[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34219-34220]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86351; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-32]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Rule 123D

July 11, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On May 24, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Rule 123D to permit the Exchange to
declare a regulatory halt in a security that traded in the over-the-
counter market prior to the initial pricing on the Exchange. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on June 6, 2019.\3\ The Commission has received no comment letters on
the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85990 (May 31,
2019), 84 FR 26462 (June 6, 2019) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange has proposed to amend Rule 123D(d) to permit the
Exchange to declare a regulatory halt in a security that traded in the
over-the-counter market prior to the initial pricing on the Exchange.
    Currently, Rule 123D(d) permits the Exchange to declare a
regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of an initial pricing
on the Exchange of a security and that has not been listed on a
national securities exchange or traded in the over-the-counter market
pursuant to FINRA Form 211 (the ``OTC market'') immediately prior to
the initial pricing. Accordingly, the Exchange has authority to declare
a regulatory halt for any initial listing that is not a transfer from
either another national securities exchange or the OTC market.
Regulatory halts under the rule terminate when the assigned Designated
Market Maker (``DMM'') opens the security.
    The Exchange has proposed to delete the clause ``or traded in the
over-the-counter market pursuant to FINRA Form 211'' in NYSE Rule
123D(d). The proposed amendment would thus enable the Exchange to
declare a regulatory halt for a security that is having its initial
listing on the Exchange and that was traded in the OTC market
immediately prior to its initial pricing on the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that, although an OTC market security that will
be listed on a primary listing exchange will be removed from the OTC
trading list on the day before its initial pricing on the exchange, on
the day of its initial listing, that security can trade on an unlisted
trading privileges (``UTP'') basis before the first transaction on the
primary listing exchange. The Exchange states that permitting the
Exchange to declare a regulatory halt in such securities before trading
on the Exchange begins would avoid potential price disparities or
anomalies that may occur during any UTP trading before the first
transaction on the primary listing exchange. The Exchange states that
quoting and trading in the pre-market of an OTC transfer can be erratic
and that investors may be harmed if their securities trade during this
period. The Exchange asserts that the proposed limited authority to
declare a regulatory halt in the hours prior to the OTC transfer's
initial pricing on the Exchange would mitigate any potential price
disparities and contribute to a fair and orderly market once the
security opens on the Exchange and would be consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\4\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest, and that those rules not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). In approving this proposed rule change,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that extending the authority of the
Exchange to declare a regulatory trading halt prior to the initial
pricing on the Exchange of securities that were previously traded in
the OTC market is consistent with the Act because it is reasonably
designed to address any potential price disparities or anomalies that
may occur during UTP trading before the first transaction on the
Exchange. The Commission notes that this regulatory halt would be
terminated when the DMM opens the security, and would be for the
limited purpose of precluding other markets from trading the security
until the

Exchange has completed the initial pricing process. The Commission
believes this proposed change is reasonably designed to facilitate the
initial opening by the DMM and thereby promote fair and orderly markets
and the protection of investors.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2019-32) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15133 Filed 7-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20503-20505]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07934]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0197; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-09-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Turboprop
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PW118A, PW118B, PW119B,
PW119C, PW123, PW123B, PW123C, PW123D, PW123E, PW123AF, PW124B, PW125B,
PW126A, PW127, PW127E, PW127F, PW127G, and PW127M turboprop engines.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports of fractures of the 1st stage
power turbine (PT) blade. This proposed AD would require inspection of
the 1st stage PT blades and the removal from service of those blades
that fail the inspection or their replacement with blades eligible for
installation. We are proposing this AD to prevent fracture of the 1st
stage PT blade, possible engine fire, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt &
Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada,
J4G 1A1; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web site: www.pwc.ca.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the
same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Zink, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0197;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-09-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Canada Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-02, dated January 22,
2013, a Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    There have been various reported incidents of P&WC PW100 series
engine failures caused by the fracturing of the 1st Stage Power
turbine (PT1) blade. Some of the above cases have resulted in engine
fires. Further investigation by P&WC has traced the affected PT1
blade failures to undetected shrinkage porosity of unacceptable
levels within the blade casting. Service experience indicates that
the blades manufactured between 2005 and 2008 exhibit a higher
propensity for unacceptable levels of shrinkage porosity.

This proposed AD would require inspection of the blades for shrinkage
porosity and replacement with blades eligible for installation for
those blades that fail the inspection.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    P&WC has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. PW100-72-21823, Revision
3, dated March 8, 2013. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with Canada, they have notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information
provided by Canada and determined the unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require inspection of the 1st stage PT blades
and the removal from service of those blades that fail the inspection
or their replacement with blades eligible for installation.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 540 engines
installed on U.S. airplanes. We also estimate that it would take about
1.5 hours per engine to perform the inspection or replacement required
by this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We
estimate that 25% of the engines inspected would fail at least one 1st
stage PT blade. If the 1st stage PT blade fails the inspection, a
replacement blade would cost $6,000. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of the inspection or replacement to U.S. operators to
be $878,850.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (formerly Pratt & Whitney Canada Inc.):
Docket No. FAA-2013-0197; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-09-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 4, 2013.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) PW118A,
PW118B, PW119B, PW119C, PW123, PW123B, PW123C, PW123D, PW123E,
PW123AF, PW124B, PW125B, PW126A, PW127, PW127E, PW127F, PW127G, and
PW127M turboprop engines with a 1st stage power turbine (PT) blade
part number (P/N) 3120973-01, P/N 3120983-01, or P/N 3054053-01
installed that has a serial number listed in Table 1 of the Appendix
of P&WC Service Bulletin No. PW100-72-21823, Revision 3, dated March
8, 2013.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of fractures of the 1st stage PT
blade. We are issuing this AD to prevent fracture of the 1st stage
PT blade, possible engine fire, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, within 60 months after the effective date
of this AD or when the affected PT blades are at module level
exposure, whichever occurs first, do one of the following:
    (1) Replace the affected 1st stage PT blade with a blade
eligible for installation; or
    (2) Perform a one-time X-ray inspection of the affected 1st
stage PT blades, using paragraph 3.F.(2) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of P&WC Service Bulletin No. PW100-72-21823, Revision
3, dated March 8, 2013.

(f) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install into any
engine any 1st stage PT blade that has not passed the inspection
required by paragraph (e)(2) of this AD.

