3 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000%

Option Industrial Heavy TOTAL Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Number Pct. of Small Businesses Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High 1 0 1 0.000% 0.013% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 5 0.000% 0.005%

2 0 2 0.000% 0.027% 0 7 0.000% 0.065% 0 24 0.000% 0.025%

3 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000% 0 0 0.000% 0.000%

Source: EPA estimates .

6 30 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 6.5 REFERENCES Otsuji, 2001. Personal communication between Patrick Otsuji, California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, Storm Water Section, and Dina Metivier of Eastern Research Group, Lexington, MA. April 2001.

Rappaport B. A. , T. A. Cole. ( U. S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division) . 2000. Construction Sector Special Study: Housing Starts Statistics  A Profile of the Homebuilding Industry.

SBA. 1998. Statistics of U. S. Businesses: Firm Size Data. U. S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. Available at: http: / / www. sba. gov/ advo/ stats/ data. html.

U. S. Census Bureau. 2000. 1997 Economic Census: Construction, United States. Various Reports. Available at: http: / / www. census. gov/ epcd/ ec97/ us/ US000_ 23. HTM.

U. S. EPA. 2001.   Final Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA   s Planned Proposed Rule on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) and Effluent Limitations Guideline ( ELG) Regulations for Construction and Development Activities.   U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U. S. EPA. 1999. Revised Interim Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. March 29. http: / / www. epa/ gov/ sbrefa/ documents/ igui99. pdf.

U. S. GPO ( U. S. Government Printing Office) . 2000. Small Business Size Regulations; Size Standards and the North American Industry Classification System; Correction. 13 CFR Part 121. Washington, DC: Small Business Administration. Federal Register. 65( 172) : 53533 53558. September 5. http: / / www. sba. gov/ library/ lawroom. html 6 31 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 CHAPTER SEVEN BENEFITS METHODOLOGY Previous chapters have considered the costs of implementing the proposed regulations and their effect on the industry, markets, and economy. Those chapters discussed the negative impact of the regulation on the national economy but the purpose of the regulation is to benefit the nation by improving water quality and the environment. These benefits can be measured in economic terms and balanced against the costs of implementing the proposed rule. This chapter reviews previous benefits assessments for similar regulations to develop a methodology for measuring the benefits of the proposed construction and development regulation.

7.1 PREVIOUS APPROACHES TO BENEFITS ASSESSMENT Two basic approaches are used to measure the economic benefits of a policy change. In the   top

down   approach, , the analyst defines the total benefits of an improvement ( or avoidance of degradation)

brought about by some policy action or combination of actions, and posits a means of scaling the benefit to the size and scope of the action. The overall benefits of the proposed action can then be calculated.

The alternative,   bottom up   approach enumerates the pathways through which society derives value from the environmental consequences of the proposed action and estimates that value. Reducing sediment runoff, for example, reduces the potential need to dredge navigation channels. A bottom up approach makes the connections from changes at the sediment source to deposition in the harbor to the savings to society from reduced dredging costs. The following sections establish a framework for development of bottom up methods to estimate benefits of the proposed construction and development rule.

A prominent study of the benefits of reducing sediment in waterways is Ribaudo   s Water Quality Benefits from the Conservation Reserve Program ( Ribaudo, 1989) . For benefit categories where there is sufficient information, Ribaudo carefully links soil loss to water quality measures and benefit values. For other categories, where he has estimates of total damage costs, he assumes that reductions in sediment discharge will lead linearly to similar reductions in damage costs. Fox, et al. ( 1995) suggest that the relationship between sediment loading and water quality is not linear but S shaped. At high sediment 7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 loadings, incremental reductions in sediment discharge may have essentially no effect on water quality.

At very low loadings, incremental reductions may actually be harmful for some purposes. Some fish, for example, prefer some sediment in the water column. The linearity assumption presumes that starting sediment loads are in the middle section of the S curve. This may or may not be valid for a particular location and benefit category but is probably a reasonable working assumption.

In maintaining the connection from physical effects of the policy to changes in welfare, bottom

up approaches offer the opportunity to assess different policy options, if they can be well described and have discernible effects. The connections, however, are only as good as the research upon which they are based. Poor connections may be bridged with reasonable assumptions. However, weakness at any level compromises the credibility of the results.

7.2 BENEFITS CATEGORIES CONSIDERED The Environmental Assessment for the proposed rule ( EPA 2002b) accomplishes the first two or three steps of Ribaudo   s process. The assessment estimates the sediment loads avoided by implementation of the proposed regulation. Sediment load can be linked to services society values and therefore to benefit categories.

EPA used a model watershed approach to estimate the impacts of development on water quality.

Several studies in Maryland and Pennsylvania provided the basic reference information for what occurs in a watershed as the landscape is developed. Attention focused on increased sediment loads from construction sites. These case studies were then generalized using appropriate adaptations to different weather, slope, and soil conditions in different regions of the country. Table 7 1 summarizes the categories of information developed in the baseline environmental assessment and the categories of benefits which they were used to estimate.

7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 7 1. Environmental Measures from the Baseline Environmental Assessment Environmental Effect Units Benefit Category Settleable Solids Total tons per Year Dredging Turbidity Producing Solids Total tons per Year Treatment/ Dredging The theoretically correct benefit measure is the change in producer and consumer surplus ensuing from a change in environmental quality. As most environmental changes entail non market goods, such as clean air and water, demand functions cannot be readily estimated. Economists instead use the fact that environmental externalities impose costs on the public to estimate benefits. Most benefit assessments in the soil conservation context use the costs of avoiding the consequences of the environmental harm as a proxy for the correct benefit measures. It can be shown that averting costs are a lower bound on the correct welfare measures ( Laughland, et al. , 1996) . Whether averting costs are a near or distant lower bound depends on how closely the product of the averting process substitutes for the actual environmental good. Most of the studies cited below rely on avoided cost measures which should be considered a lower bound benefit estimate.

Although benefits are measured in terms of avoided costs, whether those costs are actually incurred or not is largely irrelevant. The measures indicate society   s willingness to pay for the environmental change or the utility lost due to the change. If a reservoir fills with sediment, for example,

the community has lost water storage capacity. Whether or not it chooses to replace the lost capacity depends on budget constraints and other priorities. Nevertheless, the community has lost some of the utility of the resource. If it is not replaced, the loss of utility may be exacted from the community in other ways such as increased flood damage or water shortages. Thus, the avoided costs should be viewed as the opportunity cost of failing to control sedimentation rather than as a budgetary saving for the responsible agency.

The following sections review benefit categories suggested for this analysis and used in other assessments. For each category we discuss the methods, units, and results of prior studies and EPA assessments. We also describe the methods used to assess the benefits of the proposed ESC controls for each category.

7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 7.2.1 Decreased Erosion and Sediment Generation Faster run off from construction sites and impervious surfaces has ill effects on stream sediment and structure both upstream and downstream in the watershed. Upstream, faster run off cuts into streambanks and adds to the sediment load. Downstream, additional sediment settles out when flows slow or reach larger water bodies. Some of the sediment is suspended degrading water quality. The benefits of reducing suspended sediment are discussed in Section 7.2.2. In this section we discuss the benefits of reducing larger sediment particles which contribute to sedimentation of water bodies.

<IP_ADDRESS> Water Storage Capacity People impound water for many reasons. Reservoirs supply municipal water systems and mitigate the rising waters of floods. Flow control structures on large rivers enhance navigation. When any of these impoundments fill with sediment, they are less capable of fulfilling their purpose. Ribaudo ( 1989) cited an estimate by Crowder ( 1987) that 820,000 acre feet of water storage capacity are lost to anthropogenic sources annually. Thus, there is a benefit in reducing the amount of sediment that flows into these impoundments. Ribaudo estimated the benefits as the costs of constructing replacement reservoirs and assumed that a one percent reduction in sediment discharge would result in one percent lower replacement costs.

An alternative approach would estimate the connection from stream bank and overland erosion to sediment movement to reservoirs to the need to maintain water storage capacity. The Environmental Assessment estimates the total tons of sediment moved from stream bank and overland erosion. This total volume affects both water storage capacity in reservoirs and the need for dredging of navigational channels. The estimate of total sediment volume can be allocated to these two categories as well as to other fates, such as redeposition along watercourses. For example, the regional capacity of reservoirs compared to the total capacity of water bodies indicates the proportion of sediments settling in lakes that would be subject to dredging. Similarly, the number or area of navigational channels maintained in the region compared to natural outlets could indicate the proportion of sediment that would need to be removed from channels. Given the animus against new water projects in the current policy climate,

7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 construction of replacement water storage capacity is unlikely so all benefits from sediment reduction in this category are valued at the average cost of dredging.

