Appendix 5

5.1 Cost Information for Non-EGU and area sources

Full details on controls can be found in Appendix 3

Low Emission Combustion (LEC)

The average cost effectiveness for large IC engines using LEC technology
was estimated to be $532/ton (ozone season).  The EC/R report on IC
engines (Ec/R, September 1, 2000) estimates the average cost
effectiveness for IC engines using LEC technology to range from
$420-840/ton (ozone season) for engines in the 2,000-8,000 bhp range.
The key variables in determining average cost effectiveness for LEC
technology are the average uncontrolled emissions at the existing
source, the projected level of controlled emissions, annualized costs of
the controls, and number of hours of operation in the ozone season.  The
ACT document uses an average uncontrolled level of 16.8 g/bhp-hr, a
controlled level of 2.0 g/bhp-hr (87% decrease), and nearly continuous
operation in the ozone season.  The EPA believes the ACT document
provides a reasonable approach to calculating cost effectiveness for LEC
technology.

Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) for Fugitive Leaks

The control efficiency is 80 percent reduction of VOC at an annualized
cost of $4,800 per ton.  We do not include the costs of this control
measure in our analyses in the Houston nonattainment area since these
controls are already included in the 8-hour Ozone SIP for this area.

Enhanced LDAR for Fugitive Leaks

The control efficiency of this measure is estimated at 50 percent at a
cost of $3,050/ton of VOC reduced.

Flare Gas Recovery

The control efficiency of this measure is 98 percent reduction of VOC
emissions at a cost of $2,700/ton. Costs may become negligible as the
size of the flare increases due to recovery credit.

Cooling Towers

There is not a general estimate of control efficiency for this measure;
one is to apply a continuous flow monitor until VOC emissions have
reached a level of 1.7 tons/year for a given cooling tower.  The
annualized cost for a continuous flow monitor is $63,000 – this is
constant over a variety of cooling tower sizes.

Wastewater Drains and Separators

The control efficiency is 65 percent reduction of VOC emissions at a
cost of $3,050/ton.  This is based on actual sampling and cost data for
5 refineries in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

5.2 Cost Information for EGU sources

Full details on controls can be found in Appendix 3

Cost of Controls as a Result of Lower Sub-regional Caps within the MWRPO
and OTC and other Local Controls outside of these Regions within CAIR

As previously discussed, the power sector will achieve significant
emission reductions under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) over the
next 10 to 15 years.  When fully implemented, CAIR (in conjunction with
NOx SIP Call) will reduce ozone season NOx emissions by over 60 percent
from 2003 levels within the CAIR states. These reductions will greatly
improve air quality and will lessen the challenges that some areas face
when solving nonattainment issues significantly.

Power sector impacts analyzed in detail in the Final PM NAAQS RIA 15/35
(  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html  ) provides the baseline for this
RIA. The analysis and projections in this section attempt to show the
potential impacts of the additional controls applied (see section 3.3.3
of this RIA) to facilitate attainment of the more stringent 8-hr ozone
standard of 0.070 ppm. Generally, the incremental impacts of these
controls on the power sector are marginal.

Projected Costs. EPA projects that the annual incremental cost of the
proposed new ozone standard approach is $0.2billion in 2020.  The
additional annual costs reflect additional retrofits (SCR and SNCR) and
generation shifts,. Annualized cost of CAIR is projected to be $6.17
billion in 2020. The proposed approach applied in this RIA would add
$0.2 billion incremental to this cost.

Projected Generation Mix. Coal-fired generation and natural
gas/oil-fired generation are projected to remain almost unchanged.
Installation of approximately 3.7 GWs of SCR and 1.1 GWs of SNCR
incremental to the base case are projected as a result of the lower
sub-regional caps. There are very small changes in the generation mix.
Coal-fired generation increases about 12 GWh (an increase of
approximately 0.25% of the total generation) and gas-fired generation
decreases a similar amount.  Hydo, nuclear, other, and renewable based
generation projected to remain the same. Projected retirements of coal
units is marginal, accounting to about 0.4 GWs compared to the base case
approach.

Projected Nationwide Retail Electricity Prices. Retail electricity
prices are projected to change marginally, only about 1%. The extension
of the cap-and-trade approach in the form of lower sub-regional caps
allows industry to meet the requirements of CAIR in the most
cost-effective manner, thereby minimizing the costs passed on to
consumers. Retail electricity prices are projected to increase less than
1% within the MWRPO and OTC regions, and decrease about 1% in the rest
of the CAIR region.

5.3 Cost information for Onroad and Nonroad Mobile Sources

Full details on controls can be found in Appendix 3

Diesel Retrofits and Vehicle Replacement

To calculate costs for the use of selective catalytic reduction as a
retrofit technology, the assumption was made that all relevant vehicles
would be affected by the control. Therefore, all on-road heavy duty
diesel vehicles that received a retrofit were assumed to employ
selective catalytic reduction as a retrofit technology. The average cost
of a selective catalytic reduction system ranges from $10,000 to $20,000
per vehicle depending on the size of the engine, the sales volume, and
other factors (Pechan, 2003). For AirControlNET analysis, the average
estimated cost of this system is $15,000 per heavy duty diesel vehicle.
(Source: AirControlNET Documentation, III-160).  OTAQ conducted an
additional assessment of current SCR costs and calculated that for the
year 2020, the cost of SCRs will be approximately $13,000 per unit.
This estimate reflects an economy of scale cost reduction of 33%, which
is consistent with trends in other mobile source control technologies
that enter large scale production.

The rebuild/upgrade kit is applied to nonroad equipment.  OTAQ estimates
the cost of this kit to be $2,000 to $4,000 per vehicle.  For this
analysis, the average estimated cost is $3,000 per vehicle.

Table 5.3.1: Summary of Cost Effectiveness for Rebuild/Upgrade Kit for
Various Nonroad Vehicles

Nonroad Vehicle	Retrofit Technology	Range of $/ton NOx Emission Reduced
Range of $/ton HC Emission Reduced

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes	Rebuild/  Upgrade kit	$1,300	$2,200	$9,600
$18,900

Excavators

$1,100	$4,200	$8,100	$43,400

Crawler Tractor/Dozers

$1,100	$4,200	$8,300	$43,500

Skid Steer Loaders

$1,000	$1,600	$7,400	$14,800

Agricultural Tractors

$1,200	$4,900	$9,300	$34,300

Table 5.3.2: Summary of Cost Effectiveness for SCR for Various Nonroad
Vehicles

Nonroad Vehicle	Retrofit Technology	Range of $/ton NOx Emission Reduced
Range of $/ton HC Emission Reduced

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes	SCR	$2,900	$5,300	$32,200	$63,700

Excavators

$2,700	$10,400	$27,400	$146,200

Crawler Tractor/Dozers

$2,800	$10,400	$27,900	$146,700

Skid Steer Loaders

$2,600	$4,000	$24,900	$52,100

Agricultural Tractors

$3,000	$7,600	$31,200	$115,500

Table 5.3.3: Summary of Cost Effectiveness for SCR for Various Highway
Vehicles

Highway Vehicle	Retrofit Technology	Range of $/ton NOx Emission Reduced
Range of $/ton HC Emission Reduced

Class 6&7 Truck	SCR	$5,600	$14,100	$46,900	$126,200

Class 8b Truck

$1,100	$2,500	$14,900	$44,600

Implement Continuous Inspection and Maintenance Using Remote Onboard
Diagnostics (OBD)

Continuous I/M can significantly lower test costs and “convenience”
costs of I/M programs.  Using radio frequency transmission, there is a
one-time cost for the Continuous I/M device and its installation.  In
the case of Oregon, this cost is $50.  The unit is then good for the
life of the vehicle.  Annual or biennial test fees are not required
beyond this initial fee to operate the system but there may be
additional operational costs to cover data processing, reporting, and
oversight.