(g) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, module level exposure is when the
affected engine is inducted into the engine shop, the PT module is
removed from the engine, and access is available to the necessary
subassembly.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    If before the effective date of this AD, you inspected the 1st
stage PT blades using earlier versions of P&WC Service Bulletin No.
PW100-72-21823, Revision 3, dated March 8, 2013, you met the
inspection requirements in paragraph (e) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Frederick Zink,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-
02, dated January 22, 2013, and P&WC Service Bulletin No. PW100-72-
21823, Revision 3, dated March 8, 2012, for related information.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec,
Canada, J4G 1A1; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web site:
www.pwc.ca. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine
& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 29, 2013.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-07934 Filed 4-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

1 Originally prepared July 2, 2002. Revised July 3 to correct response to Tampa Electric question # 10 ( see page 22 below).

Page 1 RESPONSE TO UWAG QUESTIONS RE: PHASE II PROPOSAL RECORD Revised July 3, 20021 Doug Heimbuch's Questions 1. No, this is not a typographical error. As discussed in Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN # 4 0003), EPA estimated foregone yield using the Thompson and Bell model ( Ricker, 1975). Example 10.1 on page 237 of Ricker ( 1975) provides an example of the calculations that are pertinent to Equation 7 of Chapter A5 of EPA's Case Study Document. The exploitation rate was defined by Ricker ( 1975, page 3) as E = F/ Z. In this context, the exploitation rate ( E) defines the fraction of annual total deaths ( within a cohort) that are due to harvesting.

2. EPA estimated production foregone using the Production Foregone Model described in Rago ( 1984, page 85, Equation 5), and Dixon ( 1999, page 2 9, Equation 2 6). The formulaic description of the model was provided as Equation 8 in Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003).

3. As indicated in Equation 8 of Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003), EPA used the average weight for individuals of stage i ( W i) to estimate production foregone. The definition of W i is taken from Rago ( 1984, page 82, last paragraph), which defines W i as the average weight of individuals of age i. Stage specific average weights used by EPA for the calculations of production foregone are presented in an appendix to each case study report ( Parts B through I of the Case Study Document, DCN 4 0003).

4. The calculations of the instantaneous growth rate for individuals of stage i ( G i) used in the Production Foregone Model, presented as Equation 8 in Chapter A5 of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003), were based on Equation 7a in Rago ( 1984, page 85). This equation is duplicated as Equation 1 below:

W i = W i 1 * eGi Equation 1 where: This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 2 G i = the instantaneous growth rate for individuals of stage i W i = average weight ( in pounds) for individuals of stage i W i 1 = average weight ( in pounds) for individuals of stage i 1 Based on Equation 1, EPA derived values for G i using the following equation:

G i = log e ( W i+ 1 / W i ), Equation 2 Stage specific average weights used by EPA for the calculations of G i are presented in an appendix to each case study report ( Parts B through I of the Case Study Document, DCN 4 0003). Some literature values for weights of fish at successive ages ( primarily larval stages) were identical. However, EPA determined that it was likely that there would be a difference between successive classes and in these cases assigned a small value to G i.

5. As indicated in Equation 8 of Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003), EPA used the number of individuals of stage i lost to I& E ( N i) to estimate production foregone. The definition of N i is based on Equation 7b of Rago ( 1984, page 86), and is duplicated as Equation 3 below:

N i = N i 1 * e Zi Equation 3 where N i = numbers of individuals of stage i lost to impingement and entrainment ( I& E) Z i = instantaneous mortality rate for individuals of stage i N i 1 = numbers of individuals of stage i 1 lost to I& E Input data are provided in the EXCEL workbook " salem. input. data. xls" ( DCN 4 2051).

6. EPA selected constants to depict trophic transfer efficiency based on the general ecological principle that animal biomass transfers to higher trophic levels with an efficiency of about 10% ( e. g., see discussion of Lindeman efficiencies in Colinvaux, 1973). A value of 10% for trophic transfer efficiency is a widely used rule of thumb, but actual values for particular systems may vary somewhat around that assumed value.

Based on the above information, EPA estimated a conservative value of 9% for singlelevel trophic transfer efficiency, which is the same value that Public Service Electric and Gas Company ( PSEG) used as a trophic transfer efficiency in the models they used for This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 3 Salem's 1999 Permit Renewal Application ( PSEG, 1999). In order to account for indirect or multi level transfers, EPA estimated an aggregate net transfer efficiency of only 2.5 %. The fraction 0.20 that appears in Equation 12 of Chapter A5 of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) is introduced for illustrative purposes only to present the rationale for using the low net transfer efficiency of 2.5%.

7. A brief description of the method used by EPA to estimate the number of fish in the recreational catch is presented in Section A5 3.2 of Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003). The following example gives a detailed elaboration of the steps involved in calculating the number of fish in the recreational catch.

Pounds of foregone yield to the recreational fishery are based on the total foregone fishery yield calculated using Equation 7 in Section A5 3.2 of Chapter A5. Results of the estimation of the total foregone fishery yield for each species at each facility are provided in the third chapter of each case study report, " Evaluation of I& E Data" in Parts B through I of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003).

To obtain the foregone recreational yield, EPA partitioned the estimates of total foregone yield for each species into foregone recreational yield and foregone commercial yield, based on the relative proportions of recreational and commercial state wide aggregate catch rates of that species:

f r + f c = 1 Equation 4 Y kr = Y k. * f r Equation 5 Y kc = Y k. * f c Equation 6 where:

f r = fraction of total landings in recreational sector f c = fraction of total landings in commercial sector Y kr = foregone recreational yield ( pounds) due to I& E losses in year k Y k. = total foregone yield ( pounds) due to I& E losses in year k Y kc = foregone commercial yield ( pounds) due to I& E losses in year k The method used by EPA to obtain the percentage of fish allocated to commercial and recreational harvests is presented in the text box on page A9 3 of Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003). The fishery sector fractions used by EPA are presented in Table 4 1 of each case study report ( Parts B through I of the Case Study Document, DCN 4 0003) and in the EXCEL workbook " econvalues. xls" ( DCN 4 2061). This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 4 Pounds of foregone recreational yield were then re expressed as numbers of individual fish based on the expected weight of an individual harvestable fish according to the following equation:

N krs = Y kr / w s Equation 7 where:

N krs = the number of individuals in the recreational catch in year k of species s w s = the expected weight of a harvestable individual of species s The expected weight at harvest, w s, was defined as the average of the known weight at age values, statistically weighted by the relative fraction of all harvest that is comprised of each particular age group. The calculation for a particular species, s, is:

jmax w s =   m js * w js Equation 8 j= 1 jmax m js = S 1, j * w js * V js /  ( S 1, js * w js * V js) Equation 9 j= 1 where:

m js = weighting factor at stage j ( fraction of total harvest comprised of stage j) w js = weight at stage j S 1, js = cumulative survival from age 1 to stage j V js = the fraction of individuals vulnerable to fishing mortality at stage j Table 1 below illustrates the calculation of m js for one year for each life stage of a single species and the derivation of the value 2.483 kg as the expected weight at harvest ( w s). Each row of Table 1 gives the basic and derived values that are specific for each life stage. These data were taken from Salem's 1999 Permit Renewal Application ( PSEG, 1999). The life history data presented in Table 1 and associated references to the source documents are also reported in Appendix B1 of Part B of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) and in worksheets 2 to 4 of the EXCEL workbook " salem. input. data. xls" ( DCN 4 2051). This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

2. Memorandum from Stratus Consulting Inc. to EPA, 5/ 28/ 02, " Outline of § 316( b) Case Study Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment Data with Examples Drawn from the Salem Case Study."

