Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

03/11/2008 08:36 AM

	

To

"King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

cc

Lydia Wegman, Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia
Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Ron - did you get Margo fax on ES-8 and Chap 7 # 17 & 18?









Heidi, here is the characterization of the alternative baseline in the
ES.   It appears in ES.3 Caveats and Conclusions

	This analysis shows the costs and benefits of a standard of 0.075
ppm and other alternate standards of 0.079, 0.070, and 0.065.  The costs
and benefits are incremental to a baseline that assumes some additional
technology changes in the onroad technology sector.  If these changes do
not occur, then cost for all standards would increase by $1.8 billion
and benefits for all standards would increase by $360 million to $3.1
billion using 2006$ and a 3% discount rate, and $330 million to $2.8
billion when using a 7% discount rate. Details about costs and benefits
using an alternate baseline can be found in appendix 9a.

footnotes to paragraph

 This cost could be offset in states that choose to replace existing
periodic physical inspection of vehicles with remote onboard diagnostic
device inspection in I/M programs.  As explained in later in this
appendix, Remote OBD eliminates the need for periodic inspections of
OBD-equipped vehicles by car owners.  EPA estimates that the nationwide
installation of Remote OBD would save the nation’s motorists about $16
to $22 billion in inspection and convenience costs over a 10 year
period.

㜀$␸䠀$葝ᚠ葞ᆘ摧䧕&฀Š

ory impact analyses.  Furthermore, the benefits only reflect a partial
accounting of the total benefits associated with emission reductions
related to the mobile controls included in this sensitivity analysis.

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax

We do one thing: overwhelm people's impossible expectations.