We can compare the costs of periodic testing to Continuous I/M.  The
cost of data processing, reporting and oversight is estimated to be $2
per vehicle per year in the typical I/M area.  If we assume an average
vehicle life span of 14 years, with the first test at 4 years of age,
vehicles will get 5 inspections in a biennial program and 10 in an
annual program (not including additional change of ownership
inspections, which are required in some areas).  Thus, in a Continuous
I/M program, an additional cost of $10-$20 will be incurred for each
vehicle over its life, assuming the same costs apply in a Continuous I/M
program as in a tailpipe test program.

In addition to test costs, Continuous I/M avoids most of the convenience
costs associated with I/M – the time and fuel it takes to drive to the
station, get a test, and return home.  The one-time installation of the
transmitter requires a visit to the test station, but no further visits
are required after that.  So, if we assume, conservatively, that the
typical test cycle requires a total of two hours of time at $20 per hour
and a half-gallon of gas (10 miles round trip with an average fuel
economy of 20 mpg) at $3 per gallon gives us a cost of $41.50.  Over the
life of the vehicle that works out to $207.50 in a biennial program or
$415 in an annual program.  Compare this to the one time trip for
Continuous I/M OBD at a cost of $41.50 and substantial savings are
realized.

Putting it all together, the table below shows the lifetime inspection
and convenience costs of Continuous I/M versus periodic I/M  (assuming
the current mix of annual and biennial testing and current test costs).
Periodic I/M testing costs about $20 billion over a 10 year lifecycle
with an additional $25 billion in convenience costs for a total of $45
billion.  By contrast, Continuous I/M has a test and installation cost
of $3 billion dollars over the same 10 year period, and a convenience
cost of $2.5 billion for a total of $5.5 billion.  Thus, nationwide
installation of Continuous I/M would save the nation’s motorists about
$38 billion in inspection and convenience costs over a 10 year period.

Lifetime Inspection and Convenience Costs of I/M

	Test/Install Cost	Convenience Cost	Total

Cost

Continuous I/M	$20 billion	$25 billion	$45 billion

Remote I/M 	$4.3 billion	$2.5 billion	$6.8 billion

Savings	$15.7 billion	$22.5 billion	$38.2 billion

Given that Continuous I/M will actually reduce the cost of I/M,
implementation of this measure is highly cost-effective.  If we add
together the tons of NOx and HC reduced and assign the entire cost
savings to these two pollutants, this measure saves $X per ton of
pollution reduced.

Eliminating Long Duration Truck Idling

For purposes of this RIA, we identified this measure as a no cost
strategy i.e. $0/ton NOx.  Both TSEs and MIRTs have upfront capital
costs, but these costs can be fully recovered by the fuel savings.  The
examples below illustrate the potential rate of return on investments in
idle reduction strategies.

TSE

The average price of TSE technology is $11,500 per parking space.  The
average service life of this technology is 15 years.  Truck engines at
idle consume approximately 1 gallon per hour of idle.  Current TSE
projects are operating in environments where trucks are idling, on
average, for 8 hours per day per space for 365 days per year (or about
2,920 hours per year).  Since TSE technology can completely eliminate
long duration idling at truck spaces (i.e. a 100% fuel savings), this
translates into 2,920 gallons of fuel saved per year per space. At
current diesel prices ($2.90/gallon), this fuel savings translates into
$8,468.  Therefore, an $11,500 capital investment should be recovered
within about 17 months.  In this scenario, TSE investments offer over a
70% annual rate of return over the life of the technology.

While it is technically feasible to electrify all parking spaces that
support long duration idling trucks, we should note that TSE technology
is generally deployed at a minimum of 25-50 parking spaces per location
to maximize economies of scale.  The financial attractiveness of
installing TSE technology will depend on the demonstrated truck idling
behavior – the greater the rates of idling, the greater the potential
emissions reductions and associated fuel and cost savings.

MIRTs

The price of MIRT technologies ranges from $1,000-$10,000.  The most
popular of these technologies is the auxiliary power unit (APU) because
it provides air conditioning, heat, and electrical power to operate
appliances.  The average price of an APU is $7,000.  The average service
life of an APU is 10 years.  An APU consumes two-tenths of a gallon per
hour, so the net fuel savings is 0.80 gallons per hour.  EPA estimates
that trucks idle for 7 hours per rest period, on average, and about 300
days per year (or 2,100 hours per year).  Since idling trucks consume 1
gallon of fuel per hour of idle, APUs can reduce fuel consumption for
truck drivers/owners by approximately 1,680 gallons per year.  At
current diesel prices ($2.90/gallon), truck drivers/owners would save
$4,872 on fuel if they used an APU.  Therefore, a $7,000 capital
investment should be recovered within about 18 months.  In this
scenario, APU investments offer almost a 70% annual rate of return over
the life of the technology.

Cost-Effectiveness of Measure: $0/ton NOx

Commuter Programs

We used the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) cost-effectiveness
analysis of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
(CMAQ) projects to estimate the cost-effectiveness of this measure.  TRB
conducted an extensive literature review and then synthesized the data
to develop comparable estimates of cost-effectiveness of a wide range of
CMAQ-funded measures.  We took the average of the median
cost-effectiveness of a sampling of CMAQ-funded measures and then
applied this number to the overarching commuter reduction measure.  The
CMAQ-funded measures we selected were:

regional rideshares

vanpool programs

park-and-ride lots

regional transportation demand management

employer trip reduction programs

We felt that these measures were a representative sampling of commuter
reduction incentive programs.  There is a great deal of variability,
however, in the type of programs and the level of incentives that
employers offer which can impact both the amount of emissions reductions
and the cost of commuter reduction incentive programs.

