[Federal Register: August 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 48567-48569]
[DOCID:fr21au06-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54315; File No. SR-ISE-2006-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Fee Changes

August 14, 2006.
    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 July 25, 2006, the International Securities Exchange, Inc.
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the ISE.
On August 10, 2006, ISE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The ISE has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the ISE under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\5\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 revised the rule text contained in Exhibit 5
to conform it to the discussion contained in the Purpose section,
which explains that a ten (10) cent per contract surcharge applies
only to IWB, IWD, XLV, XLU, and XLK and not to all of the Premium
Products that are the subject of this filing.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish
fees for transactions in options on nine Premium Products.\6\ The text
of the proposed rule change, as amended, is available on the ISE's Web
site (http://www.iseoptions.com/legal/proposed_rule_changes.asp), at

the principal office of the ISE, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Premium Products'' is defined in the ISE's Schedule of
Fees as the products enumerated therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 ISE 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The ISE 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
    The Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to
establish fees for transactions in options on the following nine
Premium Products: PowerShares Water Resources Portfolio (``PHO''),\7\
SPDR Homebuilders ETF (``XHB''),\8\ iShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index
Fund (``FXI''), iShares Dow Jones Select

Dividend Index Fund (``DVY''),\9\ iShares Russell 1000 Index Fund
(``IWB''), iShares Russell 1000 Value Index Fund (``IWD''), Health Care
Select Sector SPDR Fund (``XLV''), Utilities Select Sector SPDR Fund
(``XLU''), and Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund (``XLK'').\10\
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to adopt an execution fee and a
comparison fee for all transactions in options on PHO, XHB, FXI, DVY,
IWB, IWD, XLV, XLU, and XLK.\11\ The amount of the execution fee and
comparison fee for products covered by this filing shall be $0.15 and
$0.03 per contract, respectively, for all Public Customer Orders \12\
and Firm Proprietary orders. The amount of the execution fee and
comparison fee for all ISE Market Maker transactions shall be equal to
the execution fee and comparison fee currently charged by the Exchange
for ISE Market Maker transactions in equity options.\13\ Finally, the
amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for all non-ISE Market
Maker transactions shall be $0.16 and $0.03 per contract, respectively.
All of the applicable fees covered by this filing are identical to fees
charged by the Exchange for all other Premium Products. The Exchange
believes the proposed rule change will further the Exchange's goal of
introducing new products to the marketplace that are competitively
priced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ PowerSharesTM and PHOTM are trademarks
of PowerShares Capital Management LLC (``PowerShares''). The
Palisades Water Index is a trademark of Hydrogen Ventures and has
been licensed for use for certain purposes by PowerShares. All other
trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective
owners. The PHO is not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by
Hydrogen Ventures, and Hydrogen Ventures makes no representation
regarding the advisability of investing in PHO. Hydrogen Ventures
and PowerShares have not licensed or authorized ISE to: (i) Engage
in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading,
marketing, and promotion of options on PHO; or (ii) use and refer to
any of their trademarks or service marks in connection with the
listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion
of options on PHO or with making disclosures concerning options on
PHO under any applicable Federal or state laws, rules or
regulations. Hydrogen Ventures and PowerShares do not sponsor,
endorse, or promote such activity by ISE and are not affiliated in
any manner with ISE.
    \8\ ``Standard & Poor's[reg],'' ``S&P[reg],'' ``S&P 500[reg],''
``Standard & Poor's 500[reg]'' ``Standard & Poor's Depositary
Receipts[reg],'' ``SPDR[reg],'' are trademarks of The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc. (``McGraw-Hill''), and have been licensed for use by
State Street Bank and Trust in connection with the listing and
trading of XHB on the American Stock Exchange. XHB is not sponsored,
sold or endorsed by Standard & Poor's, (``S&P''), a division of
McGraw-Hill, and S&P makes no representation regarding the
advisability of investing in XHB. McGraw-Hill and S&P have not
licensed or authorized ISE to: (i) Engage in the creation, listing,
provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of
options on XHB; or (ii) use and refer to any of their trademarks or
service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a market
for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on XHB or with
making disclosures concerning options on XHB under any applicable
Federal or state laws, rules or regulations. McGraw-Hill and S&P do
not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE and are not
affiliated in any manner with ISE.
    \9\ iShares[reg] is a registered trademark of Barclays Global
Investors, N.A. (``BGI''), a wholly owned subsidiary of Barclays
Bank PLC. ``Dow Jones'' and ``Dow Jones U.S. Select Dividend Index
Fund'' are trademarks and service marks of Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
(``Dow Jones'') and have been licensed for use for certain purposes
by BGI. ``FTSE'' is a trademark jointly owned by the London Stock
Exchange PLC and The Financial Times Limited. ``Xinhua'' is a
service mark and trademark of Xinhua Financial News Network Limited.
All marks are licensed for use by FTSE/Xinhua Index Limited. All
other trademarks and service marks are the property of their
respective owners. Neither DVY nor FXI are sponsored, endorsed,
issued, sold or promoted by Dow Jones or FTSE/Xinhua Index Limited.
BGI, Dow Jones, and FTSE/Xinhua Index Limited have not licensed or
authorized ISE to: (i) Engage in the creation, listing, provision of
a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on DVY and
FXI; or (ii) use and refer to any of their trademarks or service
marks in connection with the listing, provision of a market for
trading, marketing, and promotion of options on DVY and FXI or with
making disclosures concerning options on DVY and FXI under any
applicable Federal or state laws, rules or regulations. BGI, Dow
Jones, and FTSE/Xinhua Index Limited do not sponsor, endorse, or
promote such activity by ISE and are not affiliated in any manner
with ISE.
    \10\ PHO, XHB, FXI, DVY, IWB, IWD, XLV, XLU, and XLK constitute
``Fund Shares,'' as defined by ISE Rule 502(h).
    \11\ These fees will be charged only to Exchange members. Under
a pilot program that is set to expire on July 31, 2006, these fees
will also be charged to Linkage Orders (as defined in ISE Rule
1900). See infra footnote 15 (regarding ISE's proposed rule change
to extend its Linkage fees pilot program).
    \12\ Public Customer Order is defined in Exchange Rule
100(a)(33) as an order for the account of a Public Customer. Public
Customer is defined in Exchange Rule 100(a)(32) as a person that is
not a broker or dealer in securities.
    \13\ The execution fee is currently between $.21 and $.12 per
contract side, depending on the Exchange Average Daily Volume, and
the comparison fee is currently $.03 per contract side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange has entered into a license agreement
with the Frank Russell Company and Standard & Poor's in connection with
the listing and trading of options on IWB, IWD and XLV, XLU, and XLK,
as applicable. As with certain other licensed options, the Exchange
proposes to adopt a fee of ten (10) cents per contract for trading in
these options to defray the licensing costs. The Exchange believes
charging the participants that trade these products is the most
equitable means of recovering the costs of the licenses. However,
because of competitive pressures in the industry, the Exchange proposes
to exclude Public Customer Orders from this surcharge fee. Accordingly,
this surcharge fee will only be charged to Exchange members with
respect to non-Public Customer Orders (e.g., ISE Market Maker, non-ISE
Market Maker, and Firm Proprietary orders) and shall apply to Linkage
Orders \14\ under a pilot program that is set to expire on July 31,
2006.\15\ Finally, since options on PHO, XHB, FXI, DVY, IWB, IWD, XLV,
XLU, and XLK are multiply-listed, the Payment for Order Flow fee shall
also apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ISE Rule 1900.
    \15\ In File No. SR-ISE-2006-38, the Exchange proposed, and the
Commission subsequently approved, a rule change to extend the
Linkage fees pilot program until July 31, 2007. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 54204 (July 25, 2006), 71 FR 43548 (August
1, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchanges believes that the basis under the Act for this
proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act \16\ that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended,
does not 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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change, as amended, establishes or
changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \18\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such amended 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.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
    \19\ The effective date of the original proposed rule is July
25, 2006. The effective date of Amendment No. 1 is August 10, 2006.
For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the
Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on August 10, 2006, the date on which the ISE submitted
Amendment No. 1. See 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, as amended, 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 No. SR-ISE-2006-43 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2006-43. 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 such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the ISE. 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-ISE-2006-43 and should be submitted on or before
September 11, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-13725 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 42665-42666]
[DOCID:fr24au09-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13545-000]