Table 7 2 illustrates such an application using the stream bank erosion figures from the Environmental Assessment. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers   ( ( USACE) National Inventory of Dams indicates that the surface area of reservoirs behind dams represent 35.2 percent of the water area of the nation ( USACE 2001) . EPA adopted this percentage as an estimate of the proportion of sediment generated from construction sites that would reach constructed water bodies. The tonnage deposited is converted to cubic yards based on 1.82 cubic yards per ton ( Sohngren and Rausch, 1998a) . Sohngren and Rausch ( 1998a) estimate the variable costs of dredging as $ 2.10 per cubic yard which is in the same range as USACE estimates. As discussed in Section 7.2, the avoided costs should be viewed as the opportunity cost of failing to control sedimentation rather than as a cost saved by reducing the volume to be dredged. Whether the dam owner chooses to remove the sediment or not is irrelevant. Sedimentation reduces the social utility of the resource. Multiplying these factors together yields an estimate of the benefits of reduced sedimentation.

Table 7 2. Sample Calculation of Avoided Loss of Water Storage Capacity Row: Formula Effect of regulation on sediment load ( tons per year) 11,000,000 1 Allocation to Water Storage Facilities Tons Amount of sediment reaching reservoirs 35.2% 3,872,000 2: 1 × 0.352 Tonnage expressed in cubic yards 7,047,000 3: 2 × 1.82 Cost of restoration dredging per cubic yard $ 2.10 4 Total cost of re dredging avoided annually $ 14,799,000 5: 3 × 4 Sources: U. S. EPA, 2002a 7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 <IP_ADDRESS> Navigational Dredging River channels and harbors are dredged periodically to maintain a mandated depth. Much of the sediment removed can be traced to human activities. According to the USACE, more than 400 ports and 25,000 miles of navigation channels ( USACE 2002a) are maintained in the U. S. There are two kinds of dredging operations performed, construction, or new, dredging and maintenance dredging. Construction dredging involves the removal of sediments not previously disturbed in order to create a new channel, or to enlarge an existing channel. Maintenance dredging is the removal of extra sediment in an existing waterway ( USACE 2002a) .

Both the USACE and members of industry participate in dredging activities under the USACE Dredging Program. Under this program, industry and the Corps combined spent $ 494 million on maintenance dredging work and $ 127 million on new dredging work, for a total of $ 622 million in 1997.

This activity removed 253 million cubic yards of material for maintenance and 32 million cubic yards for new work, combining for a total of 285 million cubic yards dredged ( USACE 2002b) . Based on this data, the average cost per cubic yard is $ 1.95 for maintenance dredging, $ 3.97 for new work, and $ 2.18 for both new and maintenance dredging work.

Relatively little of the sediment dredged from navigation channels comes from urban development. The totals above represent material deposited by all forms of sedimentation. EPA has estimated that the proposed rule would keep 0.6 to 2.6 million cubic yards from reaching navigational channels. This is less than one percent of the annual amount dredged under the USACE Dredging Program and an even smaller proportion of the total amount dredged in the U. S. annually.

Dredging costs have been used to estimate the benefits of sediment reduction in several other studies. Ribaudo ( 1989) assumed directly proportional reductions between erosion and dredging costs and used an estimate from Clark et al. ( 1985) for total dredging costs attributable to eroding soils.

Sohngren and Rausch ( 1998b) looked specifically at the Maumee River watershed in Ohio. The marginal cost of dredging contaminated sediment there were quite high as an existing confined disposal facility for contaminated dredge spoil was near its capacity. This necessitated construction of a new facility.

Sohngren and Rausch ( 1998a) make the connections from farm field to harbor and estimate that 12.7 percent of soil eroded off fields in the watershed ends up in the navigation channel.

7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 As discussed in the water storage capacity section, the sediment load deposited in navigation channels can be estimated and average costs per ton dredged applied to estimate avoided costs from policy alternatives. The starting value is the change in sediment delivered to waterways. This value is taken from the Environmental Assessment. Table 7 3 shows an allocation of this sediment to navigation channels using Sohngren and Rausch   s ( 1998a) estimate of the proportion of sediment reaching navigation channels, 12.7 percent. The Sohngren and Rausch estimate is probably relatively high, as the Maumee River which they studied flows into Toledo harbor. Many rivers do not flow to developed,

commercial harbors. Variable cost avoided is the appropriate metric for this application as the regulation is unlikely to prevent dredging operations entirely since other sources of sediment will continue to flow.

Sohngren and Rausch ( 1998a) estimate the variable costs as $ 2.10 per cubic yard. This agrees well with the $ 2.18 per cubic yard estimated from USACE data above.

Table 7 3. Sample Calculation of Avoided Navigational Dredging Row: Formula Effect of regulation on total erosion ( tons per yr) 11,000,000 1 Allocation to Navigational Channels Assume 12.7 percent reaches maintained channel ( tons per yr) 1,397,000 2: 1 × 0.127 Amount of sediment to be dredged annually in cubic yards 2,543,000 3: 2 × 1.82 Variable cost per cubic yard $ 2.10 4 Total avoided cost of navigational dredging $ 5,339,000 5: 3 × 4 Sources: Sohngren and Rausch, 1998a, and U. S. EPA, 2002a.

7.2.2 Reduced In Stream TSS and Sediment Concentration Sediment and other components of storm water runoff contribute to low water quality in receiving waterways. If these waterways are used for public water supplies or industrial processes, the water may need treatment before it is used. Excessive sediment in the water causes turbidity which impedes the action of disinfectants and results in harmful disinfectant by products. Conventional filtration and flocculation removes the turbidity before further treatment processes. The worse the intake 7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 water   s quality the more intense and expensive the treatment required. Three studies in the late 1980' s and one in 1998 estimated the elasticity of water treatment costs with respect to the turbidity of the intake water. The studies used a hedonic method. Dearmont, et al. ( 1998) , for example, regressed the costs of chemicals for treatment on turbidity of intake water and other variables for a sample of Texas water treatment facilities. They found that a one percent reduction in nephelometric turbidity units ( NTUs) in the intake water resulted in 0.27 percent reduction in treatment chemical costs. Similar elasticities from other studies ranged from 0.07 percent ( Holmes, 1988) to 0.333 percent ( Moore and McCarl, 1987) .

Ribaudo ( 1989) used Holmes   ( ( 1988) results to link total suspended solids ( TSS) to turbidity to treatment costs per gallon for watersheds nationwide. Different studies express their results in various units corresponding to different points in the water use process. Sohngren and Rausch ( 1998b) do not describe their methods but estimate that water treatment costs are $ 0.05 for each ton of gross soil erosion. Fox and Dickson ( 1990) express their results in terms of sediment in waterways, i. e. tons of suspended sediment, and find a cost of $ 13.44 ( Canadian) per ton. The two plus orders of magnitude difference between these estimates makes sense if only 1 out of 250 tons of soil eroded became suspended sediment. Fox and Dickson ( 1990) adjust their cost estimate based on the probability of the suspended sediment from their three sample watersheds reaching water treatment plants given the geography of the region.

The EPA assessment of the benefits and costs of President Clinton   s Clean Water Initiative ( U. S.

EPA, 1994) estimated that improved water quality would reduce nationwide treatment costs by 1 to 5 percent; storm water was a source of 6.6 percent of the impairment. The nationwide avoided costs from improved storm water quality were estimated as $ 3.2 to $ 17.0 million per year.

The Environmental Assessment estimates the TSS loadings reductions from ESC management.

EPA estimates water treatment benefits from reducing TSS loadings by taking a derivative from Holmes   ( 1988) equation which shows the change in NTU from changes in sediment loads, given stream flow, and water storage capacity. Values for assumptions about stream flow, storage capacity and costs of processing intake water are taken from Holmes ( 1988) . The literature contains a range of NTU to cost elasticities from 0.07 to 0.333. Using this range of elasticities generates the range of benefit estimates from $ 22.49 to $ 106.97 per 1,000 tons of sediment introduced into waters. Holmes   costs were reported in 1984 values. Updating these values to 1997 price levels using the CPI for urban consumers ( CPI U in 1984= 103.9, CPI U in 1997= 160.5) yields values of $ 34.74 and $ 165.24 per 1,000 tons in 1997 dollars.