We chose to apply the resulting average cost-effectiveness estimate to
one pollutant – NOx – in order to be able to compare commuter
reduction programs to other NOx reduction strategies. TRB reported the
cost-effectiveness of each measure, however, as a $/ton reduction of
both VOC and NOx by applying the total cost of the program to a 1:4
weighted sum of VOC and NOx [[total emissions reduction = (VOC * 1) +
(NOx * 4)).  There was not enough information in the TRB study to
isolate the $/ton cost-effectiveness for just NOx reductions, so we used
the combined NOx and VOC estimate.  The results are presented in Table
5.3.4.

Table 5.3.4

Cost-Effectiveness of Best Workplaces for Commuters Type Measures from
the 2002 TRB Study, Table E-5

$/ton (2000$) 1:4 VOC:NOx (reported in the RIA as $/ton NOx)

	 	Low	High	Median

Regional Rideshare	$1,200 	$16,000 	$7,400

Vanpool Programs	$5,200 	$89,000 	$10,500

Park-and-ride lots	$8,600 	$70,700 	$43,000

Regional TDM	$2,300 	$33,200 	$12,500

Employer trip reduction programs	$5,800 	$175,500 	$22,700

Average of All Measures	$4,620 	$76,900 	$19,200

Cost-Effectiveness of Measure: $19,200/ton NOx

Reduce Gasoline RVP from 7.8 to 7.0 in Remaining Nonattainment Areas

Cost-Effectiveness of Measure: Cost per ton will be $5,700 to $36,000 /
ton VOC

EMPAX-CGE Model Description, General Model Structure

This section provides additional details on the EMPAX-CGE model
structure, data sources, and assumptions.  The version of EMPAX-CGE used
in this analysis is a dynamic, intertemporally optimizing model that
solves in 5 year intervals from 2005 to 2050.  It uses the classical
Arrow- Debreu general equilibrium framework wherein households maximize
utility subject to budget constraints, and firms maximize profits
subject to technology constraints.  The model structure, in which agents
are assumed to have perfect foresight and maximize utility across all
time periods, allows agents to modify behavior in anticipation of future
policy changes, unlike dynamic recursive models that assume agents do
not react until a policy has been implemented.

Nested CES functions are used to portray substitution possibilities
available to producers and consumers.  Figure 5.4.1 illustrates this
general framework and gives a broad characterization of the model.
Along with the underlying data, these nesting structures and associated
substitution elasticities determine the effects that will be estimated
for policies.  These nesting structures and elasticities used in
EMPAX-CGE are generally based on the Emissions Prediction and Policy
Analysis (EPPA) Model developed at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (Babiker et al., 2001).  Although the two models are quite
different (EPPA is a recursive dynamic, international model focused on
national level climate change policies), both are intended to simulate
how agents will respond to environmental policies.

Figure 5.4.1.  General Production and Consumption Nesting Structure in
EMPAX-CGE

Given this basic similarity, EMPAX-CGE has adopted a comparable
structure.  EMPAX-CGE is programmed in the GAMS language (Generalized
Algebraic Modeling System) and solved as a mixed complementarity problem
(MCP)  using MPSGE software (Mathematical Programming Subsystem for
General Equilibrium).  The PATH solver from GAMS is used to solve the
MCP equations generated by MPSGE.

5.4.1 Data Sources

The economic data come from state level information provided by the
Minnesota IMPLAN Group and energy data come from EIA.  Although IMPLAN
data contain information on the value of energy production and
consumption in dollars, these data are replaced with EIA data for
several reasons.  First, the policies being investigated typically focus
on energy markets, making it essential to include the best possible
characterization of these markets in the model.  Although the IMPLAN
data are developed from a variety of government data sources at the U.S.
Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, these
data do not always agree with energy information collected by EIA
directly from manufacturers and electric utilities.  Second, it is
necessary to have physical quantities for energy consumption in the
model to portray effects of environmental policies.  EIA reports
physical quantities, while IMPLAN does not.  Finally, although the
IMPLAN data reflect the year 2000, the initial baseline year for the
model is 2005.  Thus, AEO energy production and consumption, output, and
economic growth forecasts for 2005 are used to adjust the year 2000
IMPLAN data.

EMPAX-CGE combines these economic and energy data to create a balanced
social accounting matrix (SAM) that provides a baseline characterization
of the economy.  The SAM contains data on the value of output in each
sector, payments for factors of production and intermediate inputs by
each sector, household income and consumption, government purchases,
investment, and trade flows.  A balanced SAM for the year 2005
consistent with the desired sectoral and regional aggregation is
produced using procedures developed by Babiker and Rutherford (1997) and
described in Rutherford and Paltsev (2000).  The methodology relies on
standard optimization techniques to maintain the calculated energy
statistics while minimizing the changes needed in the economic data to
create a new balanced SAM that matches AEO forecasts for the baseline
model year of 2005.

These data are used to define 10 regions within the United States, each
containing 40 industries.  Regions have been selected to capture
important differences across the country in electricity generation
technologies, while industry aggregations are controlled by available
energy consumption data.  Prior to solving EMPAX-CGE, these regions and
industries are aggregated up to the categories to be included in the
analysis.

Table <IP_ADDRESS> presents the industry categories included in EMPAX-CGE for
policy analysis.  Their focus is on maintaining as much detail in the
energy intensive sectors as is allowed by available energy consumption
data and computational limits of dynamic CGE models.  In addition, the
electricity industry is separated into fossil fuel generation and
nonfossil generation, which is necessary because many electricity
policies affect only fossil fired electricity.

Table <IP_ADDRESS>  EMPAX-CGE Industries

EMPAX Industry

NAICS Classifications

Coal

2121

Crude Oila

211111

Electricity (fossil and nonfossil)

2211

Natural Gas

211112, 2212, 4862

Petroleum Refining

324

Agriculture

11

Energy-Intensive Sector:  Food

311

Energy-Intensive Sector:  Paper and Allied

322

Energy-Intensive Sector:  Chemicals

325

Energy-Intensive Sector:  Glass

3272

Energy-Intensive Sector:  Cement

3273

Energy-Intensive Sector:  Iron and Steel

3311

Energy-Intensive Sector:  Aluminum

3313

Other Manufacturing

312-316, 321, 323, 326-327, 331-339

Services

All Others

Transportationb

481-488

a	Although NAICS 211111 covers crude oil and gas extraction, the gas
component of this sector is moved to the natural gas industry.

b	Transportation does not include NAICS 4862 (natural gas distribution),
which is part of the natural gas industry.

Figure <IP_ADDRESS> shows the five regions run in EMPAX-CGE in this analysis,
which have been defined based on the expected regional distribution of
policy impacts, availability of economic and energy data, and
computational limits on model size.  These regions have been constructed
from the underlying 10 region database designed to follow, as closely as
possible, the electricity market regions defined by the North American
Electric Reliability Council (NERC).  Note that, for purposes of
presenting results, the four regions; Northeast, Southeast, Midwest and
Plains, have been aggregated into an “East” region to approximate
the region of interest in this analysis.

