1 CWA SECTION 316( b) PHASE II & III COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE REGULATIONS PEER REVIEW PLAN October 2003 Revised November 2004 I. Introduction As required by a consent decree in Riverkeeper v. Leavitt, EPA is developing regulations under section § 316( b) of the Clean Water Act. Section 316( b) of the CWA provides that any standard established pursuant to section 301 or 306 of the CWA and applicable to a point source must require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available ( BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The Phase II rule establishes requirements at existing power generating facilities that withdraw at least fifty ( 50) MGD of cooling water from waters of the U. S. More than 550 permitted steam electric power plants that generate or transmit electric power use large volumes of cooling water from lakes, rivers, estuaries, or oceans to cool their plants. Phase III regulations are being proposed that would establish requirements at existing manufacturing facilities that withdraw greater than 50 MGD on all waterbodies, 200 MGD on all waterbodies, and 100 on certain waterbodies. At most, approximately 136 manufacturing facilities would be covered by the proposed Phase III regulations. The 100 MGD on certain waterbodies option would only cover 19 facilities. Cooling water intake structures cause adverse environmental impact by pulling large numbers of fish and shellfish or their eggs into a power plant's or factory's cooling system. There, the organisms may be killed or injured by heat, physical stress, or by chemicals used to clean the cooling system. Larger organisms may be killed or injured when they are trapped against screens at the front of an intake structure. EPA published final regulations for large existing power plants on July 9, 2004. Proposed regulations are required to be signed by the Administrator by November 1, 2004. This peer review plan seeks to identify key scientific and technical work products associated with the Phase II and Phase III rulemaking efforts and document the level of review and scrutiny that these products have undergone. These rules are being included under the cover of a single peer review plan because they both cover existing facilities that use cooling water intake structures. These cooling water intake structures are similar in design and function and the proposed Phase III regulation will share the same regulatory framework, as applicable.

Legal Authority. The Phase II rulemaking partially fulfills EPA's obligation to comply with an Amended Consent Decree. The Amended Consent Decree was filed on November 22, 2000, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, in Riverkeeper Inc., et al. v. Whitman, No. 93 Civ 0314 ( AGS), a case brought against EPA by a coalition of individuals and environmental groups. The original Consent Decree, filed on October 10, 1995, provided that EPA was to propose regulations implementing section 316( b) by July 2, 1999, and take final action with respect to those regulations by August 13, 2001. Under subsequent interim orders and 2 the Amended Consent Decree, EPA has divided the rulemaking into three phases and is working under new deadlines. The Amended Consent Decree required that EPA issue a proposed rule for Phase II existing facilities by February 28, 2002, and take final action by February 16, 2004. The final section 316( b) Phase II rule was published on July 9, 2004 ( 69 FR 41576) and issued under the authority of sections 101, 301, 304, 306, 308, 316, 401, 402, 501, and 510 of the Clean Water Act ( CWA), 33 U. S. C. 1251, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1326, 1341, 1342, 1361, and 1370. The Amended Consent Decree required that EPA issue proposed rule for Phase III facilities by November 1, 2004 and take final action by June 1, 2006. The Phase III rule would be issued under the same authorities as the Phase II rule.

Agency Priority. The Phase II rule was a major rulemaking effort anticipated to result in annual costs exceeding $ 100 million. The proposed Phase III rule was a major rulemaking effort that is anticipated to result in compliance costs between $ 53 and $ 21 million depending on the regulatory option. They are both classified as Tier 1 rules and as such, are considered a priority action for the Administrator, requiring active involvement by the Office of the Administrator and extensive cross Agency participation by other core EPA offices, including the Office of Research and Development ( ORD), Office of General Counsel ( OGC), Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation ( OPEI), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( OECA), and EPA Regional Offices ( Regions I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX..

Agency Policies and Guidance on Information Quality. The following section lists three ongoing Agency policies and guidance related to standards for information quality and describes the general process by which section 316( b) scientific and technical products were deemed to be compliant with these policies and guidance. In October 2002, the EPA published " Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by EPA" ( Information Quality Guidelines; IQG). The information disseminated in conjunction with this rulemaking is considered " influential" under the Information Quality Guidelines in that, because it supports priority, Tier 1 rulemakings. In addition, these rules will have or do have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions. According to the IQG, influential information should be subject to a higher degree of quality and the data and methods used should be extremely transparent and easily reproduced by qualified parties. Section III ( QA Reviews) of this plan describes the numerous reviews of modeling results, costing and benefit analyses, and other methodologies utilized as part of these rulemaking efforts that were conducted by EPA, other Federal agencies, and the public.