Free Flow Power Ohio River 8, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

August 14, 2009.

    On July 14, 2009, Free Flow Power Ohio River 8, LLC filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Whiskey
Bay Hydrokinetic Energy Project, located on the Atchafalaya River,
Saint Landry, Saint Martin, and Iberville Parishes, Louisiana. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if

issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) 1,860 turbine-generator
units configured in a series of turbine arrays which in turn will be
grouped to form turbine fields; (2) a combination of freestanding
pilings, a floating barge-like platform, or existing shore
infrastructure such as dock pilings onto which the turbine arrays will
be moored; (3) submersible electric cables interconnecting the arrays
within each turbine field and transmit the turbine field's generation
to a shore station; (4) several shore stations each consisting of less
than 100 square meters which will transition the submersible cabling to
the overhead transmission; (5) a 8.3 mile, 69 kV line interconnecting
the shore stations and delivering power to the project substation; and
(6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would generate about
163 gigawatt-hours annually.
    Applicant contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corporation,
33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930, phone: (978)
226-1531.
    FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of
the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13545) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20224 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


2 4 5 8 10 mi I 1woW 75000 5oMx) 25ooo 0  0 MSDl 413, ElC42.7: 413.7 (ROSl800B\ RUSHOOW. D) APES NqsUVe 0  , . . . I , . , , . . , . 7 4 8 8 10 mil 0 2 Instrument 1 7/ 10/ 00 9: 15: 11 AM kej Page 1 of 2 Page 136 of 148 BACK TO MAIN 3M Environmental Laboratory Report No. E00 2192 lsMxyxl 125Mwo SMXWX) Batch Run # 21 of 61 Data File C:\ HPCHEM\ l\ DATA\ R0518OOB\ rush0072. D Sample Name: 0515 PFOAfe 38   __*===~=~~====~=~====  i____  Injection Date : 5/ 19/ 00 12: 26: 11 PM Seq. Line : 1 2 Sample Name : 0515 PFOAfe 38 Vial : 48 ' Acq. Operator : kej Inj : 1 Acq. Instrument : Rush Acq. Method : C:\ HPCHW\ l\ METHODS\ PFOA516. M Last changed : 5/ 18/ 00 11: 35: 03 AM by kej Analysis Method : C:\ HPCHEM\ l\ METHODS\ RO518BX. M Last changed : 7/ 10/ 00 9: 15: 29 AM by kej SIM Analysis (ES) for PFOS/ PFBS/ PFOA using Dionex IonPac NG1 column, 4x35mm. (modified after loading) (Results are from a previously saved MSDl 263. ElC= 262.7263.7 (RffilBWS\ RUSHW72. D) API ES N@ b 0 i 4 6 a 10 mil MSDI 363, ElCW2.7369.7 (R0518WBWJSHW72. D) API ES NWiIk w. 3 0 2 4 6 6 10 rnl MSDsDt 299, EIC~ W. 7299.7 (ROSlBM) B\ RUSHW72.0) API ES Negdive 2 4 6 a fo rn Instrument 17/ 10/ 00 9: 15: 29 AM kej Page 1 of 2 Page 137 of 148 BACK TO MAIN 3M Environmental Laboratory Report No. E00 2192 __~

