills and abilities
may also be enhanced by exposure to specific operational conditions,
including icing, high altitude operations, and other areas common to
part 121 air carrier operations.
    An endorsement on a commercial pilot certificate may be an option
for addressing concerns about the operational experience of newly-hired
pilots engaged in air carrier/commercial operations. Under this
concept, a commercial pilot would not be able to serve as a required
pilot in part 121 air carrier operations without having obtained an
endorsement attesting to successful completion of additional training
and qualified operating experience.
    The FAA is therefore considering the creation of a 14 CFR 61.31
endorsement for a commercial pilot certificate that would require
specific ground and flight training, as well as additional experience
in specific areas, in order to receive part 121 air carrier operating
privileges. The additional training for the endorsement could include
operating experience in a crew environment, training and exposure to
icing, and flight experience in high altitude operations. The current
Sec.  61.31(g) endorsement for additional training for operating
pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes might serve
as a model. Additionally, the FAA may consider the type-specific
aircraft training endorsement in Sec.  61.31(h) as a model. The FAA
believes that an endorsement approach would target specific skill sets
needed for part 121 operations, and

establish the associated standards for content and quality of training.
The FAA notes that the endorsement option would also eliminate the
time-based requirements that aviation universities argue is not a
reasonable requirement for graduates of their four-year aviation degree
programs.
    We request comments on the following issues regarding the
possibility of establishing an endorsement for SIC privileges in part
121:
    3A. Should the FAA propose a new commercial pilot certificate
endorsement that would be required for a pilot to serve as a required
pilot in part 121 air carrier operations? Why or why not?
    3B. If so, what kinds of specific ground and flight training should
the endorsement include?
    3C. The FAA expects that a new endorsement would include additional
flight hour requirements. At a minimum, the FAA requests comments on
how many hours should be required beyond the minimum hours needed to
qualify for a commercial pilot certificate. Some have suggested that
the FAA require a minimum of 750 hours for a commercial pilot to serve
as SIC in part 121 operations. Is this number too high, or too low, and
why?
    3D. The FAA is considering proposing to require operating
experience in a crew environment, in icing conditions, and at high
altitude operations. What additional types of operating experience
should an endorsement require?
    3E. Should the FAA credit academic training (e.g., a university-
awarded aviation degree) toward such an endorsement and, if so, how
might the credit be awarded against flight time or operating
experience? We are especially interested in comments on how to balance
credit for academic training against the need for practical operating
experience in certain meteorological conditions (e.g., icing), in high-
altitude operations, and in the multi-crew environment.
    4. New additional authorization on an existing pilot certificate:
    The FAA may also consider proposing a new authorization on a
commercial pilot certificate for any pilot employed as a required
flight crewmember for part 121 operations. This new authorization would
be limited to a specific part 121 operator, and would be issued only
after the pilot successfully completed that part 121 operator's
approved training and qualification program. The pilot would surrender
this authorization upon leaving the employ of the specific part 121
operator. The purpose of such an authorization would be to ensure that
each air carrier has provided its pilot employees with the training and
qualifications specific to its operating environment (e.g., aircraft,
routes, meteorological conditions). The FAA seeks comments on the
following question:
    4A. Would a carrier-specific additional authorization on an
existing pilot certificate improve the safety of part 121 operations?
Why or why not?
    4B. Should the authorization apply only to a pilot who holds a
commercial certificate, or should it also apply to the holder of an ATP
certificate?
    4C. Should such an authorization require a minimum number of flight
hours? If so, how many hours should be required?
    5.Other actions:
    The FAA is seeking comment on whether existing monitoring,
evaluation, information collection requirements, and enforcement
associated with current pilot performance could be modified to achieve
improved pilot performance.
    5A. Can existing monitoring, evaluation, information collection
requirements, and enforcement associated with pilot performance be
modified to improve pilot performance?
    5B. If so, what specific modifications should be considered?

Regulatory Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    We are soliciting comments on the potential costs and benefits on
the initiatives in this ANPRM. This ANPRM has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget and is considered ``significant'' under
the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This ANPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). Any
rulemaking proposal resulting from this notice would not propose any
regulations that would (1) have a substantial direct effect on the
States, the relationship between the national government and the
States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, (2) impose substantial direct compliance
costs on State and local governments, or (3) preempt state law.
    Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive
Order 13132 do not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an
agency to review rulemakings to assess their impact on small entities
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We invite comment to facilitate our assessment of the potential impact
that these initiatives may have on small entities.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 2, 2010.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-2643 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P