The EPA Peer Review Handbook, 2nd edition, was published in December 2000 as guidance for implementing the Peer Review Policy statement issued by the Administrator in 1994. In essence, the Peer Review Policy requires that major scientific and technical work products related to Agency decisions normally should be peer reviewed. The handbook further elaborates on the role of peer review within the regulatory development process and specifies criteria for determining whether or not a scientific/ technical work product is considered " major." According to the Handbook, products that are used to support a regulatory program that meet one or more of the following criteria, are candidates for peer review: 3 1) Establishes a significant precedent, model, or methodology; 2) Addresses significant controversial issues; 3) Focuses on significant emerging issues; 4) Has significant cross Agency/ inter agency implications; 5) Considers an innovative approach for a previously defined problem/ process/ methodology; or 6) Satisfies a statutory or other legal mandate for peer review.

Section II below documents the decision making process for those major Phase II and Phase III work products that were or will be peer reviewed as well as the decisions and rationale for not peer reviewing other major products associated with this rulemaking.

The EPA Office of Water Quality Policy requires that the quality of any environmental data or information used by the Office of Water must be assessed ( known) and documented, regardless of the source. The policy further requires that all environmental decisions made by the Office of Water must be evaluated relative to the quality of the underlying data and information and these evaluations must be documented. Sections III ( QA Reviews) and IV ( Peer Input) document the quality of the data used in the section 316( b) rulemaking process.

II. Decisions and Products This section documents decisions made throughout the Phase II and Phase III rulemaking process concerning identification of major scientific/ technical products and whether or not those products merited peer review. As previously mentioned, the Science Policy Council Peer Review Handbook ( 2000) specifies among other criteria that major scientific and/ or technical works that establish significant precedents, address controversial issues, focus on significant emerging issues, involve significant investment of Agency resources, or consider innovative approaches be subject to external peer review. The Phase II effort involved development of technology based performance standards that will minimize the environmental impacts of cooling water withdrawals from large, existing power generating facilities. The intent of the rule is to require that many of these large existing facilities install specified technologies that will reduce the number of impinged or entrained organisms. Technology installation retrofits including potential re location of facility cooling water intake structures can be costly and may require facility down time. For these reasons among others, the regulated industry as well as the Department of Energy ( DOE) are paying close attention to the development of this rule. Further, the issuance of presidential Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use has led to additional scrutiny by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) to verify that any regulatory action associated with the rule will not result in " significant energy actions." The proposed Phase III regulations use the same performance standards and use the same regulatory structure and compliance actions as the Phase II regulations. All of these factors contribute to the controversial nature of the Phase II and Phase III regulations. Throughout the Phase II and proposed Phase III regulatory development process, a major focus has been on determining and accurately quantifying the costs and benefits associated with 4 the rules. Because the engineering costing and economic analysis methodologies are relatively standardized, greater emphasis has been placed on examining the more innovative and potentially precedent setting benefits methodologies. The following four sections identify ( 1) a cumulative list of all externally peer reviewed products from 1991 to present, ( 2) Phase II scientific/ technical products that have been peer reviewed, ( 3) Phase III candidate scientific/ technical products for future external review, and ( 3) scientific / technical products for which a decision was made to not undergo peer review..

Cumulative list of externally peer reviewed products from 1991 to present. The following describes a critical benefits model that was externally peer reviewed prior to its use in the section 316( b) program. In addition, two expert panel sessions were convened during the development of the Phase II section 316( b) regulations to solicit expert advice on relevant biological issues and impingement and entrainment technology costs.

° Random Utility Models ( RUM): The recreational demand model in a random utility framework was used to derive recreational benefits for a previous rulemaking effort, the Metal Products and Machinery ( MP& M) effluent guideline. The RUM used for MP& M was peer reviewed because a RUM had not been used previously by EPA within the guidelines process, and EPA wanted to ensure that the model was technically rigorous given the data limitations such as a small sample size and the paucity of environmental quality data. The peer review concluded that EPA had done a competent job, especially given the available data. The peer reviewers also noted that the methodology of the linked trip and site choice models is " nearly the state of the art for the problem of estimating recreational benefits." This method permits the inclusion of numerous substitute sites and borders on being utility theoretic. " Thus, if you want to be able to answer the critique that there are hundreds of other sites and the benefits of clean up must account for this, the multinomial logit model for site selection does this best." The reviewers also noted that the revealed preference actual behavior base is solid and avoids many concerns associated with contingent valuation. For detail see " Summary Report: Peer Review of Application of the Random Utility Model to Recreational Benefit Assessment for EPA's Effluent Guidelines Program" ( Versar Inc., 2001).