7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 7 4. Sample Calculation of Avoided Water Treatment Costs Row: Formula Change in annual TSS after development from pre development levels 2,000 1 Low High Calculated range of treatment costs per 1,000 tons/ yr $ 34.74 $ 165.24 2 Range of changes in costs b/ $ 69,480 $ 330,480 3: 1 × 2 Sources: Holmes, 1988, and U. S. EPA, 2002a. ( 1,000 tons/ yr)

7.2.3 Non Quantified Benefits Several categories of benefits discussed in other studies were considered for this benefit assessment. For the most part, the benefits expected to be derived from these categories are relatively small and difficult to quantify. Rather than expend inordinate resources to quantify small benefits, EPA focused on the more promising, larger categories.

<IP_ADDRESS> Water Contact Recreation One of the salutary effects of improved water quality is wider opportunities for water contact recreation. Ribaudo and Young ( 1989) used a criteria based approach to estimate the benefits of improved water quality on recreation. They established levels of suspended sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorous which would show whether or not the water body was safe for swimming. They then estimated the changes in runoff and ensuing change in water quality indicator levels to assess whether the program being considered would bring the water body within the criteria for swimmable waters.

Ribaudo and Young found that the changes in erosion they assessed were too small to result in any water quality changes that would upgrade the receiving waters   status. . So there were no water based recreation benefits attributable to the program.

Feather and Hellerstein ( 1997) took a different approach. They used information from the National Resource Inventory and National Survey of Recreation and the Environment to estimate a direct 7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 relationship between soil loss and consumer welfare from water based recreation. They were able to estimate improvements in recreation consumer surplus from erosion reductions from alternative agricultural practices.

While the ESC regulations would reduce TSS loadings, they are not expected to affect many of the other water quality indicators that preclude water contact recreation. Like the Ribaudo and Young study, estimation of recreation benefits could consume a great deal of analytical resources and not generate any measurable benefits.

<IP_ADDRESS> Biodiversity Effects Excess sediment can play havoc with natural stream ecosystems. Salmon and trout lay their eggs in scrapes on sand or gravel substrates. Flowing sediment can bury the eggs and prevent their hatching.

Similarly, mussel beds can be buried by excessive sediment movement, smothering the mussels. Even relatively small sediment loads may become harmful during storm events when bed loads shift rapidly.

More than half of the freshwater mussel species in the U. S. are imperiled or already extinct ( Stein and Flack 1997) . It is difficult to quantify either the value society places on preservation of endangered species or the contribution the proposed regulation may make to species preservation.

<IP_ADDRESS> Other Sources of Benefits Roads and irrigation ditches provide transportation services to people. When sediment and vegetation clog ditches these services are impeded. Ribaudo ( 1989) and Fox and Dickson ( 1990) both use government highway ditch maintenance costs as the starting point for valuing decreased roadside sedimentation. Ribaudo estimates state removal costs as a function of rural road mileage, gross erosion,

and the reported costs to remove one cubic yard of material. This process yields an average cost of $ 79 per thousand tons of gross erosion. Fox and Dickson divide provincial expenses for ditch maintenance by the cropland area to arrive at a cost of $ 3.41 per hectare. Both studies then estimate the benefits of different practices by assuming directly proportional reductions in costs with reductions in gross erosion.

7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 While maintenance of roadside swales is among the BMPs suggested under this regulation, major reductions in offsite road maintenance are not anticipated in the Environmental Assessment.

Ribaudo ( 1989) also estimates the benefits for irrigation ditch maintenance. He accepts Clark, et al.   s ( 1985) estimate of overall damage to irrigation systems from cropland erosion and assumes reductions in erosion would result in proportional reductions in damage. Sohngren and Rausch ( 1998b)

estimate that drainage ditch maintenance costs are $ 0.15 per ton of gross soil erosion without explaining their methodology. Agricultural water management is probably not relevant to this proposed regulation.

7.3 CONCLUSION These methods form a coherent assessment of the benefits of the proposed regulations. There are several opportunities for reality and sensitivity testing of benefit values to ensure that they are within the realm of possibility. Information on total navigational and reservoir dredging costs in the region can be compared to the final results to determine if the benefits estimates are in a reasonable range.

7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 7.4 REFERENCES Clark, E. H. II, J. A. Haverkamp, and W. A. Chapman. 1985. Eroding Soils: The off farm impacts. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation. Cited in Ribaudo, 1989.

Crowder, B. M. 1987. Economic Costs of Reservoir Sedimentation: A regional approach to estimating erosion damage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 42( 3) : 194 197. Cited in Ribaudo, 1989.

Dearmont, David, Bruce McCarl, and Deborah A. Tolman. 1998. Cost of Water Treatment Due to Diminished Water Quality: A case study in Texas. Water Resources Research, 34( 4) : 849 855.

Feather, Peter and Daniel Hellerstein. 1997. Calibrating Benefit Function Transfer to Assess the Conservation Reserve Program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79( 1) : 151 162.

Fox, Glenn, and Ed J. Dickson. 1990. The Economics of Erosion and Sediment Control in Southwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 38: 23 44.

Fox, Glenn, Gloria Umali, and Trevor Dickinson. 1995. An Economic Analysis of Targeting Soil Conservation Measures with Respect to Off site Water Quality. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 43: 105 118.

Holmes, Thomas P. 1988. The Offsite Impact of Soil Erosion on the Water Treatment Industry. Land Economics 64( 4) : 356 366.

Laughland, Andrew S. , Wesley N. Musser, James S. Shortle, and Lynn M. Musser. 1996. Construct Validity of Averting Cost Measures of Environmental Benefits. Land Economics 72( 1) : 100 112.

Moore, W. B. and B. A. McCarl. 1987. Off site Costs of Soil Erosion: A case study in the Wilamette Valley. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, 12: 42 49. Cited in Dearmont, et al. , 1998.

Ribaudo, Marc O. 1989. Water Quality Benefits from the Conservation Reserve Program. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agriculture Economic Report No. 606. February.

Ribaudo, Marc O. , and C. Edwin Young. 1989. Estimating Water Quality Benefits from Soil Erosion Control. Water Resources Bulletin, 25( 1) : 71 78.

Sohngren, Brent and Jonathan Rausch. 1998a. Soil Erosion in the Maumee River Basin: A case study using market methods to value environmental externalities. Ohio State University Working Paper. Dated June 5, 1998.

Sohngren, Brent and Jonathan Rausch, 1998b. Benefits of Controlling Soil Erosion in the Maumee River Basin. Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Natural Resource and Environmental Economics Research News. November, 1998.

7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Stein, Bruce A. and Stephanie R. Flack. 1997. 1997 Species Report Card: The State of U. S. Plants and Animals. Arlington, Va: The Nature Conservancy. Available at: http: / / www. natureserve. org/ publications/ 97reportcard/ title. html Accessed on February 20, 2002.

USACE 2002a. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District  Navigation. Available at: http: / / www. nap. usace. army. mil/ sb/ nav. htm. Accessed on February 12, 2002.

USACE 2002b. Actual Dredging Cost Data for 1963 2000: Summary of Corps and Industry Activities. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center. Available at: http: / / www. wrsc. usace. army. mil/ ndc/ ddhisbth. htm. Accessed on February 14, 2002.

USACE 2001. National Inventory of Dams Database. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Topographical Engineering Center. Available at: http: / / crunch. tec. army. mil/ nid/ webpages/ niddownloaddamsdata. html Accessed on November 12, 2001.

U. S. EPA. 2002a. Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the Construction and Development Point Source Category. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 821 R 02 007. Available at: http: / / www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ guide/ construction/ .

U. S. EPA. 2002b. Environmental Assessment of Effluent Guidelines for the Construction and Development Point Source Category. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 821 R 02 009. Available at: http: / / www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ guide/ construction/ .

U. S. EPA. 1999. Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule. Washington, D. C. : U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 833 R 99 002. Available from National Environmental Publications Information at: http: / / www. epa. gov/ clariton/ .

U. S. EPA. 1995. Economic Benefits of Runoff Controls. EPA 841 S 95 002. Available at: http: / / www. epa. gov/ nps/ runoff. html. Accessed on May 23, 2001.

U. S. EPA. 1994. President Clinton   s Clean Water Initiative: Analysis of Benefits and Costs. Cited in U. S. EPA, 1999.

7 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 CHAPTER EIGHT BENEFITS ASSESSMENT RESULTS The purpose of the proposed regulation is to benefit the nation by improving water quality and the environment. These benefits can be measured in economic terms and balanced against the costs of implementing the proposed rule. The preceding chapter described the methodology EPA developed to measure the benefits of the ESC regulation. This chapter summarizes the results of that analysis. The first section draws on the Environmental Assessment to show the changes in sediment loads and other factors that indicate the environmental effects of the regulation. The second section describes the results of applying these environmental changes to the benefit estimation model described in Chapter Seven.