Appendix E: Soil Types and Characterizations This appendix presents the physical descriptions and chemical characterizations of the three soils used in the present investigation Page 138 of 148 BACK TO MAIN 3M Environmental Laboratory Report No. E00 2192 STANDARD LABORATORY SQiLS ST cmlx Eo, y s3 22000 <to . 0.6 3000 4.5 8 36 12 20000 2mo MK)

!j2 120 18 620 4 0 9 0 0 d9 8.14 0.68 '

297 0.03 42 28.3 0.1 1 0.04 <.? IO ' 0.04 I'

61 2.00 84 1470 1.79 3.09 1S. f s. 7 5.7 0.98 22 44 34 LOAM BDL BO1 1.8 MOR? COW A U U 40000 <lo 4 .5 3oOo co. 5 5 41 8.5 22wo 0.1 1 1500 84 M 14 150 4 0 4 0 0 47 ?7 120 3.50 0.10 0.43 0.02 18 22.0 0.09 0.05 5 0.25 14 280 0.277 0.478 22.3 .4.8 4.5 1.1) 0.32 26 36 38 CLAY LOAM BDL BDL .. EPkSSM 4 n o loa 0.6 48000 '

. 86000 4.5 ,

6 2J 13 18000 0.02 3OOOO f10 92 13 7 l O 4 0 em 47 220 .

26.1 0.18 3.58 lo0 21.3 0.20 0.05 15 1.80 6.0 2 s O M 0.805 0.08 ,

16.0 7.7 7.5 NONE 0.68 22 26 52 SANDY CLAY LOAM B M BDL .

Page 139 of 148 BACK TO MAIN 3M Environmental Laboratory Report No. E00 2192 Appendix F: Light Intensity Measurements at 45" South Latitude (Miami FL)

Page 140 of 148 BACK TO MAIN 3M .Environmental Laboratory Report No. E00 2192 .I.

I I I '

I 'da;, .

CInA : I.. . . I .

*Small variations are possible, depending un condition oflamp andfilters.

Page 141 of 148 BACK TO MAIN 3M Environmental Laboratory Report No. E00 2192 Appendix G: Characteristics of the Spectral Output of the Suntest Instruments This appendix contains an Excel spreadsheet of the characteristics of the spectral output of the Suntest Photoreactors used in the present investigation.