Additional external peer review for the 316( b) rule was not undertaken because: ( 1) the section 316( b) models relied on the same methodology as MP& M analysis ( i. e., the linked or combined site choice and trip frequency models); ( 2) the section 316( b) models are built upon the existing National Marine Fishery Service models of recreational fishing behavior, ( 3) the combined site choice and trip frequency models are the standard revealed preference models for recreation benefit analysis in the Natural Resource Damage Assessment area as well as in the journal literature; ( 4) the section 316( b) models were reviewed by Peter Feather, an economist on the Council of Economic Advisors at the request of OMB prior to proposal of the Phase II rule; and ( 5) no one ( NCEE, OMB, or the public) raised significant questions on the models used for the proposed rule or NODA analyses. The only significant public comments received were that the models should be 5 expanded to a larger geographical area. We addressed this issue by developing regional models for the final rule analysis.

° A " Technical Experts Panel for Biological Issues Associated with 316( b) Regulations" was convened in March 2001 to discuss issues pertaining specifically to defining adverse environmental impact and designing biomonitoring studies. The panel was comprised of 15 state and Federal experts, primarily biologists. The purpose of creating and convening this panel was to solicit information and exchange ideas with a range of experts on the topics of concern.

° A second expert panel was convened in May 2001. The " Invited Technical Experts Meeting" was comprised of 16 experts from industry, states, academia, and the private sector. The purpose of this meeting was to elicit individual comments from the technical experts regarding the Agency's preliminary data on cooling water intake structure technologies that are in place at existing facilities and the costs associated with the use of available technologies for reducing impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms. The experts represented a balanced mix of individuals recommended by or associated with industry and public interest groups, with additional representation from two or three States and one academic institution. The public was invited to attend the panel discussion and had an opportunity to express their views at the end of the meeting.

Phase II projects that have been peer reviewed. Three major scientific/ technical products underwent external peer review for the Phase II rulemaking: ( 1) Chapter A7 of the benefits technical support document " Entrainment Survival," ( 2) Chapter A5 of the benefits technical support document " Methods Used to Evaluate Impingement & Entrainment," and ( 3) Chapter A15: Non use Meta Analysis Methodology. Copies of the reports from these peer reviews can be found in the record for the Phase II rulemaking at DCN 6 5007A, 6 5007B, and 6 2500, respectively. These products were important to the underpinnings of the rule framework because they have a significant bearing on the use and non use benefits calculated for the rule. As mentioned earlier, the costs and benefits of the Phase II rule are a major focus. In contrast to the costing methodology used for Phase II, some of the benefits analyses are potentially precedentsetting and somewhat controversial. Chapter A7: Entrainment Survival provides a review of the available literature documenting entrainment survival studies and associated estimates of entrainment survival at specific facilities. The chapter evaluates each of these studies and its merits, ultimately concluding that for the purposes of the rule, entrainment survival should be considered 0%. Because substantially more organisms affected by cooling water intakes are entrained rather than impinged, the conclusion of 0% survival is controversial, and the assumption of 0% entrainment survival dramatically affects the losses associated with intake withdrawals and therefore calculated benefits, this chapter merits external peer review. Chapter A5: Methods Used to Evaluate Impingement & Entrainment describes the process used to translate raw impingement and entrainment data into adult equivalent losses, which in turn can be used to calculate monetized benefits associated with minimizing losses of impinged and 6 entrained fish and shellfish. Chapter A12: Non use Meta Analysis Methodology focuses on addressing a significant emerging issue: quantifying and monetizing ecological benefits. The chapter develops a benefits transfer approach to valuing non use benefits for the rule based on meta analysis/ synthesis of existing surface water valuation studies. Meta analysis involves statistically summarizing the relationships between benefit measures and the quantifiable characteristics of studies ( Rosenberger and Loomis 2001). This chapter also provides detail on compiling meta data for the analysis. The data used for a meta analysis typically are summary statistics from site reports that include quantified characteristics of the user population, environmental resources at the study site, and the valuation methodology used. The purpose of the peer review is to evaluate the meta analysis model specifications, nonuse benefit estimates, and source data from two meta regressions that are to be used in partial support of the proposed Phase II rulemaking. These meta regressions are designed to statistically summarize the relationship between benefit measures and a set of characteristics compiled from original primary study sources. Selected peer reviewers will evaluate the source data set utilized in the estimation of the models that was compiled from the primary studies. The reviewers will make comment on the functional form that each of the two models utilize ( i. e., semi log and loglog and their inherent assumptions, constraints, and usefulness. As the final phase of the peer review, correct implementation of these models should be confirmed. This should include a discussion comparing the two EPA meta regressions to current relevant literature and their findings. Over 90% of the impingement and entrainment losses nationally that are attributable to cooling water intakes are forage ( non use) species. Given the predominance of forage species and the relatively limited state of the science for evaluating and quantifying non use impacts, the metaanalysis has the potential to be precedent setting. Further, based on comments received on all previously proposed non use methodologies undertaken as part of this rulemaking effort, quantifying ecological benefits is a highly controversial topic.