Page 5 Table 1. Calculation of expected weight at harvest, ws of Equation 8, based on life history parameters used in the Salem case study to model weakfish.

Life history parameter Life stage ( j) M j F j Fraction of life stage ( j) vulnerable to fishery W j ( gm) Z j = M j + F j S j = e Zj S 1, j m js wf js* M js Age 1 0.35 0.25 0.10 117.93 0.6 0.55 0.55 0.01 0.99 Age 2 0.25 0.25 0.50 308.44 0.5 0.61 0.33 0.07 20.44 Age 3 0.25 0.25 1.00 508.02 0.5 0.61 0.20 0.13 67.25 Age 4 0.25 0.25 1.00 811.93 0.5 0.61 012 0.13 104.18 Age 5 0.25 0.25 1.00 1319.95 0.5 0.61 0.07 0.13 166.99 Age 6 0.25 0.25 1.00 2816.80 0.5 0.61 0.05 0.16 461.24 Age 7 0.25 0.25 1.00 3238.60 0.5 0.61 0.03 0.11 369.80 Age 8 0.25 0.25 1.00 4154.90 0.5 0.61 0.02 0.09 369.15 Age 9 0.25 0.25 1.00 4912.41 0.5 0.61 0.01 0.06 312.97 Age 10 0.25 0.25 1.00 5669.91 0.5 0.61 0.01 0.04 252.87 Age 11 0.25 0.25 1.00 5669.91 0.5 0.61 0.006 0.03 153.37 Age 12 0.25 0.25 1.00 5669.91 0.5 0.61 0.004 0.02 93.02 Age 13 0.25 0.25 1.00 5669.91 0.5 0.61 0.002 0.01 56.41 Age 14 0.25 0.25 1.00 5669.91 0.5 0.61 0.001 0.01 34.22 Age 15 0.25 0.25 1.00 5669.91 0.5 0.61 0.0008 0.004 20.75 2,484 gm 8. The procedure and equations used by EPA to estimate Salem's entrainment losses assuming 100% through plant mortality are provided in the May 28, 2002, memorandum sent to PSEG by Tom Wall of EPA's 316( b) Task Force. 2 The source of the specific factors used to estimate Salem's entrainment losses assuming 100% through plant mortality are also provided in the memorandum, and are duplicated below.

EPA obtained species and stage specific mechanical mortality factors from Appendix F, Attachment 2, Table 12 of Salem's 1999 Permit Renewal Application ( PSEG, 1999) ( duplicated in Appendix B1 of Part B of the Case Study Document, DCN 4 0003). EPA obtained the coefficients used in the probit models of thermal mortality from Table 13 of Appendix F, Attachment 2, of Salem's 1999 Permit Renewal Application ( PSEG, 1999). EPA estimated the acclimation temperature ( T a) from Appendix F, Attachment 2, Figure 3 This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 6 of Salem's 1999 Application as 16.7 ° C. The exposure duration ( D) was obtained from Attachment 2, Table 5 ( Unit 1) of Salem's 1999 Application, and is equal to 2.35 minutes. EPA obtained the temperature change through the condensers ( T delta) from Section II of Appendix F of Salem's 1999 Application and estimated it as 9.27 ° C, which is the mean of the reported minimum T delta of 14.8 ° F and maximum of 18.6 ° F.

9. The methods used to extrapolate the I& E rates of nine Ohio River case study facilities to other Ohio River facilities are provided in Section C3 6 of Chapter C3 of Part C of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003). The definition of the Ohio River pool groups used by EPA in its analysis is provided in Table C3 16 of Chapter C3.

Extrapolation was based on the judgment that I& E is proportional to intake flow, and that I& E rates at the nine Ohio River case study facilities are representative of I& E at other facilities in their respective pools. The nine case study facilities are referred to here as " model facilities" and the other facilities as " non model" facilities. For each pool separately, EPA scaled each I& E metric for the model facilities to their respective operational flow rates, and then determined the mean flow scaled metric for all the model facilities located in that pool. Thus,

L' ep = L ep / G ep Equation 10 np L'. p = ( 1/ n p ) *   L' ep e = 1 L e'p = G e'p * L'. p where:

L' ep = the flow scaled loss metric for case study facility e located in pool p L ep = a loss metric for model facility e located in pool p G ep = the operational flow rate ( in million gallons per day, MGD) for model facility e located in pool p L'. p = the mean flow scaled loss metric among all model facilities located in pool p n p = the number of model facilities located in pool p L e'p = the extrapolated loss metric for non model facility e located in pool p G e'p = the operational flow rate ( MGD) for non model facility e located in pool p Note that L' ep = L'. p in all pools except for Markland Pool and Robert C. Byrd Pool because other pools had only one model facility. Some of the values listed in Table C3 28 This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 7 of Chapter C5 are incorrect due to an error in computing L'. p for Markland Pool and Robert C. Byrd Pool. The listed values are lower than the correct values for these two pools.

Because of this error, correct values of aggregate losses in Markland Pool are 87% greater than the reported values and correct values of aggregate losses in Robert C. Byrd Pool are 78% greater than the reported values. As a result, the values reported in Table C3 28 for Markland Pool, Robert C. Byrd Pool, and for the total are lower than they should be. This error occurs in all tables reporting results for these pools. In the case of Table C3 28, the correct values for common carp in for Markland Pool, Robert C. Byrd Pool, and for the aggregate total are 179,245 lbs, 1,192,687 lbs, and 1,506,400 lbs, respectively. The correct grand total in Table C3 28 for all species at all pools is about 49% greater than the reported total ( 14,724,213 lbs rather than 9,890,223 lbs).