Page 142 of 148 BACK TO MAIN 3M Environmental Laboratory Report No. E00 2192 Suntest Irradiance in W/ mA2* nm Assuming the use of 300 800nm Global Sensor Only Filters Used Wavelength nm 250 252 254 256 258 260 262 264 266 268 270 272 274 276 278 280 282 284 286 288 290 292 294 296 298 300 302 304 306 308 31 0 312 314 31 6 31 8 320 322 324 326 328 IR QlSuprax (UV) 0.001 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.005 0.009 0.014 0.021 0.028 0.045 0.054 0.07 0.085 0.116 0.138 0.151 0.175 0.21 0.24 0.263 0.279 0.329 0.352 0.369 0.4 Irradiances factored to yield 680 W/ mA2 in 300 800nm band IR QlSuDrax IUV) 0.001 119 0 0 0 0.001 1 I 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.003357 0.005595 0.01 0071 0.01 5666 0.023499 0.031332 0.050355 0.060426 0.07833 0.0951 15 0.129804 0.154422 0.168969 0.195825 0.23499 0.26856 0.294297 0.312201 0.368151 0.393888 0.412911 0.4476 Page 143 of 148 BACK TO MAIN 3M Environmental Laboratory Report No. E00 2192 330 332 334 336 338 340 342 344 346 348 350 352 354 356 358 360 362 364 366 368 370 372 374 376 378 380 382 384 386 388 390 392 394 396 398 400 402 404 406 408 41 0 412 414 416 418 420 422 424 426 428 0.431 0.449 0.475 0.495 0.525 0.549 0.565 0.566 0.587 0.614 0.61 0.635 0.656 0.685 0.662 0.675 0.719 0.714 0.73 0.813 0.858 0.767 0.8 0.827 0.864 0.962 0.992 0.974 0.996 1.028 1.111 1.126 1.227 1.642 I .552 1.243 1.228 1.241 I .284 1.473 1.395 1.551 1.41 6 1.369 I .426 1.644 1.453 I .472 I .462 1.466 0.482289 0.502431 0.531525 0.553905 0.587475 0.614331 0.632235 0.633354 0.656853 0.687066 0.68259 0.710565 0.734064 0.76651 5 0.740778 0.755325 0.804561 0.798966 0.81687 0.909747 0.9601 02 0.858273 0.8952 0.925413 0.966816 1.076478 1 .I 10048 I .089906 1 .I 14524 I. 150332 1.243209 1.259994 1.373013 1.837398 1.736688 1.390917 1.374132 1.388679 1.436796 1.648287 1.561 005 1.735569 1.584504 1.53191 1 1.595694 1.839636 1.625907 1.647 1 68 1.635978 I .640454 Page 144 of 148 BACK TO MAIN 430 432 434 436 438 440 442 444 446 448 450 452 454 456 458 460 462 464 466 468 470 472 474 476 478 480 482 484 486 488 490 492 494 496 498 500 502 504 506 508 51 0 51 2 51 4 51 6 51 8 520 522 524 526 528 1.466 1.487 1.5 1.566 1.714 1.616 1.616 1.57 1.563 1.573 2.267 2.031 1.796 1.81 1 2.127 1.835 3.267 2.476 2.541 5.277 2.487 1.922 2.924 1.837 1.813 2.289 2.516 2.651 1.952 1.842 1.898 3.012 2.089 1.871 1.888 1.898 I .973 2.005 1.94 1.927 1.934 I .963 2.013 2.031 2.021 I .995 1.971 1.98 1.966 1.978 3M Environmental Laboratory Report No. E00 2192 1.640454 1.663953 I I .6785 1.752354 1.91 7966 1.808304 1.808304 1.75683 1.748997 1.7601 87 2.536773 2.272689 2.009724 2.026509 2.3801 13 2.053365 3.655773 2.770644 2.843379 5.904963 2.782953 2.1 50718 3.271 956 2.055603 2.028747 2.561391 2.8 I 5404 2.966469 2.184288 2.061 198 2.123862 3.370428 2.337591 2.093649 2.1 12672 2.123862 2.207787 2.243595 2.1 7086 2.1 56313 2.1 641 46 2.196597 2.252547 2.272689 2.261499 2.232405 2.205549 2.21562 2.199954 2.2 1 3382 Page 145 of 148 BACK TO MAIN 3M Environmental Laboratory Report No. E00 2192 530 532 534 536 538 540 542 544 546 548 550 552 554 556 558 560 562 564 566 568 570 572 574 576 578 580 582 584 586 588 590 592 594 596 598 600 602 604 606 608 610 612 614 616 61 8 620 622 624 626 628 I .954 I .932 1.942 2.008 2.014 2.113 1.996 1.977 1.962 1.921 1.876 1.84 1.938 2.17 2.106 1.936 1.912 1.749 1.706 1.77 1.997 2.032 1.802 1.624 1.572 1.654 2.215 2.034 1.738 2.118 2.159 1.996 2.185 1.607 1.492 1.471 I .37 1.263 1.207 1.184 1.292 1.494 1.31 1.631 2.672 2.172 1.416 1.181 1.256 1.251 2.186526 2.161908 2.173098 2.246952 2.253666 2.364447 2.233524 2.21 2263 2.195478 2.149599 2.099244 2.05896 2.168622 2.42823 2.35661 4 2.166384 2.139528 1.9571 31 1 .go9014 1.98063 2.234643 2.273808 2.016438 1.81 7256 1.759068 1.850826 2.478585 2.276046 I .944822 2.370042 2.415921 2.233524 2.44501 5 I .798233 1.669548 1.646049 1.53303 I .413297 1.350633 1.324896 1.445748 1.671786 1.46589 1.825089 2.989968 2.430468 I .584504 1.321539 1.405464 1.399869 Page 146 of 148 BACK TO MAIN 3M Environmental Laboratory Report No. E00 2192 630 632 634 636 638 640 642 644 646 648 650 652 654 656 658 660 662 664 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 680 682 684 686 688 690 692 694 696 698 700 702 704 706 708 710 712 714 71 6 720 722 724 726 728 718 1.51 2.325 1.246 0.959 0.927 0.834 0.856 0.876 1.013 1.571 1.431 1.12 1.071 0.86 0.801 1.103 0.763 0.762 0.855 1.037 0.575 0.682 0.91 2 0.526 0.567 0.514 0.738 1.065 1.214 2.331 1.16 0.73 0.603 0.432 0.688 0.347 0.327 0.298 0.31 0.275 0.424 2.069 0.594 0.302 0.289 0.254 0.297 0.384 0.592 0.817 I .68969 2.601675 1.394274 1.073121 1.037313 0.933246 0.957864 0.980244 I .I 33547 1.757949 1.601 289 1.25328 1. I 98449 0.96234 0.89631 9 1.234257 0.853797 0.852678 0.956745 I. 160403 0.643425 0.763158 1.020528 0.588594 0.634473 0.575166 0.825822 1 .I 91 735 1.358466 2.608389 1.29804 0.81687 0.674757 0.483408 0.769872 0.388293 0.365913 0.333462 0.34689 0.307725 0.474456 2.31521 1 0.664686 0.337938 0.323391 0.284226 0.332343 0.429696 0.662448 0.9 14223 Page 147 of 148 BACK TO MAIN 730 732 734 736 738 740 742 744 746 748 750 752 754 756 758 760 762 764 766 768 770 772 774 776 778 780 782 784 786 788 790 792 794 796 798 800 0.593 0.634 0.472 0.316 0.375 1.097 0.368 0.272 0.264 0.439 0.356 0.231 0.273 0.406 0.823 1.344 0.554 1.555 1.114 0.388 0.194 0.152 0.188 0.21 0.247 0.388 0.327 0.225 0.171 0.335 0.693 0.137 0.18 0.326 0.632 0.233 Total Integrated irradiance in 300 800nm Wavelength Band 607.6 W/ mA2 680.0 W/ mA2 3M Environmental Laboratory Report No. E00 2192 0.663567 0.709446 0.5281 68 0.353604 0.419625 I .227543 0.41 1792 0.304368 0.295416 0.491241 0.398364 0.258489 0.305487 0.454314 0.920937 1.503936 0.619926 1.740045 1.246566 0.434172 0.21 7086 0.170088 0.210372 0.23499 0.276393 0.4341 72 0.365913 0.251 775 0.191 349 0.374865 0.775467 0.153303 0.20142 0.364794 0.707208 0.260727 Page 148 of 148 1__ BACK TO MAIN


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 5a.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 5a.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 5a.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, Remote OBD has a test and installation cost of
$4.3 billion dollars over the same 10 year period, and a convenience
cost of $2.5 billion for a total of $6.8 billion.  Thus, nationwide
installation of Remote OBD would save the nation’s motorists about $38
billion in inspection and convenience costs over a 10 year period.