Phase III Candidate projects for future peer review. Three major scientific/ technical products are expected to undergo external peer review for the Phase III rulemaking: ( 1) the Nonuse Meta Analysis, ( 2) the Non use Stated Preference Survey, and ( 3) a Leslie Matrix type fish population model under development by NCEE to estimate the impacts of impingement and entrainment reduction on fish population and harvest levels. Non use Meta Analysis Framework: The non use meta analysis model that was initially developed as part of the 316( b) Phase II quantification and monetization of ecological benefits was revised in response to comment from the peer review that was conducted under the 316( b) Phase II Peer Review Plan. This updated meta analysis model was applied to the 316( b) Phase III impingement and entrainment data. The product, to be peer review externally with funding and direction provided by NCEE in consultation with the rulemaking team, describes how non use benefits were estimated through the meta analysis benefits transfer approach. This analysis involves statistically summarizing the relationships between the benefits estimates and study characteristics of a set of existing surface water valuation studies. The product to be peer reviewed will also provide details on meta data used in the analysis which is usually comprised of 7 the benefits estimates, and source study site, policy, and methodological variables. External reviewers will be asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the source meta data and benefits transfer technique for the estimation of non use benefits under the 316( b) rulemaking effort, as well as, the correctness of the estimated model and non use values. Non use Stated Preference Survey: EPA is planning to develop and implement a contingent valuation stated preference survey as a means of estimating non use benefits for the final 316( b) Phase III rulemaking. The survey will be designed to elicit willingness to pay values from individuals for varying increases in the number of fish across many species both commercial, recreational, and forage. These stated values will then be use in an econometric model to estimate the non use value of the decreased impingement and entrainment produced by 316( b) Phase III. Because this is a survey of the public it will be subject to the Information Collection Request ( ICR) process through which the public will have the opportunity to comment on the survey instrument and the planned implementation process. At this time EPA will also conduct an external professional peer review of the survey instrument and the implementation plan as part of the preparation for OMB review of the ICR. After the survey is conducted and the non use values have been estimated an external peer review of the entire process including the instrument, implementation, and the estimation of non use values will be conducted. Leslie Matrix type fish population model: The fish population model under development by NCEE would utilize raw impingement and entrainment data to calculate baseline levels and changes in fish population and harvest levels as a result of policy driven reductions in impingement and entrainment levels. It is a single species, discrete time, age structured model that includes a density dependent survival dynamic for fish life stages after the egg stage. The model uses information from the literature on natural mortality rates, fishing mortality rates, growth rates at low population sizes, and weights at various ages and life stages. This approach to calculating the ecological benefits of reducing impingement and entrainment could potentially provide insights into those benefits beyond those provided by the models used in the Phase II rule. population model to define when nonuse benefits exist. These products are important to the underpinnings of the Phase III rule framework because they have a significant bearing on the use and non use benefits calculated for the rule. As mentioned earlier, the costs and benefits of the Phase II and Phase III rules are a major focus An external peer review panel will be formed consisting of academic economists and ecologists with expertise in ecosystem valuation and fish population modeling. They will be charged with reviewing the meta analysis to estimate the non use benefits of decreased fish mortality in the area of cooling water intake structures. They will also review the methods used for estimation of fish population changes that were generated for the benefit estimation and they will review the new fish population modeling methods that are currently being developed by EPA.