8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS The Environmental Assessment used a model watershed approach to estimate several indicators of water quality in the baseline condition and under the alternative options. The primary environmental indicator selected was sediment entering waterways which was divided into turbidity producing solids and settleable solids, i. e. particle size 20 microns or less and greater than 20 microns. Sediment is a good indicator of the regulation   s effectiveness as metals and organic compounds enter the environment attached to sediment particles. Table 8 1 shows the estimated difference between sediment tonnage released under the baseline and that released with each regulatory option.

8.2 BENEFITS ASSESSMENT RESULTS As discussed in Chapter Seven, the sediment loadings drive benefit analyses for several categories of benefits. Table 8 2 shows the low and high values for the range of annual benefit estimates.

The point estimate represents EPA   s best judgment of the most probable benefit value after weighing the accuracy and distribution of the information used to develop the benefit range. Most of the benefits arise from the avoided costs of lost water storage capacity.

8 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 8 1. Total Suspended Sediment ( TSS)  Differences from Baseline Source: U. S. EPA, 2002. Decrease from Baseline in: Option 1  Inspection and Certification Option 2  Codify CGP, Inspection and Certification Turbidity Producing Load ( Tons/ Year) Settleable Solids Load ( Tons/ Year) Turbidity Producing Load ( Tons/ Year) Settleable Solids Load ( Tons/ Year)

High Estimate 1,582,541 7,912,707 2,225,328 11,126,639 Low Estimate 527,514 2,637,569 2,225,328 11,126,639 Table 8 2. Benefits Estimates Benefit Category Type of Estimate Option 1 Inspection and Certification Option 2 Codify CGP + Inspectn & Certn Water Treatment Point 0.1 0.2 Low 0.0 0.1 High 0.3 0.4 Water Storage Point 7.1 15.0 Low 3.5 15.0 High 10.6 15.0 Navigational Dredging Point 2.6 5.4 Low 1.3 5.4 High 3.8 5.4 Total Point 9.7 20.6 Low 4.8 20.5 High 14.4 20.8 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Seven.

8 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 8.3 REFERENCES U. S. EPA. 2002. Development Document for the Effluent Guidelines for the Construction and Development Point Source Category.

8 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 CHAPTER NINE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE 9.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter addresses the net social costs of the proposed rule. It brings together the results described in Chapters 5 and 8 to directly compare the estimated costs and benefits of the proposed regulation in accordance with Executive Order 12866 and other administrative regulations. The economic analysis describes a typical year   s impacts subsequent to implementation of the proposed rule. When flows of costs and benefits vary through time, it is common practice to calculate the net present value of each series of flows and then compare the annual payments that would be necessary to amortize that value. For example, when new regulation requires investment in capital equipment there may be a large cost to retrofit plants and smaller maintenance costs in later years while benefits do not begin to accrue for several years. To compare the two, their net present values are placed on an annual basis, i. e.

annualized. When flows are constant, and the same discount rate is used to calculate the net present value as well as the amortization, the annualized value is the same as the annual value. The impacts in this report represent typical annual values for costs and benefits and so are constant throughout the evaluation period. Thus, all years are considered the same and annualization is unnecessary. Section 9.2 describes the direct social costs of the proposed rule, while Section 9.3 describes the proposed rule   s indirect effects. Section 9.4 compares these costs with the benefits estimated in Chapter 8.

9.2 SOCIAL COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE 9.2.1 Direct Social Costs Direct social costs are the real resource opportunity costs to the private sector, and to the government, of implementing the regulation. The largest component of social cost is the cost to firms to comply with the CGP provisions. Installation of improved ESC management is a direct cost to 9 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 construction firms. In addition, firms would also bear increased design, certification, and inspection costs.

Operation and maintenance ( O& M) of improved ESCs also adds to costs. Governments at the Federal,

State, and Municipal level would have roles in implementing this regulation. These public resources spent by government entities might have been used for other purposes and so represent a direct social cost.

Each of these direct cost categories was quantified in Chapter 5 and is briefly discussed below.

<IP_ADDRESS> Compliance Costs Implementation of the proposed rule requires the firm to devote real resources, which might have been used for other purposes, to compliance. EPA estimated design, installation, certification, and inspection costs per acre for the baseline and each regulatory option in Chapter 5. These figures are adjusted to constant 1997 dollars using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index ( ENR CCI) to represent the real private opportunity cost. These costs were shown in Table 5 4.

The ESCs in the proposed rule do not depart significantly from current practices. The basic operations of construction would change little from existing practices. Potential changes in the inputs or production processes are minimal. No radically new technology is proposed that would require a substantial learning period to operate or essentially change the production process. Nor would the proposed regulation generate new waste products which might raise issues for disposal, sale, or reuse.

<IP_ADDRESS> Government Regulatory Costs Codification of the CGP would require only a few hours of activity at the Federal, State, and local levels of government. Administration would, in most instances, be conducted at the State or local levels,

though some oversight would remain with EPA. These activities impose opportunity costs as they draw resources from other government functions. EPA estimates that each state would require approximately 200 labor hours to codify the CGP. To a large extent the proposed regulation utilizes administrative and enforcement institutions established by prior zoning, building code, and storm water regulation. EPA 9 2 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 estimates that this one time activity would cost $ 260,000 per year for five years as states revise their permitting language and programs.

In addition, government entities conduct many projects that would be subject to the proposed regulations. Approximately 24.7 percent of the value of construction put in place would be incurred by government entities. The breakdown is 10.1 percent Federal, 8.5 percent State, and 6.1 percent local.

Much of this expenditure is for maintenance of existing structures and so does not entail new ground disturbance.

9.2.2 Social Welfare Losses Social welfare losses occur when compliance costs result in higher prices for the goods in question. Individuals gain utility from products when the market price is lower than the value they derive from the product. This difference between value and price is termed   consumer surplus.   Producers also gain a surplus, or profit, when they can sell a product for more than the cost of production. The proposed regulations are likely to affect new construction prices and so shift the market supply function.

Market models for each sector estimate the transfer of surplus from consumers to producers as buyers pay more to builders for the added storm water facilities. In addition, the higher price would discourage some buyers so the number of homes or buildings that will be sold would fall slightly. Such reductions in sales result in losses of both consumer and producer surplus without any offsetting gain, and so are termed   deadweight loss.   The market models estimate these surplus changes based on linear supply and demand curves with elasticities taken from the literature.

Consumer and producer surplus losses were reported in Table 5 19 as the gross loss attributable to the proposed rule and include the deadweight loss. Although lost as profits, much of the producer surplus figure is spent in the industry to comply with the new regulations. Similarly, most of the consumer surplus loss is spent in the construction industry absorbing the   passed on   costs of compliance with the regulations. The loss in consumers   utility becomes spending for improved storm water management. .

Only the deadweight loss, estimated at $ 10,000 for Option 1 and $ 185,000 for Option 2, is completely lost to society.

9 3 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 9.2.3 Transitional Effects Traditional environmental regulations may have resulted in some plant closings and unemployment. The local impact of such effects is generally not considered a social impact issue since, in general, the effects are transitory. The employees shift to other jobs and the capital invested in the plant shifts to other uses. There is a small social loss in job search costs and unemployment time. However,

when workers are specialized or unable to adapt to new labor market conditions, they may be permanently unemployed which would result in a loss of social welfare.

Construction is a highly flexible industry. It is normal practice for employees and firms to move from job to job applying their individual skills to the task at hand. Job search costs and shifting investments are standard elements of the industry. EPA does not foresee any major disruptions in the industry as a result of the proposed rule.

9.3 INDIRECT EFFECTS Beyond shifting the market supply for the regulated commodity, the regulation could affect the structure of the industry, change labor or capital productivity or discourage innovation. These effects would have wider impacts on society as they ripple through related markets and industries. EPA determined that the proposed rule has relatively little possibility of causing indirect social welfare effects.

No substantial changes in market structure are anticipated from this proposed rule. While some forms of regulation may result in advantages to large firms or encourage vertical integration, this regulation builds on existing practices of design and certification already common in the industry.

The proposed regulation is expected to have little effect on labor or capital productivity. It may require firms to employ more workers without increasing output, e. g. , to maintain silt fencing, but this opportunity cost is captured in the installation, operating, and maintenance cost. No substantial changes in productivity are anticipated. Nor is the proposed regulation expected to have substantial affects on research, innovation, or investment toward future technological development of the industry. EPA 9 4 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 expects that other costs to society not specifically addressed by the analyses presented in this report would be modest.

9.4 COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED COSTS AND BENEFITS Chapter 8 described the results of the environmental assessment and benefit monetization. All of the benefits estimated represent incremental social benefits from the baseline case. Table 9 1 compares the sum of social costs discussed above with the benefits estimated in Table 8 5. Anticipated social costs are greater than the monetized benefits.