Figure <IP_ADDRESS>.  Regions defined in EMPAX-CGE

Production Functions

All productive markets are assumed to be perfectly competitive and have
production technologies that exhibit constant returns to scale, except
for the agriculture and natural resource extracting sectors, which have
decreasing returns to scale because they use factors in fixed supply
(land and fossil fuels, respectively).  The electricity industry is
separated into two distinct sectors:  fossil fuel generation and
nonfossil generation.  This allows tracking of variables such as heat
rates for fossil fired utilities (Btus of energy input per kilowatt hour
of electricity output).

All markets must clear (i.e., supply must equal demand in every sector)
in every period, and the income of each agent in the model must equal
their factor endowments plus any net transfers.  Along with the
underlying data, the nesting structures shown in Figure 5.4.1 and
associated substitution elasticities define current production
technologies and possible alternatives.

Utility Functions

Each region in the dynamic version of EMPAX-CGE contains four
representative households, classified by income, that maximize
intertemporal utility over all time periods in the model subject to
budget constraints, where the income groups are:

$0 to $14,999,

$15,000 to $29,999,

$30,000 to $49,999, and

$50,000 and above.

These representative households are endowed with factors of production
including labor, capital, natural resources, and land inputs to
agricultural production.  Factor prices are equal to the marginal
revenue received by firms from employing an additional unit of labor or
capital.  The value of factors owned by each representative household
depends on factor use implied by production within each region.  Income
from sales of these productive factors is allocated to purchases of
consumption goods to maximize welfare.

Within each time period, intratemporal utility received by a household
is formed from consumption of goods and leisure.  All consumption goods
are combined using a Cobb Douglas structure to form an aggregate
consumption good.  This composite good is then combined with leisure
time to produce household utility.  The elasticity of substitution
between consumption goods and leisure depends on empirical estimates of
labor supply elasticities and indicates how willing households are to
trade off leisure time for consumption.  Over time, households consider
the discounted present value of utility received from all periods’
consumption of goods and leisure.

Following standard conventions of CGE models, factors of production are
assumed to be intersectorally mobile within regions, but migration of
productive factors is not allowed across regions.  This assumption is
necessary to calculate welfare changes for the representative household
located in each region in EMPAX-CGE.  EMPAX-CGE also assumes that
ownership of natural resources and capital embodied in nonfossil
electricity generation is spread across the United States through
capital markets.

5.4.4	Trade

In EMPAX-CGE, all goods and services are assumed to be composite,
differentiated “Armington” goods made up of locally manufactured
commodities and imported goods.  Output of local industries is initially
separated into output destined for local consumption by producers or
households and output destined for export.  This local output is then
combined with goods from other regions in the United States using
Armington trade elasticities that indicate agents make relatively little
distinction between output from firms located within their region and
output from firms in other regions within the United States.  Finally,
the domestic composite goods are aggregated with imports from foreign
sources using lower trade elasticities to capture the fact that foreign
imports are more differentiated from domestic output than are imports
from other regional suppliers in the United States.

5.4.5	Tax Rates and Distortions

Taxes and associated distortions in economic behavior have been included
in EMPAX-CGE because theoretical and empirical literature found that
taxes can substantially alter estimated policy costs.  The IMPLAN
economic database used by EMPAX-CGE includes information on taxes such
as indirect business taxes (all sales and excise taxes) and social
security taxes.  However, IMPLAN reports factor payments for labor and
capital at their gross of tax values, which necessitates use of
additional data sources to determine personal income and capital tax
rates.  Information from the TAXSIM model at the National Bureau of
Economic Research (Feenberg and Coutts, 1993), along with user cost of
capital calculations from Fullerton and Rogers (1993), are used to
establish tax rates.

Along with these rates, distortions associated with taxes are a function
of labor supply decisions of households.  As with other CGE models
focused on interactions between tax and environmental policies (e.g.,
Bovenberg and Goulder [1996]; Goulder and Williams [2003]), an important
feature of EMPAX-CGE is its inclusion of a labor leisure choice—how
people decide between working and leisure time.  Labor supply
elasticities related to this choice determine, to a large extent, how
distortionary taxes are in a CGE model.  Elasticities based on the
relevant literature have been included in EMPAX-CGE (i.e., 0.4 for the
compensated labor supply elasticity and 0.15 for the uncompensated labor
supply elasticity).  These elasticity values give an overall marginal
excess burden associated with the existing tax structure of
approximately 0.3.

5.4.6	Intertemporal Dynamics and Economic Growth

There are four sources of economic growth in EMPAX-CGE:  technological
change from improvements in energy efficiency, growth in the available
labor supply (from both population growth and changes in labor
productivity), increases in stocks of natural resources, and capital
accumulation.  Energy consumption per unit of output tends to decline
over time because of improvements in production technologies and energy
conservation.  These changes in energy use per unit of output are
modeled as AEEIs, which are used to replicate energy consumption
forecasts by industry and fuel from EIA.   The AEEI values provide the
means for matching expected trends in energy consumption that have been
taken from the AEO forecasts.  They alter the amount of energy needed to
produce a given quantity of output by incorporating improvements in
energy efficiency and conservation.  Labor force and regional economic
growth, electricity generation, changes in available natural resources,
and resource prices are also based on the AEO forecasts.

 Savings provide the basis for capital formation and are motivated
through people’s expectations about future needs for capital.  Savings
and investment decisions made by households determine aggregate capital
stocks in EMPAX-CGE.  The IMPLAN dataset provides details on the types
of goods and services used to produce the investment goods underlying
each region’s capital stocks.  Adjustment dynamics associated with
formation of capital are controlled by using quadratic adjustment costs
experienced when installing new capital, which imply that real costs are
experienced to build and install new capital equipment.

Prior to investigating policy scenarios, it is necessary to establish a
baseline path for the economy that incorporates economic growth and
technology changes that are expected to occur in the absence of the
policy actions.  Beginning from the initial balanced SAM dataset, the
model is calibrated to replicate forecasts from AEO.  Upon incorporating
these forecasts, EMPAX-CGE is solved to generate a baseline consistent
with them through 2025.  Once this baseline is established, it is
possible to run “counterfactual” policy experiments.

5.5   Additional Regional Detail for Economic Cost Estimates

This appendix presents figures with additional regional economic impacts
related to the illustrative control strategies developed for the Ozone
070 standard.  Rather than showing an East-West separation for the
country, findings are given for all five regions in the EMPAX-CGE model.
 Figures 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 have additional detail on changes in energy
markets, and Figures 5.5.3 and 5.5.4 give disaggregated regional results
for the energy-intensive industries shown the RIA.