Products for which a decision has been made not to conduct peer review. The engineering costing analyses for Phase II were performed according to the standardized process used historically in regulatory development efforts for all effluent guidelines. Costing analyses for Phase III facilities followed the same process. Because the costing methodologies are standardized, they do not meet the established criteria for requiring peer review. Due to significant data differences among the regions used to calculate national benefits, 8 benefit extrapolations for the Phase II and III regulations were performed within National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) established fishing regions or within the Great Lakes or Inland regions. To obtain regional impingement and entrainment estimates, EPA extrapolated losses from facilities with impingement and entrainment data to facilities within the same region without data. Impingement and entrainment data were extrapolated on the basis of operational flow, in millions of gallons per day ( MGD), where MGD is the average operational flow over the period 1996 1998 as reported by facilities in response to EPA's Section 316( b) Detailed Questionnaire and Short Technical Questionnaire. Operational flow at each facility was re scaled using factors reflecting the relative effectiveness of currently in place technologies for reducing impingement and entrainment. Regional impingement and entrainment estimates are based on as many new facilities in different locations as possible. The monetary value of benefits from reduced impingement and entrainment is estimated based on regional models and thus no extrapolation was necessary. The only exception was Hawaii. For the three Hawaii facilities, EPA used the extrapolation methodology described in the Phase II proposed rule. Specifically, EPA extrapolated the estimated monetary value of benefits for other coastal regions on the basis of operational flow, in millions of gallons per day ( MGD) for the Hawaii facilities. An electricity market model, the Integrated Planning Model 2000 ( IPM ® 2000), was used to identify potential economic and operational impacts of various regulatory options for Phase II. This model is routinely used by the EPA Office of Air and Radiation to evaluate potential economic impacts from regulatory actions and thus was not subjected to the peer review process.