The social benefit estimate includes only those benefits that could be monetized. Section 7.2.6 discusses several other classes of benefits that could not be quantified yet provide real social benefits.

These included increased utility from water based recreation and biodiversity preservation.

Table 9 1. Social Costs and Benefits ( 1997 $ Million per year)

Option Installation, Design and Permitting Operation and Maintenance Government Costs Deadweight Loss Total Social Costs Total Benefits 1 $ 118.1 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.1 $ 118.2 $ 9.7 2 $ 421.2 $ 48.0 $ 0.3 $ 0.2 $ 469.6 $ 20.6 3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 Source: EPA estimates based on the methodologies presented in Chapter Four and Chapter Seven.

9 5 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 CHAPTER TEN UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT 10.1 INTRODUCTION Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) , P. L. 104 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally prepares a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with   Federal mandates   that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year.

Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally directs EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative, if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it is to develop, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan is to provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, thus enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,

educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

10 1 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 10.2 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS EPA has determined that the proposed C& D regulations may contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more by State, local or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared the written statement in accordance with section 202 of the UMRA. This and previous sections of the EA constitute this statement: Chapter Five of the EA identifies costs and impacts ( burdens) on construction firms that would be subject to the proposed regulations, as well as other market affects. Chapter Eight presents estimated monetary benefits that may accrue under the proposed regulations, in accordance with UMRA when costs of a federal mandate exceed $ 100 million in any one year.

EPA determined that the smallest unit of government potentially affected by the proposed rule would be on the sub county ( i. e. , municipal or township) government level. Census data was used to determine financial and other information ( e. g. , population) for local government entities ( Census 2000a,

Census 1999) . This information was combined with data from several other sources to assess the impacts of the proposed rule on small ( serving populations of less than 50,000) government entities.

The estimated total cost of the proposed rule under ESC option 1 is approximately $ 118 million. 1 Based on the value of construction work done, approximately 24.7 percent of this cost, or $ 29 million,

would be borne by public entities. Under ESC option 2, the estimated total cost of the proposed rule is $ 469 million, with public entities incurring approximately $ 116 million of this total.

Approximately 83 percent of the total U. S. population in 1996 ( 219 million out of 265 million) lived in areas governed by a municipality or town/ township. Of those served by these sub county governments,

approximately 43 percent ( 114 million) lived in areas served by municipal or town/ township governments with populations of less than 50,000. The remaining portion of the total U. S. population ( i. e. , those not served by municipal or town/ township governments) may be served only by a county government, a 1 Total compliance cost equals the installation, design, and permitting costs plus operation and maintenance costs.

10 2 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 special district government, or some other form of local government not covered by the Census report ( Census 1999) .

The value of construction work done by government agencies ( federal, state, and local) is approximately 24.7 percent of the total value of construction work done, with the remainder performed by private entities. EPA applied the 24.7 percent factor to the total national compliance costs for each option to determine the portion of costs accruing to government entities.

EPA then used data on the funding of capital outlay for highway projects to determine the portion of compliance costs accruing to each level of government ( i. e. , to federal, state, and local entities) . Based on this data, approximately 41 percent of government compliance costs would be borne by the Federal government, 34 percent would be borne by state governments, and the remaining 25 percent would be borne by local governments.

EPA compared the local government share of compliance costs against several financial indicators to determine the extent of the impacts on small governmental units. The indicators used were total revenues, capital outlay, and capital outlay for construction only. In all cases, compliance costs were less than 0.2 percent of the financial measure, indicating no significant impact on small governmental units. The calculations are shown in Table 10 1 below.

10 3 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 Table 10 1. Impacts of Proposed Rule Compliance Costs on Government Units Government Component Option 1 Option 2 Costs As Percent of Total Costs Costs As Percent of Total Costs Total Compliance Costs $ 118,100,000 100.00% $ 469,200,000 100.00%

Private Compliance Costs ( 75.3% ) [ a ] $ 88,929,300 75.30% $ 353,307,600 75.30%

Public Compliance Costs ( 24.7% ) [ a ] $ 29,170,700 24.70% $ 115,892,400 24.70%

Federal ( 41.07% ) [ b ] $ 11,980,406 10.14% $ 47,597,009 10.14%

State ( 34.29% ) [ b ] $ 10,002,633 8.47% $ 39,739,504 8.47%

Local ( 24.64% ) [ b ] $ 7,187,660 6.09% $ 28,555,887 6.09%

Small Government Entities ( < 50,000) [ c ] $ 3,098,600 2.62% $ 12,310,443 2.62%

Total Revenues: Small Government $ 103,640,793,000 $ 103,640,793,000 Compliance Costs as % of Total Revenues 0.00% 0.01%

Capital Outlay: Small Government $ 11,262,360,000 $ 11,262,360,000 Compliance Costs as % of Total Capital Outlay 0.03% 0.11%

Construction Outlay Only: Small Government $ 6,901,826,000 $ 6,901,826,000 Compliance Costs as % of Construction Outlay 0.04% 0.18%

[ a ] Based on value of construction work done by government entity. . 1997 Census of Construction. [ b ] Based on the percent of capital outlay for highways funded by governmental unit. . 1999 FHWA Conditions and Performance Report to Congress. [ c ] Based on the percent of U. . S. population living in municipalities or towns/ townships serving < 50,000 ( 43.11% of the population in 1996) . Note: Approximately 83% of the U. S. population ( or 219,004,000) lives in an area governed by a municipality or a town/ township. The remaining population may be served only by a county government, a special district government, or other governmental organization not covered here. Of the 219 million served by these subcounty governments, approximately 114,347,000 ( or 43 percent) are served by municipal or town/ township governments with populations of < 50,000. Sources: 1997 Census of Governments: Compendium of Government Finances; 1997 Census of Governments: Government Organization; 1999 Status of the Nation' s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance, Report to Congress; 1997 Census of Construction.

10 4 Economic Analysis of Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines May 2002 10.3 REFERENCES Census 2000a. 1997 Census of Governments: Compendium of Government Finances. Volume 4. U. S. Census Bureau. December.

Census 2000b. 1997 Economic Census: Construction  Industry Summary Census 1999. 1997 Census of Governments: Government Organization. Volume 1. U. S. Census Bureau. August.

FHWA 2000. Status of the Nation   s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance. Report to Congress. Federal Highway Administration. May.

10 5 Index Page( s)