10. Impinged fish were estimated to be age 1 only in cases where impinged fish were age > 1 or when ages were unknown. In cases where impinged fish were known to be younger than age 1, their known ages were used in determining the loss metrics, so the effect described in the footnote may not always occur. With this proviso, the methods used by EPA to estimate age 1 equivalents for impingement and entrainment were equivalent for fish younger and older than age 1, including the calculation of S*. The calculation of S* is discussed in Section A5 3.1 of Chapter A5 of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003). The May 28th, 2002, memorandum sent to PSEG by Tom Wall of EPA ( see Footnote 1) presents a detailed example depicting the calculation of age 1 equivalent weakfish lost to entrainment at Salem in 1981 and 1982.

11. See Response 4 above.

12. See Response 5 above. Input data are provided in the EXCEL workbook " salem. input. data. xls" ( DCN 4 2051).

13. and 14. See Response 7 above. As discussed on page B4 2 of Chapter B4 of Part B of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003), recreational yield was estimated by multiplying the total lost yield by the percentage of yield that is attributed to the recreational fishery. The species specific percentages used to calculate recreational yield are given in Table B4 1. However, due to a clerical error in production of this table, the values for pounds of recreational yield that are presented in Tables B4 2 and B4 3 are incorrect. Because this was a clerical error and not an error in any actual calculations, the errors in Tables B4 2 and B4 3 do not affect any of the results of EPA's benefits analysis. Also note that pounds of recreational catch were not used in the economic valuations ( only numbers of This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 8 recreational fish were valued). For Table B4 2, correct values for pounds of recreational yield are:

American shad  53 lbs

Atlantic croaker  4,720 lbs

Blue crab  598 lbs

Spot  382 lbs

Striped Bass  8,040 lbs

Weakfish  13,613 lbs

White perch  31 lbs

Non RIS fishery species  5,013 lbs For Table B4 3, correct values for pounds of recreational yield are:

Atlantic croaker  334,986 lbs

Spot  480,776 lbs

Striped bass  564,789 lbs

Weakfish  296,243 lbs

White perch  223 lbs

Non RIS fishery species  322,383 lbs 15. The stages Juvenile 1 and Juvenile 2 that EPA used for modeling losses of alewife and blueback herring correspond to stages Juv E and Juv I that are presented in PSEG ( 1999) Table F 4 of Appendix F, Attachment 4. EPA interpreted Juv E and Juve I of Table F 4 to be sequential stages with a combined stage duration of 306 days and with equal stagewise total mortality rate ( Z) of 3.105 for alewife and 3.13 for blueback herring. Thus, EPA modeled impingement and entrainment losses of juvenile alewife and juvenile blueback herring with a stagewise total mortality rate ( Z) of 3.105 and 3.13, respectively.

16. and 17. EPA estimated stage specific weights of fish if they were not provided in Salem's 1999 Permit Renewal Application ( PSEG, 1999). EPA estimated that the average weight of eggs is 0.01 gm ( slightly less than the weights of larvae) and estimated weights for stages between eggs and age 1 by linear interpolation of the weight of eggs and the weight at age 1 provided in Salem's 1999 Permit Renewal Application ( PSEG, 1999). The methods and sources that EPA used to estimate fish weights are presented in footnotes to the life history tables presented in Appendix B2 of Part B of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003). The simple interpolation used to estimate the size at any stage can be described by: This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 9 W j+ 1 = W j + (( W age1+ W egg) / ( 2 * n stage)) Equation 11 where:

W j = average weight at stage j W j+ 1 = average weight at stage j+ 1 n stage = number of stages between egg and age 1 In cases where weights for adult stages were unknown, EPA used an ad hoc procedure similar to a linear interpolation between known weights at other stages, except that the interpolation was not strictly linear in that the weight increment between stages was estimated to decrease with age.

For Atlantic menhaden, blue crab, silverside, and the group of non RIS species, EPA used a weight length relationship:

W j =  * L j   Equation 12 where:

  and   = growth coefficients W j = average weight in grams of stage j L j = average length in millimeters of stage j The growth coefficients used by EPA in Equation 12 are presented in worksheet 3 of the EXCEL workbook " salem. input. data. xls" ( DCN 4 2051). The length at stage data are presented in worksheet 4. All of these data and their sources are also provided in footnotes to the life history tables presented in Appendix B2 of Part B of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003).

Due to a data input error, incorrect weights for Atlantic menhaden were used in EPA's calculations of Atlantic menhaden foregone fishery yield and production foregone. This error changes the benefits associated with Atlantic menhaden losses, but the magnitude of the change in comparison to total benefits is relatively small due to the low value assigned to this species.

The correct weight estimates are provided below in Table 2.

Table 2. Stage specific length and weight data for Atlantic menhaden.

Stage Lengths ( mm) Weights ( gm) b This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 10 Eggs 1.6 0.000027 Yolksac larvae 3.4 0.00031 Post yolksac larvae 34 0.51 Juvenile 1 92.5 12.7 Age 1+ 233 247.2 Age 2+ 268 387.7 Age 3+ 288 488.7 Age 4+ 306 593.9 Age 5+ 317 665.3 Age 6+ 325 720.9 Age 7+ 400 1,405.6 Age 8+ 470 2,361.0 18. The weight at age values for spot that PSEG ( 1999) listed was 26.65 gm for stage Juvenile 1 and for Juvenile 2. Because it is unlikely that there would be no weight difference between these two age classes, EPA interpreted this information to indicate that the weights were very similar between the two classes ( though not identical). In order to facilitate modeling of stagewise growth rates ( Gi), EPA altered the weight value for juvenile 2 from 25.65gm to 26.0 gm ( an increase of about 1%).

19. Please see response to Question number 9.

20. DCN 4 2213 reports waterbody type and angling days, which can be used to reproduce the angling index.

21. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

22. Baseline losses for Pittsburgh and Contra Costa ( in $ 2001) are estimated in the case studies for these facilities rather than through extrapolation [ see Part E of EPA's Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003)].

23. Refer to the Economic and Benefits Analysis ( EBA), Chapter C3 ( DCN 4 0002), Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 68, page 17189 17208, and docket documents DCN 4 2070, DCN 4 2212, and DCN 4 2213.

24. Refer to EBA Chapter C3 ( DCN 4 0002), Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 68, page 17189 17208, and docket documents DCN 4 2070, DCN 4 2212, and DCN 4 2213. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 11 25. The case study results were extrapolated to national estimates of baseline loss ( see EBA Chapter C3 ( DCN 4 0002) and Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 68, page 17189 17208). In the case of the Salem case study, results are based on a single facility. In the case of the Ohio case study, the results are based on several facilities because the underlying Random Utility Model ( RUM) analysis covered several facilities within the river simultaneously.

26. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

27. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

28. Individual county estimates were an intermediate step and not saved. See Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 68, page 17189 17208 for details on their calculation. See docket documents DCN 4 2070, DCN 4 2212, and DCN 4 2213 for facility level estimates and waterbody types.