III. QA Reviews A quality assurance project plan ( QAPP) was prepared in 2002 that evaluated the quality of all data used as part of the 316( b) rulemaking effort to determine the best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impacts from cooling water intakes. The 316( b) QAPP was prepared according to guidance provided in " EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans" ( EPA QA/ R 5, EPA/ 240/ B 01/ 003; March 2001) to ensure that environmental and related data collected, compiled, and/ or generated for the project were complete, accurate, and of the type, quantity, and quality related required for their intended use. The QAPP specifically addresses ( 1) development of a 316( b) database evaluation checklist, ( 2) development of a technology efficacy database, and ( 3) analysis of results from data quality evaluations. Much of the data used in the Phase II and Phase III rulemaking processes are secondary and have undergone some level of review. Assessment factors for evaluating data from external sources including soundness, applicability and utility, clarity and completeness, uncertainty and variability, and evaluation and review are critical elements of the review process. In all cases, intra and inter agency reviews of Phase II and Phase III data used for modeling results and cost/ benefit analyses were conducted, which often involved sharing data and the detailed methodologies used in the analyses so that specific results could be reproduced by others. The data utilized and analyses conducted as part of this regulatory development process conform with the requirements specified in the EPA Information Quality Guidelines and the OW Quality Policy. Following are several additional examples of data QA reviews for critical components of this rulemaking effort. The Technology Efficacy Database was developed to document and further assess the 9 performance of various technologies and operational measures designed to minimize the impacts of cooling water withdrawals. The database is comprised of documents that analyze the efficacy of a specific technology or suite of technologies and contains materials that range from brief journal articles to more intensive analyses found in historical section 316( b) demonstration reports and technology evaluations. Information entered into the database includes some notation of the limitations the individual studies may have for use in further analyses ( e. g., no biological data or conclusions). One of the primary purposes of this database is to demonstrate that the technologies chosen as compliance technologies for costing purposes are reasonable and can meet the performance standards. EPA evaluated the technology efficacy data against objective criteria in order to assess the general quality and thoroughness of each study. Basic information from each document is recorded in the database ( e. g., type of technology evaluated, facility at which it was tested, etc.) Each document is reviewed according to five areas of data quality where possible: 1) applicability and utility, 2) soundness, 3) clarity and completeness, 4) uncertainty and variability, and 5) evaluation and review. Because the literature in question comes from many different sources and was developed under widely varying standards, EPA was not able to evaluate all of these criteria for all documents contained in the database. Biological data used in the benefits analyses in both Phase II and Phase III are from secondary sources only. Data evaluated include ( 1) impingement and entrainment data collected by CWIS facilities; ( 2) fish life history data from the peer reviewed literature, unpublished documents and reports, and personal communications with fishery experts; and ( 3) recreational and commercial fisheries data. Data assembly includes accuracy checks, consistency checks, and reasonableness checks to ensure data validity. The objective of the first of these checks is to identify transcription errors. The goal of the last two types of checks is to identify potential errors in the underlying data. Accuracy checks are performed twice during the data assembly step. First, all data entries are checked at the time of entry by the technical person assembling the database. At the completion of the data entry, another person verifies the data entry and compares data records to the source documents to check the accuracy of the interpretation and manipulation of the data. Checks of the accuracy of data assembly are facilitated by preparing standardized input spreadsheets. The objective of this standardization is to ensure that data in import files are structured correctly and meet all data quality requirements for entry into a project database. To check consistency and reasonableness of the data, senior scientists check results of the preliminary data assembly. To facilitate the understanding of the distribution of the data sets and to identify outliers, graphical displays of the assembled data are produced. Any data that appear to be suspect are rechecked and eliminated or replaced as needed. In addition to these procedures for assembly input data, several methods are used to evaluate data output, including reasonableness checks, sample calculations, and computerized checks. All biological data are maintained in a data archiving system designed to protect and index databases, documents, figures, and computer program scripts. Prior to investing time or resources into new non use benefit studies, EPA conducted preliminary reviews of studies that appeared to be applicable to the section 316( b) regulations. The Peconic non use study and a method for using the information from this study to estimate non use values for impinged and entrained fish was evaluated by economists with expertise in the 10 valuation of natural resources, who in turn made recommendations for improving the methodology. This included the use of information from a related wetland study to estimate the proportion of wetland value associated with fish and shellfish habitat. To support the development of Phase III regulations, EPA performed a small entrainment sampling study. The purpose of this study was to gather information about the entrainment impacts of cooling water intake at facilities with cooling water intake structure design intake flows below 50 million gallons per day. The study obtained quantitative entrainment data during the period of heightened spawning activity and ichthyoplankton abundance. The target organism assemblages were both the entrained and nearfield early life stages of fish and shellfish ( i. e., eggs and larvae). The study did not attempt to obtain quantitative impingement data from these small facilities as rates of organism impingement at cooling water intake structures are highly variable over time. In performing this study, EPA and its contractor developed a Quality Assurance Project Plan ( QAPP) ( see attached) that was approved by the EPA/ OST/ EAD Quality Assurance Manager. The QAPP contained Standard Operating Procedures ( SOPs) for all field and laboratory activities associated with the study including: entrainment sampling; nearfield ichthyoplankton sampling; completion of chain of custody forms; water quality meter operation; laboratory sorting of ichthyoplankton; and ichthyoplankton taxonomy. Field sampling was conducted by personnel experienced in collecting entrainment samples, and each field team was audited by the EPA QC Officer to assess compliance with the QAPP and SOPs. All samples were shipped under chain of custody to designated biology laboratories that had been predetermined to have expertise in the taxonomic identification of ichthyoplankton. Laboratory results included taxonomic identification and taxon by taxon enumeration for all samples. Ten percent of all samples were re identified by a second/ independent taxonomist, and taxonomic precision was calculated as Percent Taxonomic Disagreement ( PTD). A PTD goal of less than or equal to 15% was targeted. The QAPP specified that if the goal was not attained, taxonomist interaction would be used to determine problem areas, identify consistent disagreements, and define corrective actions; however, no corrective actions were necessary since the goal was attained. A project database was developed to store sampling data, laboratory enumeration data, and taxonomic data for all sampling locations. Data tables contained raw data from field forms and laboratory bench sheets. All data were double entered, i. e., each data point was entered into the database by two independent entry clerks. The database compared the independent entries and identified any discrepancies. All discrepancies were reconciled by consulting original field/ laboratory paperwork, and were corrected in the database. The final database was used to generate a data report for the study that presented and summarized the data. To better profile the universe of facilities potentially subject to all phases of the section 316( b) rule, EPA distributed surveys to over 1,400 facilities. Some facilities received a detailed industry survey while others received a short technical questionnaire. The selection of the sample frame is detailed in the EPA report entitled, Statistical Summary for Cooling Water Intake Structure Surveys ( DCN 3 3077 in Docket W 00 03). Several levels of quality assurance were conducted for this activity. All surveys returned were photocopied to create working files. The surveys were then subjected to a review for completeness and a separate engineering review. The engineering review examined the survey responses for internal consistency, reported units, and the method for presenting and computing reported monthly and annual values for compliance with 11 survey requirements. Any discrepancies or omissions were added as corrections on working copies and a change log was created for the facility and placed into the survey folder. The change log contained a description of the change, a reason for the change, the original information provided, and the corrected information. The surveys and change log were then sent to a contractor for data entry. During the data entry process, additional data discrepancies and/ or omissions were identified and then reconciled through a telephone call to the facility. Again, change logs were generated and placed into the working file for the facility. A master database file was created and a statistical/ mathematical review of survey data was conducted to identify outstanding discrepancies and outliers. This statistical/ mathematical review included, among other data elements, reviews of 1996, 1997, and 1998 annual flow data. These annual flow data were checked to see if they satisfied the logical relationship " minimum < average < maximum". Surveys that did not satisfy this logical relationship were identified for engineering review. To verify source waterbody categories, geocoding was performed to identify facility state locations using the respondents latitude/ longitude information ( respondents were required to report their mailing addresses in the surveys, not their physical locations). Again, discrepancies and illogical results were identified ( for example, some facilities reported latitudes/ longitudes that were outside the U. S.). Additional telephone calls were made to the facilities to reconcile data issues and were described in the change log. Some of the information was confidential business information ( CBI), so those data were contained in the CBI database and documented in CBI change logs. Engineering staff and contractors reviewed all inconsistencies identified in the statistical/ mathematical review and reconciled the data through examination of other responses and/ or a telephone call to the facility. Change logs were prepared and included in the survey file. The Phase II and proposed Phase III rules require biological monitoring for both freshwater and marine environments. The ICR costs for biological monitoring were carefully reviewed by a senior biologist with over 20 years of experience to ensure consistency with acceptable sampling/ laboratory practices and to confirm the appropriate level of staff required to be involved with the effort. The senior biologist reviewed labor categories, labor rates, and the specific monitoring components required by the rules.