accounts payable to sales ratio ..................................................................... 2 74, 2 75   active construction .................................................... ES 74, 3 2, 1 4, 4 6, 4 11, 4 46, 4 58, 6 13   affordability .................................................... ES 58, ES 87, 2 1, 2 52, 4 2, 4 58 60, 4 67, 5 24   assets to sales ratio .................................................................................. 2 74   barrier to entry .............................................. ES 83, ES 84, 2 31, 2 44 46, 4 2, 4 44, 4 45, 5 20 23   benefits ........................................ ES 91 95, 1 6, 1 8, 2 9, 2 17 19, 2 47, 2 49, 3 11, 4 66, 5 37, 5 38, 5 42, 7 1 6, 7 8 14, 8 70, 8 71, 8 73, 9 1, 9 3, 9 4, 10 2   Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) ..................................... ES 74, 3 1, 3 2, 3 6   Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) ......................................... ES 74, 3 1, 3 2, 3 6   best management practices (BMPs) ...................... ES 74, 1 3, 2 48, 3 2, 3 4, 3 6, 3 8, 3 10, 4 12, 4 70, 6 12, 7 10   Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) .................................. ES 74, 3 1, 3 2, 3 6   building permit( s) ................................ ES 57, ES 70, 1 6, 2 31 35, 2 38, 2 76, 2 77, 2 78, 2 80, 4 46, 4 48, 4 50, 4 53, 4 67, 4 69 72, 5 7   Census Bureau ................ ES 57, ES 60, ES 61, ES 63, ES 65, ES 67, ES 68, ES 73, ES 97, 1 5 7, 2 3, 2 4, 2 5, 2 7,   2 8, 2 11 14, 2 16, 2 18 22, 2 28, 2 30, 2 31, 2 33, 2 34, 2 36, 2 38, 2 45, 2 53, 2 55, 2 57,   2 61 63, 2 65, 2 66, 2 68 70, 2 78, 2 78, 2 80, 2 81, 4 25, 4 34, 4 49, 4 50, 4 61, 4 62, 4 66,   4 69, 4 77, 4 78, 5 24, 5 41, 6 6, 10 5   C& P Report ..................................................................................... 2 39 41   capital costs .......................................................................... 2 67, 4 12, 4 58, 4 78   cashflow .......................................................................... 4 13, 4 14, 4 35, 4 41 44   Clean Water Act (CWA) .......................................................... 1 2, 1 5, 3 1, 4 7, 6 12, 6 14   collection period ................................................................................ 2 74, 2 75   commercial construction ................ ES 60, ES 69, ES 70, ES 75 84, ES 86, ES 87, ES 90, ES 91, ES 93, ES 94, 1 5,   2 7, 2 19, 2 22, 2 24, 2 25, 2 28, 2 30, 2 47, 2 48, 2 54, 2 79, 4 5, 4 8, 4 13, 4 14,   4 26, 4 27, 4 34, 4 36, 4 37, 4 41, 4 45, 4 47, 4 50 57, 4 69 71, 4A 1, 4A 2, 4B 1 3, 5 1 10, 5 13 15, 5 17 22, 5 27, 5 29 32, 5 34, 6 4, 6 6, 6 10, 6 14, 6 20, 7 7   Construction General Permit (CGP) .................. ES 73, ES 74, 1 2 5, 2 5, 3 1 3, 3 5, 3 11, 5 35, 6 12, 8 71, 9 1, 9 2   consumer ............................ ES 58, ES 76, 2 1, 2 50 52, 4 59, 4 66, 4 72, 4 73, 4B 4, 5 2, 5 10, 5 29 31, 7 3,   7 10, 9 2   consumer surplus .......................................................... 4 66, 4 72, 5 29, 5 31, 7 3, 7 10, 9 2   cost pass through (CPT) ............. ES 58, ES 76 78, ES 80, ES 81 84, ES 90, ES 91, 2 1, 4 3, 4 4, 4 5, 4 6, 4 14, 4 19, 4 21, 4 29, 4 31, 4 58, 4 65, 4 71, 5 3, 5 5, 5 6, 5 10, 5 11, 5 13, 5 14, 5 16 19, 5 20, 5 21 23   current ratio ......................................... ES 79 81, 2 70, 2 71, 2 73, 4 32, 4 38 40, 5 10, 5 12 14, 5 16   deadweight loss ................................................................. ES 87, ES 95, 5 31, 9 2, 9 4   debt to equity ................................................. ES 79, ES 81, 4 28, 4 29, 4 33, 4 40, 5 10 14, 5 16   demand .......................... ES 73, ES 86, ES 87, 2 4, 2 30, 2 50 52, 2 54, 2 55, 2 79, 3 2 6, 4 59, 4 63 67, 4 69   72, 4 74, 5 23, 5 38, 7 3, 9 2   developer builder .......................................................... 2 44, 4 10 14, 4 29, 4B 4, 5 2, 5 10   Dun & Bradstreet (D& B) .......................... ES 78, ES 81, 2 70, 2 75, 4 26 28, 4 34, 4 35, 4 38, 4 40, 4 76, 5 11   employment ........................... ES 56, ES 57, ES 63, ES 69, ES 75, ES 81, ES 82, ES 87 89, 1 1, 1 6, 2 8, 2 9,   2 11, 2 15 17, 2 21, 2 22, 4 2, 4 25, 4 26, 4 35 38, 4 40, 4 41, 4 43, 4 66, 4 72   74, 4 78, 5 75, 5 1, 5 15, 5 16, 5 18, 5 19, 5 24, 5 29 32, 5 34, 6 3, 6 7, 6 8, 6 18   entry costs ..................................................................................... 2 46, 4 44   equipment ...................................... ES 60, 2 5, 2 7, 2 17, 2 19, 2 58, 2 61, 2 63 68, 3 8, 4 41, 4 44, 9 1   erosion ....................... ES 73, ES 74, 1 3 5, 2 28, 3 2 6, 3 9, 3 10, 4 1, 5 24, 5 39, 6 12, 6 13, 6 16, 6 17, 7 4 12   erosion and sediment .......................... ES 73, ES 74, 1 3, 1 4, 2 28, 3 2 6, 3 9, 3 10, 4 1, 5 24, 5 39, 7 4, 7 12   erosion and sediment controls (ESCs) ........................ ES 73, ES 74, 1 3, 1 4, 3 2, 3 3 6, 3 9, 3 10, 4 1, 4 2, 4 6, 4 10, 4 11, 4 12, 4 72, 5 29, 5 39, 9 1   Executive Order 12866 .......................................................... ES 56, 1 1, 1 8, 5 37, 5 38, 9 1   Federal government ........................................................................ 2 55, 2 57, 10 3   Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ................. 2 39, 2 40, 2 41, 2 42, 2 43, 2 79, 4 23, 4 24, 4 76, 10 4, 10 5   Federal Water Pollution Control Act .................................................................. 1 2, 3 1   fixed assets to net worth ratio ................................................................. 2 70, 2 71, 2 74   geographic distribution ........................................................................ 2 8, 2 9, 2 15   11 1   Index ( cont. )

Page( s)

gross profit ratio ..................................... ES 79, ES 81, 2 73, 4 28, 4 29, 4 31, 4 32, 4 40, 5 10 14, 5 16   heavy construction ........................... ES 58 61, ES 63, ES 65, ES 66, ES 68, ES 70, ES 79, ES 84, 1 5, 2 1 3,   2 6 12, 2 14, 2 16, 2 19, 2 21, 2 22, 2 24, 2 25, 2 27, 2 29 31, 2 39, 2 46, 2 50,   2 54 62, 2 64 70, 2 80, 4 77, 4A 3, 4A 4, 5 14, 5 15, 6 4, 6 6, 6 8, 6 10, 6 14, 6 20   hedonic values ...................................................................................... 7 8   homebuilding ........................................ ES 58, ES 67, ES 97, 2 1, 2 44 46, 2 80, 4 25, 4 26, 4 77, 6 5   homebuyers ......................................................................... ES 58, 2 1, 2 47, 2 52   Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) ..................................... ES 87, 4 58, 4 66, 4 67, 4 68, 5 23, 5 24, 5 25   industrial construction ............... ES 60, ES 69, ES 70, ES 75, ES 76, ES 78, ES 79, ES 81 84, ES 86, ES 87, ES 90   92, ES 94, 1 2, 1 5, 2 2, 2 5, 2 7, 2 8, 2 19, 2 22, 2 24, 2 25, 2 28, 2 30, 2 54,   2 55, 2 63, 2 65, 2 72, 2 79, 3 1, 4 4 8, 4 14, 4 26, 4 27, 4 29, 4 34, 4 36, 4 37,   4 41, 4 45, 4 47, 4 50 57, 4 70, 4 71, 4 73, 4A 1, 4A 3, 4B 1 3, 5 1 10, 5 13 15,   5 17 22, 5 28, 5 30, 5 32, 5 34, 6 3, 6 4, 6 6, 6 10, 6 14, 6 20, 7 7   infrastructure savings ................................................................................ 2 48   Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) .......................................... ES 88, ES 89, 1 8, 6 1, 6 11   institutional construction ......................... ES 60, ES 70, 1 5, 2 7, 2 19, 2 22, 2 24, 2 25, 2 30, 2 47, 4 27, 4 47, 4 50, 6 4, 6 6, 6 10, 6 14, 6 20   inventory ......................................... 1 6, 2 45, 2 68 75, 4 4, 4 28, 4 45, 4 54, 4 78, 5 7, 7 5, 7 9, 7 13   Joint Center for Housing Studies .............................. ES 57, ES 66, ES 68, ES 97, 2 8, 2 12, 2 26, 2 27, 2 80   land developer ..................................................................................... 2 44   land development .......................... ES 58, ES 61, ES 63, ES 65, ES 68, ES 69, 2 1 3, 2 8 12, 2 15, 2 16, 2 19,   2 22, 2 25, 2 28, 2 61, 2 66, 2 68, 2 69, 2 80, 4 5, 4 12, 4 15 17, 4 20, 4 21, 4 37,   4 77, 4A 2, 4A 4, 4A 5, 4B 4, 6 4, 6 5   lane mile( s) .................................................................................... 2 39, 2 40   low impact development (LID) ............................................. 2 47, 2 47, 2 48, 2 49, 2 50, 2 79, 2 80   machinery ....................................................................................... 2 63 68   manufacturing construction .................. ES 60, ES 70, ES 97, 1 5, 2 7, 2 19, 2 24, 2 25, 2 30, 2 58, 2 61, 2 80, 4 8,   4 14, 4 27, 4 29, 4 34, 4 41, 6 4, 6 6, 6 10, 6 14, 6 20   market model ...................................... ES 87, 4 2, 4 29, 4 58, 4 59, 4 63, 4 68 71, 4 73, 5 2, 5 26, 5 31   metropolitan statistical area (MSA) ......................................... 2 32, 4 58, 4 66, 4 67, 4 68, 4B 1, 5 31   model project( s) .......................... ES 75, ES 76, 1 7, 3 90, 4 1, 4 5, 4 7 10, 4 12 15, 4 17 19, 4 21, 4 23, 4 25,   4 51, 4 72, 4A 79, 5 2 6   multifamily construction ................... ES 60, ES 69, ES 70, ES 73, ES 75, ES 76, ES 78 84, ES 86, ES 87, ES 90,   ES 91, 1 5, 2 7, 2 19, 2 22, 2 24, 2 25, 2 28, 2 29, 2 50, 4 5, 4 8, 4 13, 4 26,   4 27, 4 29, 4 34, 4 36, 4 37, 4 41, 4 45, 4 48 50, 4 53, 4 54, 4 56, 4 57, 4 69,   4 71, 4 72, 4 77, 4A 1, 4A 2, 4B 1 3, 5 1, 5 2, 5 4 8, 5 10, 5 13, 5 14, 5 17 22,   5 26, 5 27, 5 30 32, 5 34, 6 4, 6 7, 6 8, 6 10, 6 14, 6 18, 6 19   municipal ............................................................... ES 92, 1 2, 5 36, 7 4, 9 1, 10 2, 10 4   NAICS 23 ................................................................. ES 59, ES 61, ES 63, 2 5, 2 6, 6 3   NAICS 233 ............................. ES 59, ES 61, ES 63, ES 65, ES 68, ES 89, 2 2, 2 6, 2 8 12, 2 15, 2 25, 2 55,   2 58, 2 59, 2 63, 2 67, 2 70, 6 3   NAICS 2331 ............................. ES 61, ES 63, 2 2, 2 8, 2 9, 2 11 13, 2 15, 2 28, 2 29, 2 58, 2 59, 2 63, 2 67,   2 70, 6 5   NAICS 234 .............................. ES 59, ES 63, ES 65, ES 66, ES 68, 2 6, 2 8 10, 2 12, 2 16, 2 25, 2 27, 2 29,   2 39, 2 55, 2 58, 2 59, 2 64, 2 67, 2 70, 5 14   NAICS 235 ........................ ES 59, ES 61, ES 69, 2 3, 2 6, 2 8, 2 9, 2 11, 2 13, 2 29, 2 55, 2 67, 2 70, 6 5, 6 14   NAICS 23593 ........................... ES 59, ES 61, ES 63, ES 65 68, 2 3, 2 6, 2 8 12, 2 14, 2 16, 2 19, 2 26, 2 27,   2 30, 2 58, 2 59, 2 61 63, 2 65, 2 66, 2 68, 2 69   NAICS 23594 .............................................................................. 2 8, 2 10, 2 66   National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) ........... ES 57, ES 66, ES 71, ES 73, ES 97, 1 7, 2 8, 2 26, 2 27, 2 79, 2 80, 4 4, 4 5, 4 10, 4 11, 4 15 17, 4 49, 4 67, 4 68, 4 76, 4 77, 4A 1 3, 4A 5, 4B 1 5, 5 23, 6 11   National Governors Association (NGA) .............................................................. 2 46, 2 80   11 2   Index ( cont. )