Table 5a.4 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
5a.5.

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

$/ton (2000$) 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 detail 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 5a.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 5a.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 5a.6 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
non-fossil generation, which is necessary because many electricity
policies affect only fossil fired electricity.

Table 5a.6  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 5a.2 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 5a.2.  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
non-fossil 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 non-fossil
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.

5.2 Economic Impact Analysis

This section presents economic impact results for the illustrative
controls strategy developed by EPA that could be taken to meet
attainment of 8-Hour 0.070 ppm ozone alternate standard.  Therefore, the
results provide the economic impacts of engineering costs which resulted
in partial attainment of the 0.070 standard.  Given the possible impacts
of this guidance on manufacturing industries, the transportation sector,
electricity generators, consumers, and U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
as a whole, we believe it is important to gauge the extent to which
other parts of the economy might also be affected by the implementation
of the 0.070 ppm ozone standard.  Therefore, an analysis of the
economy-wide effects of implementing the alternate standard is conducted
by applying estimated direct costs to EPA’s computable general
equilibrium model (EMPAX-CGE).  As the chapter will show, the social
costs for this standard are slightly greater than the engineering costs
applied to the CGE model.

This section contains four considerations that assist in interpreting
the economic impacts and relating these impacts to the attainment costs
presented in Chapter 5, Section 5.1.

The selection criteria for the 0.070 ppm ozone control strategy, and its
related compliance costs, is designed to select the least cost controls,
from an engineering cost standpoint, that generate the highest ozone
reductions, but not necessarily the lowest economic impact.  Therefore,
although the control strategy is selected to reduce ozone at the lowest
engineering cost, it does not represent the lowest impact strategy from
a social cost standpoint.  Thus, while this economic impact analysis
presents results for the control strategy approach detailed in Chapter 3
of the RIA, it should not be viewed as the economic impact estimate of
the ozone 0.70 ppm standard or even as the approach with the lowest
social cost.  Instead, the results should be viewed as guidance or
useful information for states preparing their implementation plans.  It
is likely that states will design implementation plans that present an
alternative control strategy and in some cases design plans that take
into account secondary impacts to industries and consumers within their
borders.  In such a case, the end result would be a set of SIPs that are
more economically optimal and may have lower industry impacts than those
described below.

The costs analyzed in this economic impact chapter include only the
modeled engineering costs detailed in Chapter 3.  Not included in
estimating economic impacts, are the extrapolated cost estimates
detailed in Chapter 4.  Since the extrapolated cost estimates are not
associated with specific controls on specific sectors it is not possible
to estimate the economic impacts of this portion of the cost estimate.
Therefore, the direct costs for the scenario to be analyzed are roughly
$3.9 billion (1999 dollars) in 2020 for the ozone 0.70 ppm control
strategy.  Since this EIA estimates impacts of partial attainment,
social cost estimates will likely underestimate the impact these
standards will have on the economy.

As noted previously, we are extrapolating the costs of meeting the 0.075
and 0.065 ppm alternatives.  Extrapolating does not allow us to directly
predict the control strategy used to attain these levels as was done for
the 0.070 ppm alternative.  Thus, it is not possible to calculate the
economic cost for these options.

In the interest of learning how possible changes in manufactured-goods
prices might affect businesses and households, along with how changes in
electricity/energy prices might affect industry groups that are large
energy users, EPA employed the “EMPAX-CGE” computable general
equilibrium (CGE) model, which has been peer reviewed and used in recent
analyses of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the Clean Air
Visibility Rule (CAVR), and the PM NAAQS.  As with similar models,
EMPAX-CGE focuses on the cost-side of spillover effects on the economy.
This implies its estimated macroeconomic impacts may be overstated
because EMPAX-CGE is not configured to capture any beneficial economic
consequences associated with improvements in air quality affecting the
productivity and supply of labor through declines in morbidity and
mortality.  If these impacts on labor were included, the small overall
decreases in production output projected by the model might be partially
or entirely offset for the economy as a whole, although not necessarily
for any given industry.  EPA continues to investigate the feasibility of
incorporating labor productivity gains and other beneficial effects of
air quality improvements in CGE models.

5.5.1	Background

To complement the analysis of effects on specific manufacturing sectors
as described in the control strategy in chapter 3, the macroeconomic
implications of the ozone 0.070 ppm control strategy has been estimated
using EPA’s EMPAX-CGE model.  The focus of this component of the
analysis is on examining the sectoral and regional distribution of
economic effects across the U.S. economy.  This section briefly
discusses the EMPAX model and the approach used to incorporate findings
from other models in EMPAX-CGE.

EMPAX was first developed in 2000 to support economic analysis of
EPA’s maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rules for
combustion sources (reciprocating internal combustion engines, boilers,
and turbines).  The initial framework consisted of a national
multimarket partial-equilibrium model with linkages only between
manufacturing industries and the energy sector.  Modified versions of
EMPAX were subsequently used to analyze economic impacts of strategies
for improving air quality in the Southern Appalachian mountain region as
part of efforts associated with the Southern Appalachian Mountain
Initiative (SAMI).