IV. Peer Input Tier 1 regulation development requires peer input at multiple intervals throughout the process. Entire proposal packages ( proposed rule, preamble, and all supporting documents) are reviewed internally and by other Federal and State agency experts. Notices of Data Availability ( NODA) which document any new data sources and methodology changes are subjected to a similar review process. Final rule package receive even greater review and scrutiny before they are issued. Preliminary reviews of major Phase II and Phase III work products were also a source of peer input. These reviews were conducted by contractors who had no involvement in developing the analysis under review. Preliminary reviews of the following studies or methodologies were conducted as part of the Phase II and Phase III efforts: 12 ° Chapter C6, Habitat Based Analysis, was reviewed by outside economists with expertise in Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Analyses presented in Chapters C6 use the value for fish habitat as an indirect basis for valuing the fish that are supported by the habitat. Existing wetland valuation studies found that members of the general public are aware of the fish production services provided by eelgrass ( submerged aquatic vegetation, SAV) and wetlands, and that they express support for steps that include increasing SAV and wetland areas to restore reduced fish and shellfish populations. EPA used values from two studies of public values for wetlands and eelgrass: a study of the Peconic Estuary, located on the East End of Long Island, New York ( Johnston et al., 2001a, 2001b; Opaluch et al., 1998; 1995; Mazzotta, 1996); and a stated preference study from Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island ( Johnston et al., 2002). Outside reviewers assessed appropriateness of using these two studies for valuing restoration of wetlands and SAV in the North Atlantic region and for valuing benefits of the 316( b) regulation. The reviewers noted that although these studies provide a close match to the restoration scenarios considered in the analysis of the 316( b benefits, the habitat based approach does not provide a direct measure of benefits from reduced impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms. Therefore, EPA did not present the results of the habitat based analysis in its benefits cost analysis. Instead, the Agency presents this information as " other important considerations" that need to be taken into account in decision making.

The population model developed by NCEE was reviewed by fisheries/ statistical experts under contract to EPA. Two separate reviews were conducted ( see Stratus Consulting report dated 7/ 01/ 03, " Assessment of OPEI alternative fishery model of I& E impacts" and file notes of verbal report by Sidina Dedah to John Fox on May 16, 2003). The Stratus Consulting staff reviewers are expert in fisheries science and population modeling. Dr. Dedah of SAIC has a PhD in oceanography and MS statistics and has published work in peer reviewed journals on the modeling of fisheries dynamics and the fitting of stockrecruitment models. Results of these reviews were considered by EPA in revising and finalizing the fish population model.

Prior to revising our benefits analysis in the NODA for Phase II, the 316( b) Task Force convened a meeting with OPEI and ORD to discuss an approach to strengthening the benefits analysis. Peer input was received during these meeting discussions, particularly discussions pertaining to any potential shortcomings of the approach. In addition, economists from NCEE worked very closely with OST to finalize the meta analysis approach to valuing non use benefits. In the development of the Phase III regulations, EAD staff have met and continue to work closely with NCEE on a model for calculating impingement and entrainment impacts on fish populations and harvests that incorporates additional fish population dynamics.

V. Time Lines for Future Peer Review Products There are 3 major scientific/ technical products that are anticipated to undergo or are currently undergoing external peer review are as follows: ( 1) Non use Stated Preference Survey, ( 2) Non use Meta Analysis Framework, and ( 3) population model that defines when nonuse 13 benefits exist. The schedule for peer review completion is provide below.