Page( s)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) ........ ES 56, ES 57, ES 59, ES 67, ES 73 75, 1 1 4, 1 6, 2 5, 2 6, 2 26, 2 27, 2 29, 3 1 4, 3 6, 4 2, 4 3, 4 7, 4 17, 4 48,   4 53, 4 54, 4 75, 4 78, 5 2, 5 7, 5 35, 6 5, 6 11, 6 17   National Resources Inventory (NRI) ............................................. 1 6, 4 45 47, 4 53, 4 54, 4 78, 5 7   New Community Design (NCD) ..................................................... 2 46, 2 47, 2 48, 2 50, 2 79   New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) .................................................. ES 74, 3 2, 4 6, 4 7   nonemployer establishments ....................................................................... 2 11, 2 12   non residential construction .................................................................. 4 69, 4 71, 5 27   North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) ............................................. 2 2, 2 5, 6 3   Notice of Intent (NOI) ................................................................................ 1 6   Notice of Termination (NOT) ....................................................................... 3 5, 3 10   operation and maintenance (O& M) .......................................... ES 94, ES 95, 4 6, 4 58, 9 1, 9 4, 10 2   payroll .............................................................. ES 61, ES 63, ES 68, 2 2, 2 9, 4 41, 4 42   permittee( s) ................................ ES 59, ES 67, 1 3, 2 6, 2 27, 2 29, 3 2, 3 4, 3 5, 3 6, 6 5, 6 12, 6 14, 6 18   Phase I ............................................. ES 75, 1 2, 2 5, 3 1, 3 3, 4 2, 4 17, 4 75, 5 2, 5 35, 6 15, 6 16   Phase II .................................... ES 57, ES 75, 1 2, 1 3, 1 7, 2 5, 2 81, 3 1, 3 3, 4 2, 4 3, 4 17, 4 48, 4 53,   4 54, 4 75, 4 78, 5 2, 5 7, 5 35, 6 12, 6 15, 6 17, 7 13   post construction .............................................................. ES 74, 1 3, 3 2, 3 8, 4 12, 6 12   potentially affected entities .............................. ES 57, ES 67, ES 68, ES 70, ES 89, 1 1, 1 4 7, 2 4, 2 9, 2 25,   2 27 30, 4 36 38, 6 2, 6 5, 6 9, 6 10, 6 14, 10 1, 10 2   Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) ......................................................... 3 2   Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) ........................................................... 3 2   principal, interest, taxes, and insurance (PITI) .................................. 2 52, 4 59, 4 60, 4 61, 4 67, 4 68, 4 69   producer surplus ............................................................................ 4 72, 5 31, 9 2   profit margin ................................................................................... 2 75, 4 14   quick ratio .................................................................................... 2 70, 2 73   rainfall ............................................................................... 1 3, 3 11, 4 73, 6 17   Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) ......................... ES 56, ES 58, ES 88, ES 97, 1 1, 1 8, 2 1, 6 1, 6 5, 6 10, 6 11   remodelers ................................................................... ES 66, ES 67, 2 12, 2 26, 2 27   remodeling .................................. ES 57, ES 58, ES 66 68, ES 97, 2 2, 2 8, 2 12, 2 26 28, 2 80, 4 37, 6 5   residential construction ........................... 2 2, 2 31, 2 32, 2 54, 2 55, 2 79, 4 4, 4 9, 4 15, 4 26 28, 4 34, 4 36,   4 38, 4 46, 4 49, 4 58, 4 69, 4 71, 4 77, 4B 2, 5 7, 5 9, 5 10, 5 12, 5 24, 5 27, 6 7, 6 14   return on assets ................................................................................. 2 74, 2 75   return on equity .................................................................................... 2 75   return on net worth ................................... ES 79, ES 81, 2 74, 2 75, 4 28, 4 29, 4 31, 4 32, 4 40, 5 10 16   return on sales ................................................................................. 2 74, 2 75   runoff ......................................... ES 56, ES 93, 1 3, 1 4, 1 8, 2 1, 2 48, 2 50, 3 6 9, 4 12, 5 38, 6 13, 6 17, 7 1, 7 7, 7 9, 7 13   sales to inventory ratio ........................................................................... 2 74, 2 75   sales to net working capital ratio ................................................................... 2 74, 2 75   sediment .............................. ES 56, ES 73, ES 74, ES 91 93, 1 1, 1 3 5, 2 28, 2 48, 3 2 7, 3 9 11, 4 1, 5 24,   5 38, 5 39, 6 12, 6 13, 6 16, 7 1 10, 7 12, 8 70, 8 71   single family construction ................ ES 60, ES 68 71, ES 73, ES 75, ES 76, ES 78 84, ES 86, ES 87, ES 90, ES 91,   1 5, 2 7, 2 9, 2 10, 2 18 20, 2 22, 2 24, 2 25, 2 28 30, 2 32, 2 35, 2 44, 2 45,   2 50, 2 60, 2 72, 2 79, 4 3, 4 5, 4 8 10, 4 13, 4 15, 4 16, 4 18, 4 26 28, 4 34,   4 36 38, 4 45 49, 4 53 57, 4 72, 4 77, 4A 1 5, 4B 1 14, 5 17 23, 5 25,   5 26, 5 29 32, 5 34, 6 4, 6 6, 6 8, 6 10, 6 14, 6 18, 6 19   small business ........................ ES 56, ES 58, ES 68, ES 70, ES 88 91, ES 97, 1 1, 1 8, 2 1, 2 3, 2 11, 2 22, 2 25,   2 81, 4 42, 4 78, 6 1, 6 2, 6 3, 6 4, 6 5, 6 7, 6 9, 6 10, 6 11, 6 16, 6 18, 6 20, 6 21   Small Business Administration (SBA) .................. ES 68, ES 88, ES 97, 2 3, 2 4, 2 10, 2 21, 2 22, 2 24, 2 25, 2 81, 4 42, 4 78, 6 2, 6 3, 6 4, 6 6, 6 10, 6 18, 6 20   Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) ............................................. ES 88, 6 1, 6 10, 6 11, 6 16   11 3   Index ( cont. )