Under the alternate standard, effects on energy production are quite
limited.  On average across all energy types, output, as measured in
quantity (or unit) terms in Figure 5.5.1, changes by less that one-half
of one percent (<0.5%).  Impacts on electricity generation are around
one-tenth of one percent (~0.10%), driven largely by modestly higher
costs in the South.  Along with spillover effects on energy consumption
in energy-intensive industries, electric utilities tend to use slightly
more coal and less natural gas in 2020.  Figure 5.5.2, which shows the
changes in terms of industrial gross revenues (these combine any
declines in output with any changes in production costs or prices),
generally go the same direction as the quantity changes – with the
exception of electricity in regions that have higher output quantities,
but lower gross revenues because of changes in production costs and
hence prices.

Note that estimated percentage changes in output quantities are greatly
affected by the production base in each region.  For example, while
natural gas output declines by a larger percentage in the Midwest than
other regions, total production is relatively low in this area, compared
with other parts of the U.S.   Thus, as illustrated in Figure 5.5.2,
changes in gross revenues across the country measured in dollar terms
are relatively similar.

Figures 5.5.3 and 5.5.4 give the regional detail behind figures in the
main text.  These show that, although the controls for the Ozone 0.0070
ppm standard may tend to redistribute production around the nation (and
across states within model regions), the average impact on
energy-intensive industries is around two tenths of one percent (~0.2%).
 The disaggregated regional results do indicate, however, that
industries such as cement and glass could experience relatively larger
effects than other industries, especially within specific regions.

As with the main findings in the EIA, it is important to note when
examining such findings that these impacts and redistributions are
directly related to the specific control option assumed in the Ozone
0.070 ppm standard analysis, and that attainment could be met through
alternative approaches.  Thus, while EPA provides this analysis as
guidance for States, it is expected that States will evaluate the best
strategies for achieving compliance and may choose options that could
significantly alter these regional effects.  Therefore, SIPs will most
likely be different than the strategy developed in this RIA and could be
designed to alleviate any disproportionate impacts on sensitive
industries.

Figure 5.5.1.  Ozone 070 Impacts on Regional Energy Output Quantities,
2020

Source:	EMPAX-CGE

Figure 5.5.2.  Ozone 070 Impacts on Regional Energy Gross Output
Revenues, 2020

Source:	EMPAX-CGE

Figure 5.5.3.  Ozone 070 Impacts on Regional Energy-Intensive Output
Quantities, 2020

Source:	EMPAX-CGE

Figure 5.5.4.  Ozone 070 Impacts on Regional Energy-Intensive Gross
Output Revenues, 2020

Source:	EMPAX-CGE

 “NOx Emissions Control Costs for Stationary Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines in the NOx SIP Call States,”  E.H. Pechan and
Associates, Inc., Springfield, VA, August 11, 2000.  Available on the
Internet at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/cost/pechan8-11.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/cost/pechan8-11.pdf

 “Suggested Short List and Evaluation of Point and Area Source
Emission Control Measures for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area,” Texas Council on Environmental Quality,”
Prepared by ENVIRON International Corp. for Lamar Univ.   June 15, 2006.
 Available on the Internet at    HYPERLINK
"http://www.h-gac.com/NR/rdonlyres/e4cgpdlu4wd3tiguvvxkg5ziefqy36adm2o5c
z5jpm36c67ksxbtfurvvwvgdquy362skyhnsel5uh4rdkfz2rusphd/Final+Short+List+
%26+Evaluations.pdf"
http://www.h-gac.com/NR/rdonlyres/e4cgpdlu4wd3tiguvvxkg5ziefqy36adm2o5cz
5jpm36c67ksxbtfurvvwvgdquy362skyhnsel5uh4rdkfz2rusphd/Final+Short+List+%
26+Evaluations.pdf .

 MARAMA Multipollutant Rule Basis for Flares, part of “Assessment of
Control Technology Options for Petroleum Refineries in the mid-Atlantic
Region.”  February 19, 2007.  Found on the Internet at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.marama.org/reports/021907_Refinery_Control_Options_TSD_Final
.pdf"
http://www.marama.org/reports/021907_Refinery_Control_Options_TSD_Final.
pdf .

 Reference 5.

 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).  Proposed Revision
of Regulation 8, Rule 8: Wastewater Collection Systems.  Staff Report,
March 17, 2004.

 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2002. The
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: assessing 10
years of experience, Committee for the Evaluation of the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.

 Although it is not illustrated in Figure 5.4.1, some differences across
industries exist in their handling of energy inputs.  In addition, the
agriculture and fossil-fuel sectors in EMPAX-CGE contain equations that
account for the presence of fixed inputs to production (land and
fossil-fuel resources, respectively).

 See Brooke, Kendrick, and Meeraus (1996) for a description of GAMS (
HYPERLINK "http://www.gams.com/"  http://www.gams.com/ ).

 Solving EMPAX-CGE as a MCP problem implies that complementary slackness
is a feature of the equilibrium solution.  In other words, any firm in
operation will earn zero economic profits and any unprofitable firms
will cease operations.  Similarly, for any commodity with a positive
price, supply will equal demand, or conversely any good in excess supply
will have a zero price.

 See Rutherford (1999) for MPSGE documentation (  HYPERLINK
"http://debreu.colorado.edu"  http://debreu.colorado.edu ).

 See   HYPERLINK "http://www.implan.com/index.html"
http://www.implan.com/index.html  for a description of the Minnesota
IMPLAN Group and its data.

 These EIA sources include AEO 2003, the Manufacturing Energy
Consumption Survey, State Energy Data Report, State Energy Price and
Expenditure Report, and various annual industry profiles.

 EIS industry categories are based on EIA definitions of
energy-intensive manufacturers in the Assumptions for the Annual Energy
Outlook 2003.

 Economic data and information on nonelectricity energy markets are
generally available only at the state level, which necessitates an
approximation of the NERC regions that follows state boundaries.  For
the IAQR analysis, these approximations include Northeast = NPCC + MAAC,
Southeast = SERC + FERC, Midwest = ECAR + MAIN, Plains = MAPP + SPP +
ERCOT, and West = WSCC.  See   HYPERLINK "http://www.nerc.com/"
http://www.nerc.com/  for further discussion of these regions.

See Babiker et al. (2001) for a discussion of how this methodology was
used in the EPPA model (EPPA assumes that AEEI parameters are the same
across all industries in a country, while AEEI values in EMPAX-CGE are
industry specific).

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

Utility

Leisure

Goods (16 types)

Consumption

Household utility is a CES function of consumption and leisure.

Consumption is a Cobb-Douglas composite of the 16 types of goods.

Each consumption good is a CES composite of foreign and domestically
produced goods.

Foreign

Domestic

Domestic goods are a CES composite of locally produced goods and goods
from other regions.

Local Output

Regional Output

Intermediates

KLE

Most producer goods use fixed pro-portions of intermediate inputs and a
capital-labor-energy (KLE) composite.

Intermediate materials inputs are the 11 types of non-energy goods, in
fixed proportion for each industry.

Energy

Value Added

Labor

Capital

Energy  (5 Types)

The KLE composite is a CES function of energy and value-added (KL).