Recent work on EMPAX has extended its scope to cover all aspects of the
U.S. economy at a regional level in either static or dynamic modes.
Although major regulations directly affect a large number of industries,
substantial indirect impacts can also result from changes in production,
input use, income, and household consumption patterns.  Consequently,
EMPAX now includes economic linkages among all industrial and energy
sectors as well as households that supply factors of production such as
labor and purchase goods (i.e., a CGE framework).  This gives the
version of EMPAX called EMPAX-CGE the ability to trace economic impacts
as they are transmitted throughout the economy and allows it to provide
critical insights to policy makers evaluating the magnitude and
distribution of costs associated with environmental policies.  The
dynamic version of EMPAX-CGE employed in this analysis, and its data
sources, is described in past analyses of the CAIR and PM NAAQS, and
also in publicly available documentation on the EPA website (see Ross et
al., 2005).

EMPAX-CGE can be used to analyze a wide array of policy issues and is
capable of estimating how a change in a single part (or multiple parts)
of the economy will influence producers and consumers across the United
States.  However, some types of policies, including the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard, are difficult to capture adequately within
a CGE structure because of the boiler- and firm-specific nature of
emission reduction costs.  Consequently, an interface has been developed
that allows linkages between EMPAX-CGE and the detailed technology
models discussed in Chapter 3 (AirControlNET and IPM).  These linkages
give the combined modeling system the advantages of technology detail
and broad macroeconomic coverage, thereby permitting EMPAX-CGE to
investigate economy-wide policy implications.  As discussed in Chapter
5, section 5.1, the models used in developing the control strategy
estimate cost changes by industry and region of the United States for
the sectors of the economy affected by the proposed alternate ozone
standard.  In order for EMPAX-CGE to effectively incorporate these
additional costs, they have to be expressed in terms of the productive
inputs used in CGE models (i.e., capital, labor, and material inputs
produced by other industries).  Rather than assume the costs represent a
proportional scaling up of all inputs, Nestor and Pasurka (1995) data on
purchases made by industries for environmental-protection reasons are
used to allocate these additional expenditures across inputs within
EMPAX-CGE.  Once these expenditures are specified, the incremental costs
from the technology models can be used to adjust the production
technologies in the CGE model.  Additional linkages are made between
EMPAX-CGE and IPM to handle specific IPM findings related to resource
costs and fuel consumption in electricity generation.  However, it
should be noted that IPM is only able to provide energy sector inputs to
EMPAX-CGE.  A link does not exist between IPM and EMPAX that would feed
economic output changes to the energy sector back into IPM which could
then be analyzed for consistency with IPM’s EGU trading constraints.

5.5.2 Economic Impact Results for Ozone 0.070 ppm Control Strategy

This section compares a strategy for attainment of the ozone 0.070 ppm
standard incremental to the current 8-Hour standard baseline.  Impacts
are measured assuming a 2020 implementation year and are the result of
engineering costs described in Chapter 5, section 5.1  Thus, the
following graphs compare the control strategy to an economic growth path
that incorporates impacts from our baseline (including CAIR, CAMR, CAVR,
PM2.5 NAAQS 15/35), and ozone current standard through the year 2020.

Projected Impacts on U.S. Industries of Incremental Costs of Reaching
0.070 Control Strategy

Impacts of the ozone 0.070 ppm control strategy on manufacturing costs
can affect output and prices of all industries in the EMPAX-CGE model.
These effects may increase or decrease output and/or revenue, depending
on their implications for production costs and technologies and shifts
in household demands.  In general, the impacts on industries will be
dependent on the control strategy and follow a pattern similar to the
stringency of the ozone standard.

How changes in manufacturing costs affect the U.S. economy will depend
on which industries are paying for control equipment and how any changes
in costs influence prices and hence demands for industrial output.  The
majority of illustrative technologies and control strategies used by
nonattainment areas in this analysis are purchased by several
industries, including: electric generating units, pipeline transport of
natural gas and oil, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturers, and
non-metallic minerals industries (i.e., glass and cement).

Actions by electric utilities are influenced by any changes in direct
production costs associated with purchasing, installing, and running
control equipment.  As an industry reliant on fossil fuels, any changes
in natural gas costs – and to a much lesser extent, petroleum – will
also affect generation costs (in this case, the IPM findings indicate a
slight increase in coal use associated with the ozone 0.070 ppm
standard).  Changes in costs will in turn affect electricity prices and
thus demand for electricity by businesses and households, causing the
electricity industry to alter its production and hence demand for
inputs.  In addition, the EMPAX-CGE model considers how some fraction of
the control costs experienced by industries are comprised of electricity
purchases (along with other types of purchases).  These purchases raise
demand for electricity and can potentially offset declines in demand
that might be experienced.

Similar to electricity, natural gas and petroleum are essential energy
goods in the economy and are modeled as such in EMPAX-CGE.  Changes in
energy prices will impact manufacturing costs and household budgets
across the economy.  Costs from controls or energy prices may be
distributed unevenly across the nation, where particular regions are
installing control equipment at a greater rate than in other regions
that either don’t need additional controls or already have them in
place in response to other policies.  There may also be overlap, for
example in the energy-intensive industries, between the industries that
purchase significant amounts of energy and those that are installing
control equipment to meet environmental standards.

In the case of ozone 0.070 ppm, such a situation applies for the
chemical and non-metallic minerals industries.  Impacts felt in these
sectors will then flow in the model through the rest of the economy.
For example, the agriculture sector purchases fertilizer from the
chemical industry and will experience the combined effects of any
changes in their own energy prices, energy prices for chemical
production, and any costs for controls installed by chemical
manufacturers.  Subsequently, the Food and Kindred Products industry
will pay more for agricultural produce and may charge more for its
output, U.S. net agricultural exports may be affected, and household
purchases of food goods may change.  The size of these changes that are
induced in related sectors of the economy depends on the size of impacts
in directly affected industries, changes in energy prices as a whole,
and how industries and households are tied together in the economy.