Desvousges' Questions 1. Construction of the angling index is described in Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 68, page 17189 17208. Also refer to EBA Chapter C3 ( DCN 4 0002), Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 68, page 17189 17208, and docket documents DCN 4 2070, DCN 4 2212, and DCN 4 2213.

2. For those sites for which a RUM analysis was not conducted by EPA, the benefits transfer ( BT) approach provided the only estimates used for recreational angling losses. These other sites provide a clear indication of how BT is used in lieu of RUM results [ e. g., see Chapters F4 and F6 of Part F of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) to see how BT results are used in the Brayton Point Case Study].

3. The use of the " 50% rule of thumb" by Freeman ( 1979) and explored by Fisher and Raucher ( 1984) provides a conservative approach to assessing nonuse values for the magnitude of the injury to aquatic species due to I& E.

4. The " steady state" approach is based on simplification of the temporal aspects of how I& E translates into a loss in recreational or commercial fishery harvest. If the typical age of harvest is 3 years, then a change in I& E will affect harvest 3 years later, implying a This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 12 rationale for discounting the loss over the intervening time period. However, the fishery then attains a steady state after 3 years of I& E controls.

5. See Chapter A9 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) for an explanation of the commercial fishery approach. Also, please see the explanation provided in the attached paper, " Estimating Commercial Fishing Losses for the Phase II Proposal."

6. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

7. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

8. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

9. The ranges developed by EPA reflect the range of values applicable for many of the key parameters and thereby embody a sensitivity analysis in and of themselves.

10. EPA provided these files to UWAG on June 17, 2002. Please note that LIMDEP datasets are not compressed SAS datasets; they are ASCII files.

11. EPA provided these files to UWAG on June 17, 2002. Please note that LIMDEP datasets ( i. e., brum. dat and brips. dat) are not compressed SAS datasets; they are ASCII files.

12. Document sources:

a) 1994 Bay Delta Accord: http:// calfed. water. ca. gov/ historical/ delta_ accord. html b) 1995 State Water Quality Plan ( California): http:// www. swrcb. ca. gov/ plnspols/ wqplans/ deltwqcp. doc c) Fall Mid water Trawl Survey, California Dept of Fish and Game: http:// www. delta. dfg. ca. gov/ data/ mwt99/ charts. html d) Table E2 1 State Water Project Costs source: Davis et al. 1999; Table E2 2 Recent California Water Transactions source: These transactions are compiled from recent issues of the Water Strategist journal ( http:// www. waterchat. com); Table E2 3 Summary of Uses and Values of Foregone Production to SWP and CVP Water Users source: Davis et al. 1999. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 13 13. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

14. The subject of this study was I& E. No other environmental stressors were evaluated.

15. This information was provided in PG& E ( 1998) as indicated on page E1 6 of Chapter E1 of Part E of the Case Study Report ( DCN 4 0003). A copy of this document is provided in the docket ( DCN 4 1904).

16. a) There are nine special status fish species identified under the Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan ( ERPP) with a goal of recovering each species. These species are delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento splittail, Sacramento winter run chinook salmon, Central Valley spring run chinook salmon, late fall run chinook salmon, fall run chinook salmon, and Central Valley steelhead [ see page E5 2 of Chapter E5 of Part E of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003)].

b) No adjustments were made.

c) The revealed preference approach is one of two methods used to estimate the cost of restoring threatened and endangered ( T& E) fish species in the Bay Delta region. The other is the direct costing approach. Roughly the same value was obtained using each method. For the revealed preference approach, three estimates for the ratio of program costs attributable to T& E species are assumed. These ratios are assumed because of a lack of available data. At the low end, it is assumed that over the life of the program 40% of the ERPP funds, 40% of the money spent on environmental water quality, and 90% of the Environmental Water Account ( EWA) benefit special status fish. At the other end of the spectrum, it is estimated that 80% of the ERPP funds and the environmental water quality element benefit special status species, and that 10% of each of the other CALFED program elements also benefit special status species, except the EWA, where the 90% benefit level is maintained. A scenario that generally represents a mid point of rates assumed in the low and high scenarios for allocation of total CALFED program costs to special status species fish holds that 60% of the ERPP and environmental water quality funds, 90% of the EWA funds, and 10% of the other program categories directly benefit special status species fish [ see page E5 3 of Chapter E5 of Part E of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003)]. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 14 d) This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

17. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

18. The value of I& E losses of special status species fish was not estimated for case studies other than the San Francisco Bay/ Delta. EPA did not extrapolate these values to the national level to estimate benefits.

19. Attached is a CD containing electronic files for the economic analysis that do not contain confidential business information ( CBI) or information that, with minimal analysis, could lead to the disclosure of CBI. EPA conducted the economic analyses in Excel, not in SAS. Therefore, the submitted files are in Excel format. The CD contains the following files: AEO Data. xls ( 4 3008), Tax Rates. xls ( 4 3027), 316b_ ICR_ Opt. 3. xls ( 4 4042), 316b_ ICR_ Opt. 1. xls ( 4 4043), Market Analysis  NERC Level. xls ( 4 3052), and Transmission Analysis 1d 3d. xls ( 4 4053). EPA is continuing to review additional files you requested to determine whether some of the information they contain could be released in a manner that would not disclose CBI.

Kristy Bulleit's Questions 1. a) The energy penalty input into the IPM are the mean annual energy penalties estimated by EPA. The energy penalty consists of two components: ( 1) a reduction in unit efficiency due to increased turbine back pressure and ( 2) an increase in auxiliary power requirements to operate the new system ( e. g., for pumping and fanning). EPA estimated energy penalties for different types of generators ( nuclear, combined cycle, and fossil fuel) and different geographic regions ( northeast, south, mid west, west, and U. S. average). See Table B1 1 of the Economic and Benefits Analysis document, reproduced below.