Value added is a Cobb-Douglas composite of capital and labor.

Energy is a CES composite of 5 types of fuel.  The structure of this
function varies across industries.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54496-54498]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19183]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9887-01-OMS]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM), Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of a new system of records.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) is giving notice that it proposes
to create a new system of records pursuant to the provisions of the
Privacy Act of 1974. The Office of Land and Emergency Management,
Customer Relationship Management System (OLEM CRM) is being created to
support work under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), Save Our
Seas 2.0 (SOS 2.0), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). The OLEM CRM will track and manage stakeholder engagement,
stakeholder commitments, EPA commitments, and external communications
with stakeholders related to the implementation of OLEM's initiatives.

DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this system of records notice must
do so by October 6, 2022. Routine uses for this new system of records
will be effective October 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2022-0451, by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
    Email: [email protected]. Include the Docket ID number in the
subject line of the message.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: OMS Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code:
2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: OMS Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2022-0451. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) or other information
for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CUI or otherwise protected through
https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov website is
an ``anonymous access'' system for the EPA, which means the EPA will
not know your identity or contact information. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment. If the EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going
through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about the EPA public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CUI or other information
for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
OMS Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. The Public Reading Room is normally open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OMS Docket is (202) 566-
1752. Further information about EPA Docket Center services and current
operating status is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Vance, OLEM CRM System Manager.
Email address: [email protected]. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Address:
Resource Conservation and Sustainability Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, MC 5306T, Washington,
DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL),
Save Our Seas 2.0 (SOS 2.0), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) direct EPA to design and implement waste reduction
strategies, grant programs, stakeholder education and outreach, and
implementation of OLEM initiatives. EPA is creating the OLEM CRM to
facilitate stakeholder engagement, track commitments from stakeholders,
monitor EPA's commitments, and manage communications with stakeholders
related to this work. The OLEM CRM will achieve the following critical
objectives:
     Maintain a list of stakeholder organizations and contacts,
     Manage stakeholder education and outreach, engagement
events, and communications,
     Maintain and document communication with stakeholders, and
     Manage Strategy Implementation Plan actions and
commitments.

SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:
    Office of Land and Emergency Management, Customer Relationship
Management System (OLEM CRM), EPA-96.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:
    Unclassified.

SYSTEM LOCATION:
    Records are maintained by the Office of Mission Support, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460. OLEM CRM records are hosted by AWS GovCloud (US).

SYSTEM MANAGER(S):
    Ron Vance, OLEM CRM System Manager. Email address:
[email protected]. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Address: Resource
Conservation and Sustainability Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, MC 5306T, Washington, DC 20460.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) 42 U.S.C. 6966d, Save Our
Seas 2.0 (SOS2.0) 33 U.S.C. 4281, and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) 42 U.S.C 6902.

PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:
    EPA will use the OLEM CRM to track correspondence and engagement of
external stakeholders. EPA will also use the OLEM CRM to track
stakeholder commitments and actions. OLEM has staff in EPA headquarters
and regional offices managing multiple engagement initiatives and
interacting with thousands of outside organizations. The OLEM CRM is
essential in helping to organize and coordinate efforts among EPA
program staff.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:
    The OLEM CRM will contain information on all organizations
participating in OLEM initiatives. Categories of individuals on whom
records are maintained in the system include those that serve as
contacts for or representatives of organizations participating in these
initiatives.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
    Information includes organization name, address, phone number,
website, and social media handles; individual information for
organizational contacts including name, title, address, email, and
phone number; correspondence history between EPA and the organization;
organization's participation history in OLEM initiatives; and documents
associated with correspondence or participation.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
    Information contained in the OLEM CRM will be submitted to EPA from
the participating organizations via direct data entry into the OLEM
CRM, email, or phone.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES
OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:
    The routine uses below are both related to and compatible with the
original purpose for which the information was collected. The following
general routine uses apply to this system (86 FR 62527): D, E, G, H, K,
L and M.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS:
    OLEM CRM records are maintained electronically by EPA on electronic
storage devices by the Office of Mission Support, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:
    Information in the OLEM CRM is retrieved by organization name,
however, information is also retrievable by searching the point of
contact name for each organization.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:
    The record schedule for the OLEM CRM is 0090 which is
Administrative Support Databases. For disposition instructions the OLEM
CRM follows record schedule 1012 e, which states that records should be
closed when superseded, updated, replaced or no longer needed for
current agency business. The disposition instructions are to destroy
the records one year after file closure.

ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:
    Security controls used to protect personal data in the OLEM CRM are
commensurate with those required for an information system rated
MODERATE for confidentiality, integrity, and availability, as
prescribed in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Special Publication, 800-53, ``Security and Privacy Controls for
Information Systems and Organizations,'' Revision 5.
    1. Administrative Safeguards: All individuals accessing the system
are required to complete annual privacy and security trainings. In
addition, all users will be trained on the appropriate use of the
system and system information.
    2. Technical Safeguards: There are limited access rights for EPA
program staff and contractors. Each user will ensure that the
information is being properly used. System administrators will grant
users specific access levels. All users of the system are given a
unique user identification (ID) with personal identifiers, and all
interactions between the system and the authorized individual users are
logged. Activity logs are maintained and can be used to track misuse of
information.
    3. Physical Safeguards: All records are maintained in secure,
access-controlled areas or buildings.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
    All requests for access to personal records should cite the Privacy
Act of 1974 and reference the type of request being made (i.e.,
access). Requests must include: (1) the name and signature of the
individual making the request; (2) the name of the Privacy Act system
of records to which the request relates; (3) a statement whether a
personal inspection of the records or a copy of them by mail is
desired; and (4) proof of identity. A full description of EPA's Privacy
Act procedures for requesting access to records is included in EPA's
Privacy Act regulations at 40 CFR part 16.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:
    Requests for correction or amendment must include: (1) the name and
signature of the individual making the request; (2) the name of the
Privacy Act system of records to which the request relates; (3) a
description of the information sought to be corrected or amended and
the specific reasons for the correction or amendment; and (4) proof of
identity. A full description of EPA's Privacy Act procedures for the
correction or amendment of a record is included in EPA's Privacy Act
regulations at 40 CFR part 16.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:
    Individuals who wish to be informed whether a Privacy Act system of
records maintained by EPA contains any record pertaining to them should
make a written request to the EPA, Attn: Agency Privacy Officer, MC
2831T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, or by email at:
[email protected]. A full description of EPA's Privacy Act procedures is
included in EPA's Privacy Act regulations at 40 CFR part 16.

EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:
    None.

HISTORY:
    None.