Page( s)

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) .................. ES 56, ES 58, ES 88, ES 97, 1 1, 1 8,   2 1, 6 1, 6 10, 6 11 6 10, 6 11, 6 16, 6 18, 6 20, 6 21   small entities ................................................... ES 68, ES 69, ES 88, ES 89, 2 3, 2 9, 2 10, 2 11, 2 21, 2 25, 4 2, 6 1, 6 2, 6 5, 6 11, 6 14, 6 17   specialization ratio .......................................................................... 2 9, 2 18, 2 20   storm water .............................. ES 56 58, ES 67, ES 73 75, ES 87, ES 93, 1 1 4, 1 7, 1 8, 2 1, 2 5, 2 47 49,   2 79, 2 81, 3 1 5, 3 7 9, 3 11, 4 2, 4 3, 4 6, 4 15, 4 17 19, 4 21, 4 48, 4 51, 4 53,   4 54, 4 58, 4 73 75, 4 76, 4 77, 4 78, 4B 4, 5 2, 5 7 9, 5 35, 5 39, 6 5, 6 12, 6 13, 6 15, 7 7, 7 8, 7 13, 9 2   storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) .......................... ES 73, ES 74, 1 3, 3 2, 3 6, 3 7, 3 8, 3 9, 6 12   subdevelopment ..................................................... ES 61, 2 3, 2 9, 2 11, 2 12, 2 66, 2 68, 2 69   subdivision ........................... ES 58, ES 60, ES 63, ES 65, ES 68, ES 89, 1 5, 2 1, 2 2, 2 7, 2 8, 2 10, 2 13 16,   2 19, 2 22, 2 24, 2 25, 2 46, 2 48, 2 61, 2 65, 2 66, 2 68, 2 69, 4 5, 4 10, 4 17, 6 3, 6 4   supply ............................. ES 73, ES 86, ES 87, 2 4, 2 30, 2 31, 2 44, 2 46, 2 48, 2 54, 2 69, 2 79, 4 6, 4 58,   4 59, 4 63 67, 4 72, 5 30, 7 4, 9 2, 9 3   surplus .................................................................. 4 66, 4 72, 5 29, 5 31, 7 3, 7 10, 9 2   Survey of Construction ............................................................................... 2 31   system enhancement ............................................................................... 2 41 43   system expansion ................................................................................. 2 41 43   system preservation ............................................................................... 2 41 43   Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) .................................................................... 1 3   total suspended solids (TSS) ................................................. ES 91, 3 2, 7 7, 7 8, 7 9, 7 10, 8 71   Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) ........................... ES 56, ES 95, 1 1, 1 8, 5 37, 5 39, 9 5, 10 1, 10 2   value of business done ...................................................................... 2 12, 2 58, 2 61   value of construction work .......................... ES 65, lxii, 2 18, 2 20, 2 32, 2 39, 2 55, 2 57 62, 2 69, 4 26, 4 75,   10 2 4   value put in place ............................................................ ES 57, 1 6, 2 32, 2 37, 2 38, 2 80   watershed( s) ............................................. 4 16, 4 34, 4 49, 4 76, 4A 1, 6 13, 7 2, 7 4, 7 6, 7 8, 8 70   welfare .......................... ES 94, 2 18, 2 19, 4 58, 4 59, 4 66, 4 67, 4 69, 4 72, 5 24, 5 30, 5 31, 7 2, 7 3, 7 10,   9 2, 9 3   willingness to pay .................................................................................... 7 3   11 4


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6899-6900]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02579]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29305; Amdt. No. 91-334]
RIN 2120-AI92

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
Performance Requirements To Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service;
Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a final rule published on May 28, 2010.
In that rule, the FAA amended its regulations by adding equipage
requirements and performance standards for Automatic Dependent
Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Out avionics on aircraft operating in
Classes A, B, and C airspace, as well as other specified classes of
airspace within the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS). This document
corrects errors in regulatory provisions addressing ADS-B Out equipment
and use.

DATES: Effective February 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Robert F. Nichols, Jr., Surveillance Services
Group Manager, AJM-23, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation
Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Lorelei Peter,
Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration,
800

Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption Without Prior Notice

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency for ``good cause'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the
rulemaking.
    Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act requires that
agencies publish a rule not less than 30 days before its effective
date, except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found
and published with the rule.
    This document is correcting an error that is in 14 CFR 91.225, ADS-
B Out equipment and use. This correction will not impose any additional
restrictions on the persons affected by these regulations. Furthermore,
any additional delay in making the regulations correct would be
contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the FAA finds that (i)
public comment on these standards prior to promulgation is unnecessary,
and (ii) good cause exists to make this rule effective in less than 30
days.

Background

    On May 28, 2010, the FAA published a final rule entitled,
``Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast Out Performance
Requirements To Support Air Traffic Control Service'' (75 FR 30160).
    In that final rule, the FAA established Sec.  91.225, which
provides the ADS-B equipment requirements necessary to operate in
certain classes of airspace effective January 1, 2020. Under paragraph
(a)(1) of that section and in order to operate an aircraft in Class A
airspace, an aircraft must have installed equipment that ``meets the
requirements of TSO-C166b.'' Under paragraph (b)(1) of that section, in
order to operate an aircraft below 18,000 feet MSL and in identified
airspace described subsequently in Sec.  91.225, an aircraft must be
equipped with equipment that ``meets the requirements of TSO-C166b; or
TSO-C154c . . .''. In reviewing these paragraphs, the FAA notes that
the regulatory text implies that the equipment must meet all the
requirements of the referenced TSOs. As the ADS-B Out rule is a
performance-based rule, it was not the FAA's intent to arguably limit
operators to only install equipment marked with a TSO in accordance
with 14 CFR part 21, subpart O. The FAA's intent was to permit
equipment that meets the performance requirements set forth in the
referenced TSOs. Evidence of that intent is found in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed
in Sec.  91.225(a)(1) and (c)(1) that the equipment installed ``Meets
the performance requirements in TSO-C-166a'' (72 FR 56947, 56971). The
inadvertent removal of the word ``performance'' in the paragraphs
implementing these provisions in the final rule was in error and
resulted in confusion as to whether the regulation permits other than
equipment marked with a TSO, provided that equipment met the specified
performance requirements.

Technical Amendment

    In order to address any confusion and clarify the equipage
requirements permitted under this rule, the FAA is amending Sec.
91.225 to insert text specifying the necessary performance
requirements.
    Because the changes in this technical amendment result in no
substantive change, we find good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)
to make the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airports, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105,
40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712,
44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507,
47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the
Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126
Stat. 11).

0
2. In Sec.  91.225, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  91.225  Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
equipment and use.

    (a) After January 1, 2020, and unless otherwise authorized by ATC,
no person may operate an aircraft in Class A airspace unless the
aircraft has equipment installed that--
    (1) Meets the performance requirements in TSO-C166b, Extended
Squitter Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and Traffic
Information Service-Broadcast (TIS-B) Equipment Operating on the Radio
Frequency of 1090 Megahertz (MHz); and
    (2) Meets the requirements of Sec.  91.227.
    (b) After January 1, 2020, and unless otherwise authorized by ATC,
no person may operate an aircraft below 18,000 feet MSL and in airspace
described in paragraph (d) of this section unless the aircraft has
equipment installed that--
    (1) Meets the performance requirements in--
    (i) TSO-C166b; or
    (ii) TSO-C154c, Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Equipment Operating on the
Frequency of 978 MHz;
    (2) Meets the requirements of Sec.  91.227.
* * * * *

    Issued under authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and in Washington,
DC, on February 4, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-02579 Filed 2-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I have not smoked for three years due to e-cigarettes after being a smoker for thirty years and trying everything to quit but with no success. I enjoy flavors such as vanilla and cinnamon roll at 6 mg nicotine, which is much less nicotine than a conventional cigarette, and I make my own organic flavored e-liquid. Patches, gums even laser treatments did not work for me after several attempts. I my health had greatly improved as well. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Sincerely,

Diane Nielsen