Table B1 1: Annual Energy Penalty (% of Plant Capacity) by Facility Type and Geographic Region Region Nuclear Fossil Fuel Combined Cycle Turbine Aux. Power Total Turbine Aux. Power Total Turbine Aux. Power Total Recirculating Systems with Wet Cooling Towers Northeast ( MA) 0.73% 0.85% 1.58 % 0.88% 0.77% 1.65 % 0.14% 0.26% 0.39 % This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Table B1 1: Annual Energy Penalty (% of Plant Capacity) by Facility Type and Geographic Region Region Nuclear Fossil Fuel Combined Cycle Turbine Aux. Power Total Turbine Aux. Power Total Turbine Aux. Power Total Page 15 South ( FL) 1.03% 0.85% 1.88 % 0.93% 0.77% 1.69 % 0.18% 0.26% 0.44 %

Midwest ( IL) 0.96% 0.85% 1.82 % 1.00% 0.77% 1.77 % 0.16% 0.26% 0.41 %

West ( WA) 0.67% 0.85% 1.52 % 0.74% 0.77% 1.51 % 0.11% 0.26% 0.37 %

U. S. Average 0.85% 0.85% 1.70 % 0.89% 0.77% 1.65 % 0.15% 0.26% 0.40 %

At the time the IPM inputs were finalized, energy penalties for the West were not available. The IPM analysis therefore used the U. S. average for plants located in California, which overestimate the energy penalty for these facilities.

b) No, only one energy penalty estimate, the total mean annual penalty, is used per plant.

c) This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

2. The Agency used those facilities for which it believed it had the best basis for making an extrapolation to other case study facilities in the same waterbody category. For example, Salem was used for non Gulf estuaries because of the extent of I& E data available for Salem and the Salem results included the RUM analysis, which allows for a more comprehensive and robust assessment of recreational fishing losses.

DTE Energy Questions 1. Chapter I4 of Part I of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) refers the reader to Section I3 4 of Chapter I3 for data sources. The chapter also explains that foregone recreational yield in pounds was converted to numbers of fish for valuation purposes. Details on how yield in pounds was derived from annual I& E loss rates are provided in Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003). This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 16 2. All AFS ( 1993) values are derived from a 1989 1990 survey of public, private, and tribal hatcheries.

3. The methods for converting forage species to species which may be commercially or recreationally valued are described in Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003).

4. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

Mirant Questions 1. EPA's rationale for averaging all available I& E data is given on page E3 17 of Chapter E3 of Part E of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003).

2. EPA obtained the striped bass I& E data presented in Chapter E3 of Part E of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) from the facility § 316b documents prepared by Ecological Analysts, Inc. ( 1981a, b), as listed in the reference list below and in the reference list for the Case Study Document.

3. EPA classified as delta smelt all fish recorded as " Osmeridae" in facility documents. Annual impingement records at Contra Costa were obtained from Table 3 20 of the Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan ( Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000). That report lists annual chinook salmon losses ( for all runs combined) as 1,083 fish, and annual steelhead losses as 38 fish.

4. The methods used to estimate age 1 equivalents are provided in Section A5 3.1 of Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003).

5. Complete descriptions of how EPA estimated foregone yield and production foregone are provided in Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003). The striped bass life history data used to calculate these metrics are provided in Table E1 5 of Appendix E1 of Part E of the Case Study Document and in worksheets 2 to 4 of the EXCEL workbooks " contracosta. input. data. xls" ( DCN 4 2041) and " pittsburg. input. data" ( DCN 4 2050).

6. See Response 7 to Doug Heimbuch's questions for an explanation of EPA's methods for converting pounds of foregone recreational yield to numbers of fish. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 17 7. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

8. The spreadsheets are not used to calculate anything. The workbooks " contracosta. input. data. xls" ( DCN 4 2041) and " pittsburg. input. data" ( DCN 4 2050) simply contain tables of the input data used for the calculations discussed in Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003). Within each workbook, worksheet 1 (" losses01") contains the annual I& E losses, worksheet 2 (" lifehistory02") contains stagespecific natural mortality rates, fishing mortality rates, and the fraction vulnerable to the fishery for each species, worksheet 3( " lbs. from. mm03") contains species specific data used in length weight conversions, Worksheet 4 (" species. growth04") contains stagespecific weight and length data, and Worksheet 5 (" species. growth04") contains stagespecific fecundity data and the fraction mature at each stage for each species considered.

9. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

10. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

PSEG'S Questions 1. The calculations are not based on pages 19 through 21 of Norton et al. ( 1983). The analysis is based on methods and empirical results in pages 38 through 44 of Norton et al. ( 1983), as well as by research by Holt and Bishop ( 2002) and R. Bishop, pers. comm. ( 2002).

2. See response to 1 above.

3. See response to 1 above.

4. See response to 1 above.

5. Please see the explanation provided in the attached paper, " Estimating Commercial Fishing Losses for the Phase II Proposal." This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 18 6. Please see the explanation provided in the attached paper, " Estimating Commercial Fishing Losses for the Phase II Proposal."

7. All relevant communications between EPA or its contractors and Dr. Bishop used by EPA to estimate the total economic surplus associated with commercial fishery landings for the proposal are contained in the public record for the rule. As noted in the attached paper " Estimating Commercial Fishing Losses for the Phase II Proposal," some of Dr. Bishop's empirical work is not available for public distribution. The empirical work of relevance is presented in the attachment.

8. The BT results are in Chapter B4 of Part B of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003), while the RUM analysis results are in Chapter B5. Per fish values used in the BT analysis are provided in Table B4 5 and values used in the RUM analysis are in Table B5 8. The footnote to the " Total" row states that totals are based on summing results of the RUM analysis for weakfish and striped bass and the BT results are for " other species."

9. The per fish values for the RUM analysis and the BT analysis differ. Per fish values used in the BT analysis are stated in Table B4 5 of Chapter B4 of Part B of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) and values used in the RUM analysis are stated in Table B5 8 of Chapter B5.

10. EPA did not quantify the percentage change in fish populations due to Salem I& E.

11. EPA did not conduct any primary research on the nonuse ( e. g., bequest and existence) values for the physical injuries sustained by fish and other aquatic species due to I& E at Salem.

12. EPA did not conduct any primary research on the nonuse ( e. g., bequest and existence) values for the physical injuries sustained by fish and other aquatic species due to I& E at Salem.

13. The values from Chapter B6 of Part B of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) are the final values for purposes of the case study analyses for the proposed rule. EPA reserves the right to revise these analyses based on public comment and other information prior to taking final action on the rule.

14. One set of values shows the results obtained from the BT approach and the other set of values incorporates the values for recreational fishing obtained by the RUM approach. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 19 15. Chapter B6 of Part B of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) addresses results for all in scope facilities. Salem specific results are presented in Chapter B4 for the BT analysis and in Chapter B5 for the RUM analysis.

First Energy Questions 1. Because the facility checked the general CBI box at the beginning of the questionnaire, the velocity documented on page C2 10 was taken from another available source. These velocities were provided for information only. Velocities were not used in any modeling for estimation of losses.

2. These facilities received short technical questionnaires. EPA only requested average annual cooling water intake flows on the short technical questionnaires. Therefore, EPA estimated design flows for these facilities using a model. Data in section C2 were not used in estimating any losses. The attached memorandum, " Model for Estimating Power Plant Design Intake Capacities," provides the methodology EPA used to estimate design flows for facilities that received a short technical questionnaire.