Vaughn Noga,
Senior Agency Official for Privacy.
[FR Doc. 2022-19183 Filed 9-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 58027-58029]
[DOCID:fr02oc06-137]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54501; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-026]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change as Amended Regarding Pricing for Non-Members Using the New
Nasdaq Workstation and Weblink ACT

 September 25, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 1, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq amended the proposed rule change on
September 20, 2006.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons, and simultaneously granting accelerated approval of
the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This proposed rule change relates to the pricing for non-Nasdaq
members using Nasdaq's New Nasdaq Workstation (``NNW'') and Weblink ACT
products. The proposal will apply to these non-members the same changes

that Nasdaq is instituting for Nasdaq members in SR-NASDAQ-2006-025.
Nasdaq seeks to implement this proposed rule change retroactively as of
August 1, 2006. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
the Commission's Public Reference Room, at Nasdaq, and at http://www.nasdaq.com.
\4\

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

    \4\ Changes to the proposed rule text are marked to the rule
text that appears in the electronic Nasdaq Manual found at
http://www.complinet.com/nasd.com, as further amended on an immediately

effective basis by SR-NASDAQ-2006-024 and SR-NASDAQ-2006-025.
Because the NNW and Weblink ACT are also used with respect to the
quotation, execution, and trade reporting systems operated by The
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq Inc.'') with respect to non-
Nasdaq securities, Nasdaq Inc. is also filing this proposed rule
change as a modification to NASD Rule 7010(f). See SR-NASD-2006-095.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    In SR-NASDAQ-2006-025, Nasdaq amended Rule 7015 to change Nasdaq
member fees associated with its Web-based NNW and Weblink ACT products.
Since the NNW's inception as a replacement for the Nasdaq Workstation
II (``NWII'') last year, the fee for the NNW has been $435 per user per
month, plus $90 per month for data feeds included with the NNW, for a
total cost of $525 per user per month. In SR-NASDAQ-2006-025, Nasdaq
reduced the fee to $475 per user per month, including the cost of the
data feeds provided with the NNW. The change is designed to enhance the
competitiveness of the NNW in contrast to front-end applications
provided by broker-dealers and service bureaus, and, as discussed
below, also reflects decreasing demand for the product.
    Weblink ACT, also referred to as Nasdaq Workstation Post Trade, is
a Web-based application used for submission of trade reports. As such,
as the Nasdaq Exchange begins to operate as a national securities
exchange, Weblink ACT provides basic front-end access to the Trade
Reporting Facility (``TRF'') operated by Nasdaq and the NASD,\5\ as
well as access to ACT functionality still offered by Nasdaq Inc. under
authority delegated by NASD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Nasdaq expects that, consistent with current practice, most
NASD members seeking access to the TRF would use a proprietary
front-end system developed by the broker-dealer or a product offered
by a service bureau. Weblink ACT is designed as a basic front-end
system for low volume users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the introduction of NNW and Weblink ACT, a number of former
NWII users have opted to move to Weblink ACT rather than NNW,
reflecting a desire to use these Web-based products exclusively for
trade reporting, rather than active trading. Accordingly, in SR-NASDAQ-
2006-025, Nasdaq increased the comparatively low fees for Weblink ACT
to ensure that, as between NNW and Weblink ACT, fees are allocated
appropriately to allow recovery of Nasdaq's costs. Specifically, the
current $150 fee for Weblink ACT users that report a daily average of
20 or fewer trades a month is being raised to $200, while the $300 fee
for higher volume users is being increased to $375.
    Nasdaq is submitting this filing to apply the foregoing changes to
non-Nasdaq members using the NNW and Weblink ACT. These non-members are
comprised primarily of service bureaus, while in the case of Weblink
ACT, they would also include NASD members that are not members of
Nasdaq but that submit trade reports to the TRF.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which Nasdaq operates or controls. The proposed rule change applies to
non-members that use NNW and Weblink ACT a fee change that is being
implemented for Nasdaq members. Accordingly, the proposed rule change
promotes an equitable allocation of fees between members and non-
members using these services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-026 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-026. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of NASDAQ. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-026 and should be submitted on or before
October 23, 2006.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to an exchange.\8\ Specifically, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ which requires that the rules of an exchange
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facilities or system which it operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that this proposal would permit the schedule
for non-Nasdaq members to mirror the schedule applicable to Nasdaq
members that became effective on August 1, 2006, pursuant to SR-NASDAQ-
2006-025.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the
notice thereof in the Federal Register. The proposed fees for non-
Nasdaq members are identical to those in SR-NASDAQ-2006-025, which
implemented those fees for Nasdaq members and which became effective as
of August 1, 2006. The Commission notes that the instant proposed rule
change will promote consistency in Nasdaq's fee schedule by applying
simultaneously the same pricing schedule for Nasdaq members and non-
Nasdaq members alike. Therefore, the Commission finds that there is
good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, to approve the
proposed rule change, as amended, on an accelerated basis.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2006-026), as amended, be, and
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16117 Filed 9-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 44 (Monday, March 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10530-10532]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4735]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61611; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Amex LLC Amending NYSE
Amex Equities Rule 123C(9)(a)(1) To Extend the Operation of the Pilot
Operating Pursuant the Rule Until the Earlier of Securities and
Exchange Commission Approval To Make Such Pilot Permanent or June 1,
2010

March 1, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 24, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule
123C(8)(a)(1) to extend the operation of the pilot to temporarily
suspend certain NYSE Amex Equities Rule requirements relating to the
closing of securities on the Exchange until the earlier of Securities
and Exchange Commission approval to make such pilot permanent or March
1, 2010. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the ``Exchange''), formerly the
American Stock Exchange LLC, proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule
123C(9)(a)(1) \3\ to extend the operation of the pilot operating
pursuant the Rule until the earlier of Securities and Exchange
Commission approval to make such pilot permanent or June 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 61244 (December 28,
2009), 75 FR 479 (January 5, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-81) (Modify the
closing process and renumbering 123C(8) to 123C(9)). The Exchange
anticipates operation of these changes to commence on or about March
1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C(9)(a)(1) allows the Exchange to
temporarily suspend certain rule requirements at the close when extreme
order imbalances may cause significant dislocation to the closing
price. The rule has operated on a pilot basis since April 2009
(``Extreme Order Imbalances Pilot'' or ``Pilot'').\4\ Through this
filing, NYSE Amex proposes to extend the Pilot until the earlier of
Securities and Exchange Commission approval to make such Pilot
permanent or June 1, 2010.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59755 (April 13,
2009), 74 FR 18009 (April 20, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2009-15).
    \5\ The Exchange notes that parallel changes are proposed to be
made to the rules of New York Stock Exchange LLC. See SR-NYSE-2010-
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Pursuant to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C(9)(a)(1), the Exchange may
suspend NYSE Amex Equities Rules 52 (Hours of Operation) to resolve an
extreme order imbalance that may result in a closing price dislocation
at the close as a result of an order entered into Exchange systems, or
represented to a DMM orally at or near the close. The provisions of
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C(9)(a)(1) operate as the Extreme Order
Imbalance Pilot.
    As a condition of the approval to operate the Pilot, the Exchange
committed to provide the Commission with information regarding: (i) How
often a Rule 52 temporary suspension pursuant to the Pilot was invoked
during the six months following its approval; and (ii) the Exchange's
determination as to how to proceed with technical modifications to
reconfigure Exchange systems to accept orders electronically after 4
p.m..
    The Extreme Order Imbalance Pilot is scheduled to end operation on
March 1, 2010.\6\ The Exchange is currently