Figure 5.1 illustrates the combined impacts of these industry-level
changes for ozone 0.070 ppm control strategy.  Outside of the
energy-intensive sectors (EIS), estimated changes in output of
manufactured goods are less than two one-hundredths of one percent
(0.02%).  Effects on energy producers are somewhat higher and can be
positive or negative, which limits any spillover effects to other
businesses and households.

As described in Chapter 3, selected control options for the ozone 0.070
ppm control strategy involve additional actions by electric utilities,
which tend to slightly increase coal consumption (influencing U.S. coal
production) and reduce natural gas use.  Other energy industries also
engage in additional measures, which can affect energy users such as the
EIS sectors.  Cement, chemicals and glass production are influenced by
direct control costs on their respective industries and any changes in
energy markets.  Note, however, that across energy-intensive industries
as a group, output quantities decline on average by less than a quarter
of a percent (<0.25%).

Figure 5a.3 shows how these changes in output quantities (or units)
compares to changes in gross output revenues, where revenue changes
include the effects of changes in both quantity and output prices (which
reflect changes in production costs).  While additional gross revenues
may not imply that net revenues have increased for a given industry,
Figure 5a.3 is useful in illustrating the overall changes occurring in
the economy in dollar terms.

Revenues in energy-producing industries follow changes in output
quantity relatively closely as there are only limited changes in energy
prices, which are not sufficient to reverse any quantity/price effects.
There are some minor differences between declines in energy-intensive
production and potential increases in gross revenues.  Particularly for
cement, output declines are accompanied with a rise in production costs
that results in gross revenues increasing in the industry, although this
effect across the entire economy is on the order of $250 million.  At
the other end of the spectrum, the sheer size of the services industry
in the U.S. means that, even though there are essential no changes in
output (-0.01%), when expressed in revenue terms there is a $5 billion
decline in gross revenues.  This occurs because the base output of the
services industry against which these percentage declines are measured
is more than $18 trillion in 2020.

Fig 5a.3 Ozone 0.070 ppm Standard Impacts on U.S. Domestic Output
Quantity, 2020

Source:	EMPAX-CGE

Fig 5a.4 Ozone 0.070 ppm Standard Impacts on U.S. Domestic Gross Output
Revenues, 2020

Source:	EMPAX-CGE

Projected Impacts on Regional Energy-Intensive Industries

Regional effects will tend to show variation that does not appear at the
national level.  To examine how such variations might occur in response
to the ozone alternate standard control strategy; this analysis presents
findings for an East-West split of the United States.  Since changes in
output for most industries are essentially unaffected, Figures 5a.5 and
5a.6 focus on regional results for the energy-intensive industries in
EMPAX-CGE.

As with the U.S. average results from Figure 5.5.4, even though the
energy-intensive sectors show more regional variation, based on
differences in production methods and changes in manufacturing costs,
the majority of the impacts are less than one tenth of one percent
(<0.10%).  However, there are measurable impacts in the output of
specific industries.  Under the 0.070 ozone strategy, energy-intensive
output tends to be redistributed slightly from East to West as decreases
in cement and glass manufacturing output in the East are offset by
increases in the West.

Fig 5a.5 Ozone 0.070 ppm Standard Impacts on Regional Energy-Intensive
Output Quantities, 2020

Source:	EMPAX-CGE

Expressing the findings in dollar terms helps normalize the changes
across the country by implicitly including a measure of the absolute
size of each industry in each region of the country.  Thus, the decrease
in the quantity of cement shown in the East in Figure 5a.5 is larger
than a relative increase in the West, leading to an overall decline for
the U.S.  Figure 5a.6 expresses these changes in dollar, or gross
revenue, terms, which help offset these differences in industry size
across regions (however, the revenue terms also combine quantity and
price effects as discussed above).  In gross revenue terms, the changes
in Figure 5a.6 show somewhat less variation than the quantity changes in
Figure 5a.5.  For cement, gross revenues are somewhat higher in both the
East and West, while output quantities have declined slightly in the
East as the result of changes in production costs.  The additional
production in the West leads to additional revenues as some production
moves around the nation, although this effect is reduced for cement in
particular as its interregional trade is limited by transportation
costs.

Fig 5a.6 Ozone 0.070 ppm Standard Impacts on Regional Energy-Intensive
Gross Output Revenues, 2020

Source:	EMPAX-CGE

Similar to the energy-intensive sectors, energy production shows more
regional variation than can be seen in the U.S. results in Figures 5a.3
and 5a.4.  However, all impacts are less than one half of one percent
(<0.50%).  Under the 0.070 ozone control strategy, coal consumption by
electric utilities tends to increase slightly in 2020, while natural gas
use falls, leading to comparable adjustments in regional production.
The crude oil and petroleum refining industries react to the alternative
standard by minor reductions in output, although refining in the West
rises since it has a small comparative advantage over the East as fewer
refiners need to install additional controls.  In gross revenue terms,
the changes in Figure 5a.8 show somewhat less variation than the
quantity changes in Figure 5a.7.  Coal revenues rise with the increase
in production, and natural gas falls.  Along with adjustments in the
production technologies used in electricity (based on the IPM findings),
which affect generation costs and output levels, overall demand for
electricity rises as businesses purchase additional electricity to run
the controls installed to meet the ozone alternative standard.  This
leads also leads to an increase in electricity output revenues.