3. No data were available in facility reports to determine if facility impingement counts required adjustment for gizzard shad that may have been more susceptible to impingement because they were already in a weakened state. Note that forage fish were included in the benefits estimates ( see Chapter C4 of Part C of the Case Study Document, DCN 4 0003).

4. All of the data input files used to evaluate I& E losses are included in a CD ROM located at DCN 4 1305. There is one EXCEL workbook for each case study facility. The workbooks have file names that correspond to the name of the facility ( e. g., for the Beckjord facility in the Ohio River Case Study the workbook of input data is named " beckjord. input. data").

Kyle Hartman's Questions 1. Individual plant data was used to obtain case study results, which were then used for estimating national benefits.

2. Extrapolation results were based on facility flow, estimated angling activity, and an average of these two. Refer to Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 68, page 17189 17208. No other sensitivity analyses were performed.

3. Absent information to the contrary, EPA estimated that species were similar within the same waterbody type. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 20 4. EPA estimated that fish killed by impingement were age 1 only in cases where fish ages were originally reported as age 1 or greater, or if the original records did not specify the ages of impinged fish. If the original records specified that impinged fish were less than age 1, then EPA used their reported ages.

5. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

6. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

7. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

8. Nonuse values are not doubled, but are based on a conservative approach that uses half of the recreational fishing values estimated. Nonuse values stated on page B4 11 are one half of the recreation fishing values estimated.

Connectiv Questions 1. EPA provided these files to UWAG on June 17, 2002. Please note that LIMDEP datasets are not compressed SAS datasets; they are ASCII files.

2. According to the Delaware River Basin website ( DRBC, 1996 at DCN 4 1474), Hay Road does take in water. However, because it was not in scope, it was not included in the benefits analysis.

Tampa Electric Questions 1. There is a typographic error on page D1 11. The correct value of the recreational fishery catches is 5,411,292. The correct value ( 5,411,292) was used in the analysis. This value is reported in Table D5 11 of the Case Study Report.

2. Carrying capacity is not a variable in any of the analyses conducted by EPA for this study.

3. As described in Section D3 3 of Chapter D3 of Part D of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003), EPA obtained entrainment monitoring data from Conservation Consultants Inc. ( 1977) for the years 1976 1977 and from U. S. EPA ( 1981) for the years This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 21 1979 1980. Section D3 3 describes the methods used by EPA to derive annual entrainment estimates from these data. To estimate annual entrainment at Big Bend for the period 1976 1977, EPA added all of the monthly totals from January 1976 to December 1976 that were reported in Appendix 5C and 6C of Conservation Consultants Inc. ( 1977) and multiplied these annual entrainment estimates by 1.33 to represent the annual entrainment of the three units with data and a fourth unit of equal flow. These estimates are presented in Table D3 6 of Chapter D3 of EPA's Case Study Document. EPA obtained annual entrainment estimates for the period 1979 1980 from Table 6 51 in U. S. EPA ( 1981). These numbers are also presented in Table D3 6.

4. UWAG did not consider this question to be one of its priority questions and EPA did not prepare a response.

5. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

6. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

7. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

8. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

9. Carrying capacity is not a variable in the calculation of production foregone ( see Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document, DCN 4 0003). This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

10. EPA used design intake flows from its detailed questionnaire for its benefit case studies and national benefit analysis. EPA used a model to estimate design intake flow for facilities that received a short technical questionnaire. ( See response to First Energy question # 2 above.) EPA used average operational flows from its detailed questionnaire for its benefit case studies and national benefit analysis with two exceptions: This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 22 1) for the Delaware Case Study, EPA used the flow data described in footnote b to Tables B3 12 through 17 ( see Figure B2 2 for Salem flow data); and 2) For the Brayton Point case study, EPA used the flow data described in section F3 4 on page F3 11.

11. The observed difference in percentages is not necessarily a discrepancy. Table D1 2 lists the capacity utilization of the cooling water intake structure; Tables D2 1 through D2 3 list the capacity utilization of the generators.

12. As noted above, there is a typographical error on page D1 11. The correct value of the recreational fishery catches for seatrout is 5,411,292. The correct value ( 5,411,292) is reported in Table D5 11 of the Case Study Report; this value was used in the analysis.

13. The RUM model includes the effect of substitute sites on site values. For any particular site, assuming that it is not unique in nature, the availability of substitutes makes the value for that site ( or group of sites) lower than it would be without available substitutes. Chapters A10 and D5 of the case study report discuss the model's assumptions in detail. The remainder of this question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

14. Table D1 13 provides the total number of recreational fishing days per year in the case study area. A breakdown by regions of bay is unnecessary for the RUM model, because the model evaluates fishing quality changes at the visited site and the available substitute sites. As noted above, the geographic area of the Tampa Bay case study is relatively small; it includes fishing sites in five counties only. Thus, we assumed that anglers can potentially visit any of the 52 fishing locations included in the analysis.

15a. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

15b. Chapter D1 provides background information for the Tampa Bay Case study. The Agency collected background information to paint a broad picture of the study area and to assess applicability of various data sources to the case study analysis. Please note that some data ( e. g., information on wildlife refuge) were not used in subsequent analyses.

16. UWAG did not consider this question to be one of its priority questions and EPA did not prepare a response.

17. UWAG did not consider this question to be one of its priority questions and EPA did not prepare a response. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 23 18. As described in Section D3 3 of Chapter D3 of Part D of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003), EPA obtained impingement monitoring data from Conservation Consultants Inc. ( 1977, Table 7.2) for the years 1976 1977 and from U. S. EPA ( 1981, Table 6 36) for the years 1979 1980. Single unit rates reported in Conservation Consultants Inc.( 1977) were based on operational flow. Annual impingement estimates reported in U. S. EPA ( 1981) were based on calculations assuming 100% load according to Section 7.1.3 of Stone and Webster ( 1980). Section D3 3 of Chapter D3 of Part D of EPA's Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) describes the methods used by EPA to estimate annual impingement from these data.

19. As described in Section D3 3 of Chapter D3 of Part D of the Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003), EPA obtained entrainment monitoring data from Conservation Consultants Inc. ( 1977, Appendix 5C and 6C) for the years 1976 1977 and from U. S. EPA ( 1981, Table 6 51) for the years 1979 1980. The monthly totals reported in Conservation Consultants Inc. ( 1977) were based on operational flow. Annual entrainment estimates reported in U. S. EPA ( 1981) were based on calculations assuming 100% load according to Section 7.1.3 of Stone and Webster ( 1980). Section D3 3 of Chapter D3 ( DCN 4 0003) describes the methods used by EPA to estimate annual entrainment from these data.

20. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

21. EPA extrapolated Big Bend's I& E rates to other facilities of Tampa Bay based on the annual operational flows reported by the facilities in EPA's Detailed Industry Questionnaire. Flow rates were not reported in EPA's Case Study Document ( DCN 4 0003) because the facilities declared that this information is Confidential Business Information.

22. Carrying capacity is not a variable in the calculation of production foregone ( see Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document, DCN 4 0003). This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

23a. The recent ambient larval density data are provided in an MS Excel workbook that is included in the docket ( DCN4 1513).

23b. EPA did not sort Peebles plankton data by depth. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 24 23c. A record of the sample dates is provided in the EXCEL workbook indexed in the docket as DCN 4 1513.

23d. Although the sources of the annual estimates of I& E rates stem from substantially different sampling regimes, the definition of age 1 equivalents was the same for both data series. The methods used to determine age 1 equivalents are described in Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document ( DCN4 0003.) The means reported in Table D3 18 are simply the mean value of age 1 equivalent losses across years within each data series. EPA did not determine the magnitude of between sample variance because the Agency did not have sufficient data to do so. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

23e. Please note that Table D3 18 does not report larval densities. The benefits assessment did not analyze temporal correlations between foregone fishery catch rates and larval density ( or other loss metrics).

23f. No. The analysis of recent ambient larval density was not directly incorporated into the economic benefits analysis for the proposed rule.

24. The rationale is explained in Section D3 10 of Chapter D3 of Part D of the Case Study Document ( DCN4  0003).

25. This question is in the nature of a comment on the record or the proposed rule. EPA will address this question in its responses to public comments if it is included in public comments on the proposal.

References Cited AFS ( American Fisheries Society). 1993. Sourcebook for Investigation and Valuation of Fish Kills. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Colinvaux, P. A. 1973. Introduction to Ecology. Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York Conservation Consultants Inc. 1977. Ecological Studies at Big Bend Steam Electric Station ( Tampa Electric Company): An Analysis and Summary of Studies on the Effects of the Cooling Water System on Aquatic Fauna: A 316 Demonstration Biological Study. Volume III ( Volume 3 of Final Report of Biological Surveys of the Big Bend Area).

Davis, G., M. D. Nichols, and T. M. Hannigan. 1999. Management of California State Water Project. Department of Natural Resources. Bulletin 231 98. November. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 25 Dixon, D. A. 1999. Catalog of Assessment Methods for Evaluating the Effects of Power Plant Operations on Aquatic Communities. Final Report. Report number TR 112013.

DRBC ( Delaware River Basin Commission). 1996. 1996 Delaware River Withdrawal and Consumptive Use Estimates ( Tidal Estuary Portion). http:// www. state. nj. us/ drbc/ withdrawals96. htm.

Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1981a. Pittsburg Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316b Demonstration. Prepared for PG& E.

Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1981b. Contra Costa Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316b Demonstration. Prepared for PG& E.

Fisher, A. and R. Raucher. 1984. Intrinsic benefits of improved water quality: Conceptual and empirical perspectives. Advances in Applied Micro Economics 3: 37 66.

Freeman, A. M., 1979. The Benefits of Air and Water Pollution Control: A Review and Synthesis of Recent Estimates. Council on Environmental Quality Report, December.

Holt, M. T. and R. C. Bishop. 2002. A semiflexible normalized quadratic inverse demand system: An application to the price formation of fish. Empirical Economics. Forthcoming.

Norton, V., T. Smith, and I. Strand ( eds.). 1983. Stripers: The Economic Value of the Atlantic Coast Commercial and Recreational Striped Bass Fisheries. Maryland Sea Grant Publication. UM_ SG_ TS_ 83_ 12.

PG& E ( Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 1998. Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan, Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plant. Draft Revision 3.

PSEG ( Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1999. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622. Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station.

Rago, P. J. 1984. Production forgone: An alternative method for assessing the consequences of fish entrainment and impingement losses at power plants and other water intakes. Ecological Modeling 24: 79 111.

Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 191. This document represents the best judgment of the EPA staff conducting analyses to support the Phase II Section 316( b) rule at this time. It does not represent the final position of the Administrator or EPA on this rulemaking. EPA reserves the right to change or amend any of the statements within this document up until the time that the EPA Administrator takes final action on this rule.

Page 26 Southern Energy Delta, LLC. 2000. Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan, Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants. Draft Revision 5, June 30, 2000. Prepared for the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Rosa, CA.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. 1980. 316( A) and ( B) Demonstration Big Bend Station   Unit 4. Volume I and Volume II, Appendices. Prepared for Tampa Electric Company.

U. S. EPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1981. Environmental Impact Statement, Tampa Electric Company Big Bend Unit 4. Technical Reference Document Volume II. Draft., EPA 904/ 9_ 81_ 070b.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38445-38446]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16314]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9926-60-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Kansas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Kansas'
request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs to
allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective August 5, 2015 for the State of
Kansas' National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and
accepted by the Agency, and on July 6, 2015 for the State of Kansas'
other authorized programs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient

legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the
programs covered by the application and will use electronic document
receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On January 4, 2010, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
(KDHE) submitted an application titled ``Department of Health and
Environment Enterprise System'' for revisions/modifications of its EPA-
authorized programs under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed KDHE's request to
revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review,
EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of
authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's
decision to approve Kansas' request to revise/modify its following EPA-
authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts
51, 70-71, 122, 141, 144, 146, 257, 258, 262, 264-266, 268, 270, 403,
412, and 437, is being published in the Federal Register:

Part 52--Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Part 70--State Operating Permit Programs;
Part 71--Federal Operating Permit Programs;
Part 123--EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System;
Part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation;
Part 145--State Underground Injection Control Programs;
Part 239--Requirements for State Permit Program Determination of
Adequacy;
Part 272--Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs;
Part 403--General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources
of Pollution; and
Part 437--The Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source Category.

    KDHE was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application
with respect to the authorized programs listed above.
    Also, in this notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they
may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State of
Kansas' request to revise its authorized public water system program
under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests
for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of
today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should include the
following information: (1) The name, address and telephone number of
the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
    (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's
determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing,
and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to
consider when determining whether to grant the request;
    (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the
request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the
signature of a responsible official of the organization or other
entity.
    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide
notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days
prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial
requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public
hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order
either affirming today's determination or rescinding such
determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and
granted, EPA's approval of the State of Kansas' request to revise its
part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program to allow electronic reporting will become effective 30 days
after today's notice is published, pursuant to CROMERR section
3.1000(f)(4).

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2015-16314 Filed 7-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P