preparing a rule filing seeking permission to make the provisions of
the Pilot permanent with certain modifications but does not expect that
filing to be completed and approved by the Commission before March 1,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 61265 (December
31, 2009), 75 FR 1094 (January 8, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-96)
(extending the operation of the pilot from December 31, 2009 to
March 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Extend the Operation of the Extreme Order Imbalance Pilot
    The Exchange established the Extreme Order Imbalance Pilot to
create a mechanism for ensuring a fair and orderly close when interest
is received at or near the close that could negatively affect the
closing transaction. The Exchange believes that this tool has proved
very useful to resolve an extreme order imbalance that may result in a
closing price dislocation at the close as a result of an order entered
into Exchange systems, or represented to a DMM orally at or near the
close.
    As the Exchange has previously stated, NYSE Amex Equities Rule
123C(9) will be invoked to attract offsetting interest in rare
circumstances where there exists an extreme imbalance at the close such
that a DMM is unable to close the security without significantly
dislocating the price. This is evidenced by the fact that during the
course of the Pilot, the Exchange invoked the provisions of NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 123C(9), including the provisions of the Extreme Order
Imbalance Pilot pursuant to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 123C(9)(a)(1), in
only two securities on June 26, 2009, the date of the annual
rebalancing of Russell Indexes.
    In addition, during the operation of the Pilot, the Exchange
determined that it would not be as onerous as previously believed to
modify Exchange systems to accept orders electronically after 4 p.m.
The Exchange has completed the system modifications and is now in the
process of testing the modifications. The Exchange anticipates that its
quality assurance review process will be completed by June 1, 2010.
    Given the above, the Exchange believes that provisions governing
the Extreme Order Imbalance Pilot should be made permanent. Through
this filing the Exchange seeks to extend the current operation of the
Pilot in order to allow the Exchange to formally submit a filing to the
Commission to convert the provisions governing the Pilot to permanent
rules and complete the technological modifications required to accept
orders electronically after 4 p.m. The Exchange therefore requests an
extension from the current expiration date of March 1, 2010, until the
earlier of Securities and Exchange Commission approval to make such
Pilot permanent or June 1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \7\ that an Exchange have rules that
are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the
instant filing is consistent with these principles. Specifically an
extension will allow the Exchange to: (i) Prepare and submit a filing
to make the provisions governing the Extreme Order Imbalance Pilot
permanent; (ii) have such filing complete public notice and comment
period; and (iii) complete the 19b-4 approval process. The rule
operates to protect investors and the public interest by ensuring that
the closing price at the Exchange is not significantly dislocated from
the last sale price by virtue of an extreme order imbalance at or near
the close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.\10\
However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ which would make the rule change operative
immediately. The Exchange believes that continuation of the Pilot does
not burden competition and would operate to protect investors and the
public interest by ensuring that the closing price at the Exchange is
not significantly dislocated from the last sale price by virtue of an
extreme order imbalance at or near the close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-regulatory organization to give the
Commission notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. NYSE Amex has satisfied this requirement.
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it would allow the Pilot to continue without interruption while
the Exchange works towards submitting a separate proposal to make the
Pilot permanent. Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed
rule change as operative upon filing with the Commission.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-15. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\14\ all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m.
and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-15 and should
be submitted on or before March 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4735 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7965-7967]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03212]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1077; Special Conditions No. 25-609-SC]

Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 5X Airplane,
Design Roll Maneuver Condition

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Dassault Aviation
Model Falcon 5X airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual
design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in
the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This
design feature is electronic flight controls that affect maneuvering.
The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special
conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Dassault Aviation on February 17,
2016. We must receive your comments by April 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-1077
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 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.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go 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: Mark Freisthler, FAA, Airframe and
Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected
airplane.
    In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been
subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with
no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good
cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On July 1, 2012, Dassault Aviation applied for a type certificate
for their new Model Falcon 5X airplane.
    The Model Falcon 5X airplane is a transport-category airplane to be
operated in private/corporate transportation with a maximum of 19
passengers. The airplane incorporates a low, swept-wing design with
winglets; twin rear-fuselage-mounted engines; and the newest generation
of Dassault Aviation's EASy flightdeck.
    The Model Falcon 5X will include electronic flight controls that
affect maneuvering.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Dassault Aviation must show
that the Model Falcon 5X airplane meets the applicable provisions of
part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-136.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model Falcon 5X airplane because
of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model Falcon 5X airplane must comply with the fuel-vent
and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model Falcon 5X airplane will incorporate the following novel
or unusual design feature:
    This airplane is equipped with an electronic flight-control system
that provides control through pilot inputs to the flight computer,
thereby affecting maneuverability of the airplane as compared to
conventional control systems.

Discussion

    Current part 25 airworthiness regulations account for control laws
for which aileron deflection is proportional to control-stick
deflection. They do not address nonlinearities or other effects on
aileron actuation that may be caused by electronic flight controls.
Because this type of system may affect flight loads, and therefore the
structural capability of the airplane, specific regulations are needed
to address these effects.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Model Falcon 5X airplane. Should Dassault Aviation apply at a later
date for a

change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions
would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would
significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is
imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment
are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting
these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The
FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views
that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities
for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 5X
airplanes.
    In lieu of compliance to Sec.  25.349(a), the following conditions,
speeds, and cockpit roll-control motions (except as the motions may be
limited by pilot effort) must be considered in combination with an
airplane load factor of zero, and of two-thirds of the positive
maneuvering factor used in design. In determining the resulting
control-surface deflections, the torsional flexibility of the wing must
be considered in accordance with Sec.  25.301(b).
    1. Conditions corresponding to steady rolling velocities must be
investigated. In addition, conditions corresponding to maximum angular
acceleration must be investigated for airplanes with engines or other
weight concentrations outboard of the fuselage. For the angular
acceleration conditions, zero rolling velocity may be assumed in the
absence of a rational time-history investigation of the maneuver.
    2. At VA, sudden movement of the cockpit roll control up
to the limit is assumed. The position of the cockpit roll control must
be maintained until a steady roll rate is achieved, and then must be
returned suddenly to the neutral position.
    3. At VC, the cockpit roll control must be moved
suddenly and maintained so as to achieve a roll rate not less than that
obtained in special condition 2, above.
    4. At VD, the cockpit roll control must be moved
suddenly and maintained so as to achieve a roll rate not less than one-
third of that obtained in special condition 2, above.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 4, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-03212 Filed 2-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P