Non use Stated Preference Survey instrument and implementation plans   be available for public comment as part of the Information Collection Request process for 60 days starting in February 2005 with Federal Register notification. A second public comment period will start with a Federal Register Notice in May 2005. An external peer review of the survey instrument and implementation plan as well as OMB review will also begin in May 2005. The final external peer review of the completed survey, estimated econometric model, and non use results is planned to begin November 2005.

Non use Meta Analysis Framework and Population Modeling   The external peer review panel comprised of academic economists and ecologists with expertise in ecosystem valuation and fish population modeling is scheduled for completion by April 30, 2005.

Literature Cited Johnston, R. J., G. Magnusson, M. Mazzotta and J. J. Opaluch. 2002b. Combining Economic and Ecological Indicators to Prioritize Salt Marsh Restoration Actions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84( 5): 1362 1370.

Opaluch, James J., Thomas Grigalunas, Marisa J. Mazzotta, Jerry Diamantides, and Robert Johnston. 1998. " Recreational and Resource Economic Values for the Peconic Estuary," Report prepared for Peconic Estuary Program, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Riverhead, NY, by Economic Analysis, Inc., Peace Dale, Rhode Island.

Mazzotta, Marisa J. 1996. Measuring Public Values and Priorities for Natural Resources: An Application to the Peconic Estuary System. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Rhode Island.

USEPA. 2000. Peer Review Handbook, 2nd Edition. Prepared by the U. S. EPA Science Policy Council; EPA 100 B 00 001.

Rosenberger, R. S. and J. B. Loomis. 2001. Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Use Values. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS GTR 72.

USEPA. 2002. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Technical Support for Section 316( b) Regulatory Development and Implementation Initiatives. Prepared by Tetra Tech for USEPA under contract number 68 C 02 1063.


MEMORANDUM

TO:			Docket for OSHA's Respirable Crystalline Silica Rulemaking
                  (OSHA-20 10-0034)

FROM:		WILLIAM PERRY, CIH
            Acting Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance (DSG)

SUBJECT:	DSG Contracts and Task Orders with Eastern Research Group (ERG) Related to the Silica Rulemaking

OSHA is submitting the following documents to the docket in response to a request made during the informal public hearings on the proposed silica rule (Tr. 32):

   1) Contract No. DOLJ049F10022;
   2) Task Order 11;
   3) BPA No. DOLQ059622303;
   4) Task Order 19;
   5) Task Order 60;
   6) Task Order 64;
   7) Task Order 73;
   8) BPA No. DOLQ099F28305;
   9) Task Order 3;
   10)  Task Order 11(2);
   11)  Task Order 21;
   12)  Task Order 26;
   13)  Contract No. DOLJ129F32859;
   14)  Task Order 12; and
   15)  Task Order 16.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23774-23775]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09347]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-61, OMB Control No. 3235-0073]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form S-3.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form S-3 (17 CFR 239.13) is a short form registration statement
used by domestic issuers to register a public offering of their
securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.).
Form S-3 takes approximately 467.4192 hours per response and is filed
by approximately 1,647 issuers annually. We estimate that 25% of the
467.4195 hours per response (116.8548 hours) is prepared by the issuer
for a total annual reporting burden of 192,460 hours (116.8548 hours
per response x 1,647 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    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 control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated April 29, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-09347 Filed 5-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 67)]
[Notices]
[Page 17547]
[DOCID:fr09ap07-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-373-000]

Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd; Notice of Tariff Filing

April 3, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 30, 2007, Wyoming Interstate Company, LTD
(WIC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 2, Ninth Revised Sheet No. 64 to become effective
May 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6569 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


by securityholders that are defined as lost by Rule 17Ad-17, 17 CFR
240.17Ad-17, when the underlying securities (i.e., not just
dividends and interest) have been remitted to the states.

III. Notice

    SEC's Collection of Information: 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 control number.
Under Sections 17, 17A(c) and 23(a) of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder, the SEC is authorized to solicit from
registered transfer agents the information required to be supplied
on Form TA-2. The filing of this Form is mandatory for all
registered transfer agents. The information will be used for the
principal purpose of regulating registered transfer agents but may
be used for all routine uses of the SEC or of the ARAs. Information
supplied on this Form will be included routinely in the public files
of the ARAs and will be available for inspection by any interested
person. Any member of the public may direct to the SEC any comments
concerning the accuracy of the burden estimate on the application
facing page of this Form, and any suggestions for reducing this
burden. The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this
collection of information in accordance with the clearance
requirements of 44 U.S.C. 3507.

[FR Doc. 06-9600 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P