 Fig 5a.7 Ozone 0.070 ppm Standard Impacts on Regional Energy Output
Quantities, 2020

Source:	EMPAX-CGE

Fig 5a.8 Ozone 0.070 ppm Standard Impacts on Regional Energy Gross
Output Revenues, 2020

Source:	EMPAX-CGE

When examining such findings, however, it is important to note that
these impacts and redistributions are directly related to the specific
control option assumed in this illustrative analysis.  As previously
stated, these results represent the impact of an approach presented by
EPA that could make progress towards attainment under the alternate
standard.  While EPA is providing this analysis as information 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.  For
example, given the impact on glass and cement production, assumed with
this scenario, affected States may well design SIP strategies that
mitigate the impact on these particular industries, perhaps distributing
costs more uniformly among all sectors.

Projected Impacts on GDP

The combination of economic interactions affecting business and
household behavior will be reflected in the changes in GDP estimated by
a CGE model.  Given that this cost-based approach to analyzing the ozone
0.070 ppm control strategy does not reflect its benefits to the
environment, public health, and labor productivity, CGE models
(including EMPAX-CGE) will tend to over estimate declines in total
production in the United States.  Potentially offsetting these benefits
are attainment costs that have not been included in this analysis mainly
due to their lack of direct industry cost information, acknowledging
that the cost estimates presented in this analysis represent partial
attainment costs. Consequently, these results can be considered
incomplete because they do not reflect potential productivity benefits
of the ozone Standard or the full cost of attainment.  The impacts on
GDP should be viewed as an approximation of the social costs of the
modeled controls applied for the alternate standard control strategy and
are provided here for illustration.

Figure 5a.9 illustrates GDP in the EMPAX-CGE model’s baseline forecast
and the 0.070 ppm ozone policy case.  As shown, the estimated GDP impact
is negligible and, in fact, it is not possible to adjust the scale of
the graph to the point where the two lines do not overlap.  Projected
decrease in GDP for the ozone 0.070 ppm standard control strategy is
roughly 0.04 percent (0.04%), respectively, for the year 2020.  This is
equivalent to a $7.1 billion decrease in GDP during the implementation
year.  In absolute terms, these estimated implications for U.S. GDP are
extremely small relative to the total size of the economy.  Even these
small costs could be reduced or eliminated if the CGE analyses were
extended to include benefits associated with the ozone standard such as
improvements in labor productivity from environmental improvements.

Fig 5a.9 Change in U.S. GDP Compared to EMPAX-CGE Baseline

Source:	Department of Energy, Energy Information Administrations;
EMPAX-CGE

Results of the macroeconomic analysis generally show small nation-wide
impacts of the hypothetical ozone 0.070 ppm control strategy on
manufacturing and energy industries, as well as small regional impacts.
The strategy generates a 0.04 percent (0.04%) decrease in GDP in 2020.
On average, industries show less than one-half of one percent (<0.5%)
decrease in output with the exception of cement and glass manufacturing
in some regions of the country, which have output reductions of one to
two percent (1-2%).  However, as stated above, a large portion of the
attainment costs are not inputted into EMPAX-CGE.

5.6   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 5a.10 and 5a.11 have additional detail on changes in energy
markets, and Figures 5a.12 and 5a.13 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 5a.10, 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
production increases 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
5a.11, 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 reductions
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 5a.11,
changes in gross revenues across the country measured in dollar terms
are relatively similar.

Figures 5a.12 and 5a.13 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 5a.10.  Ozone 070 Impacts on Regional Energy Output Quantities,
2020

Source:	EMPAX-CGE

Figure 5a.11  Ozone 070 Impacts on Regional Energy Gross Output
Revenues, 2020

Source:	EMPAX-CGE

Figure 5a.12.  Ozone 070 Impacts on Regional Energy-Intensive Output
Quantities, 2020

Source:	EMPAX-CGE

Figure 5a.13.  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 .

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

 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 5a.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).

 See Appendix E in the RIA for the Final CAIR rule for additional
discussion of these IPM-EMPAX linkages (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/interstateairquality/technical.html"
http://www.epa.gov/interstateairquality/technical.html ).

 Costs by NAICS codes were available for few mobile sources.  Therefore,
the EMPAX-CGE model was not able to properly quantify secondary impacts
from mobile controls.

 For more detailed regional impact figures, please see the section 5.6
in this appendix.  See the CAIR and PM NAAQS analyses, and Ross et al.
(2005), for discussions of regional definitions.

 Redistribution of production will also tend to occur among states in
each region, with some states’ increasing

output to offset any declines in neighboring states.

 PAGE

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

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 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20432-20433]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2013-N-1529, FDA-2014-D-0609, FDA-2012-N-0961, FDA-
2021-N-1022, FDA-2018-N-4130, and FDA-2018-N-3037]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approvals

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of
information collections that have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a list of FDA information
collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control
number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information
collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements
for the information collections are available on the internet at
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

        Table 1--List of Information Collections Approved by OMB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            OMB control    Date approval
           Title of collection                  No.           expires
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reclassification Petitions for Medical         0910-0138       2/28/2025
 Devices................................
Pharmaceutical Distribution Supply Chain       0910-0806       2/28/2025
Environmental Impact Considerations.....       0910-0322       3/31/2025
Reporting Associated with Food Additive        0910-0546       3/31/2025
 Petitions, Investigational Food
 Additive Files Exemptions, and
 Declaration of Color Additives on
 Animal Food Labels.....................
Recordkeeping Requirements for                 0910-0658       3/31/2025
 Microbiological Testing and Corrective
 Measures for Bottled Water.............
Generic Clearance for Quantitative             0910-0865       3/31/2025
 Testing for the Development of FDA
 Communications (CFSAN).................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: March 30, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-07394 Filed 4-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P