[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15160-15161]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05461]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR20-9-000]

Apex Oil Company, Inc. FutureFuel Chemical Company v. Colonial
Pipeline Company; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on March 9, 2020, pursuant to Rule 206 of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) 18 CFR 385.206 (2019), Part 343 of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations, 18 CFR 343, et seq. (2019) and
sections 1(5), 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, and 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act
(ICA), 49 U.S.C. App. 1(5), 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, and 16 and section 1803 of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Apex Oil Company, Inc. and FutureFuel
Chemical Company, (jointly Complainants) filed a formal complaint
against Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial or Respondent), challenging
the just and reasonableness of (1) Colonial's cost-based transportation
rates in FERC Tariff No.

99.56.0 and all predecessor tariffs; (2) Colonial's market-based rate
authority and rates charged pursuant to that authority; and (3)
Colonial's charges relating to product loss allocation and transmix,
all as more fully explained in the complaint.
    Complainants certifies that copies of the complaint were served on
the contacts for Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    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, 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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    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 5 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 electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 8, 2020.

    Dated: March 11, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-05461 Filed 3-16-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 145 (Thursday, July 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45211-45212]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19048]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0555; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-18-AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. TPE331-10
and TPE331-11 Series Turboprop Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This action withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that proposed an airworthiness directive (AD) supersedure, applicable
to Honeywell International Inc. TPE331-10 and TPE331-11 series
turboprop engines. That action would have required adding 360 first
stage turbine disk serial numbers (S/Ns) to the applicability. Since we
issued that NPRM, we decided not to supersede AD 2009-17-05, but
instead to issue a new NPRM for those additional 360 parts.
Accordingly, we withdraw the proposed rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-
627-5246; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add a new airworthiness
directive (AD),

applicable to Honeywell International Inc. TPE331-10 and TPE331-11
series turboprop engines, was published in the Federal Register on June
22, 2010 (75 FR 35354). The proposed rule would have added 360 S/Ns to
the applicability of AD 2009-17-05. The proposed actions were intended
to prevent uncontained failure of the first stage turbine disk and
damage to the airplane.
    Since we issued that NPRM, we decided not to supersede AD 2009-17-
05, as doing so would require us to bring forward the effectivity dates
for removal or inspection of the suspect turbine disks listed in the
AD. Instead, we are planning to issue a new NPRM that will address the
additional 360 turbine disk S/Ns requiring inspection or removal.
    Since this action only withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking,
it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore, is not covered
under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. FAA-
2009-0555, published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2010 (75 FR
35354), is withdrawn.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 22, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-19048 Filed 7-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                       Technical Support Document (TSD)

 Providing Responses to Comments Regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Approval of the Attainment Demonstration for the Allegheny County PM-2.5 Nonattainment Area, under the 2012 National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

                           TSD Prepared October 2020
                           Timothy A. Leon Guerrero
                      Air Quality Analysis Branch, 3AD40
                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
                               1650 Arch Street
                       Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

                 ____________________________________________
                        Reviewed by Alice Chow, Chief,
                      Air Quality Analysis Branch (3AD40)

                               _________________
                                  Date Signed

Purpose of the Technical Support Document

This Technical Support Document (TSD) describes the Environmental Protection Agency's responses to the comments received for the final attainment demonstration prepared by the Allegheny County Health Department and submitted by Pennsylvania to EPA Region 3 in early February of 2020 for the Allegheny County, PA PM-2.5 nonattainment area. EPA proposed to approve elements of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) on behalf of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) to address Clean Air Act (CAA or "the Act") requirements for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM-2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or "standards") in the Allegheny County Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area ("Allegheny County area"). The SIP revision was submitted on September 30, 2019 and published in the Federal Register (85 FR 35852) on June 12, 2020
During the public comment period, EPA received multiple comments from the Clean Air Council pertaining to specific parts of Allegheny County's PM-2.5 SIP. This TSD was developed to provide additional details for EPA's responses and to allow for the inclusion of figures and tables that are generally not capable of being included in the official Federal Register notice.
Specific comments from the Clean Air Council that this TSD will provide responses to include meteorological issues including average temperature, precipitation and vertical temperature inversion strength with respect to Allegheny County's base year (2011) selection and the assertion that Allegheny County's modeling analysis under estimates projected 2021 PM-2.5 concentrations because the base year meteorology is not conductive to PM-2.5 formation (specifically, fewer days with vertical temperature inversions).
This TSD includes a reexamination of the meteorological data from the Pittsburgh International Airport (and Allegheny County Airport) and Allegheny County's daily calculated inversion/ventilation rates included in its annual summary of inversion strength. It will also include a summary of Allegheny County's projected modeled design values, model generated tend lines and the most recent (2017-19) PM-2.5 design values for all monitors in Allegheny County to assess how well the model is predicting current county design values and to some extent the chances of all monitors complying with the annual and PM-2.5 NAAQS. Additional responses to specific comments are contained within EPA's formal response to public comments.

EPA's Analysis of Meteorological Trends in the Allegheny County, PA PM-2.5 Nonattainment Area

EPA downloaded daily average temperature and precipitation values for the Pittsburgh International Airport and the Allegheny County Airport using the Pennsylvania State Climatological website. Thirty-year averages using daily average temperature and daily precipitation information were processed using R, an open-source language and environment for statistical computing and graphics. This was done to double-check the information submitted in support of Clean Air Council's comment regarding the unrepresentativeness of the 2011 base year utilized in Pennsylvania's PM-2.5 SIP modeling demonstration.
In addition to the daily temperature and precipitation information, Clean Air Council also included information on inversion strength compiled by the Allegheny County Health Department as part of its daily air quality forecasting activities. Allegheny County's SIP recognizes the contributions local inversions have in the county's major river valleys, especially near the Liberty PM-2.5 monitor in southern Allegheny County. Clean Air Council believes Allegheny County's annual inversion day counts indicate that 2011 is unrepresentative due to the low number of inversion days when compared to long-term averages.

Pittsburgh International Airport's Average Daily Temperature and Precipitation (1990-2019):  EPA downloaded and processed daily average temperatures and precipitation values from the Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) located in Findlay and Moon Townships, Allegheny County. PIT has both an Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) unit, which are automated sensor suites designed to serve meteorological and aviation observing needs, and twice daily balloon-launched radiosondes ("radar wind-sonde"), whose position is tracked after release to give wind speed and direction information along with pressure, temperature and dew point (for relative humidity) measurements as the instrument ascents vertically in the atmosphere. This website information was used to develop a climatological data set that is representative of Allegheny County, PA.
Table 1 shows the 30-year monthly average temperatures for PIT over the 1990-2019 time period. The baseline year (2011) for Allegheny County's PM-2.5 SIP modeling demonstration is highlighted in pink while 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013 are highlighted in gray. These years are highlighted because they are also included in the model attainment test calculation indirectly since the baseline design values for modeling purposes are "centered" around the 3-year base-year (2011) design value. The model attainment test takes into account all years in which the base year (2011) is included in the calculation of a (3-year) design value. Thus 2011 is included in design value calculations for 2009-11, 2010-12, 2011-13. Averages and standard deviation values for all months along with the annual averages are included in this table and are also highlighted in gray.
Base year (2011) average temperatures at PIT are generally within 1 standard deviation of the 30-year average for most months. The average annual temperature for 2011 is also within 1 standard deviation of 30-year annual average. This implies that the 2011 base year Allegheny County selected is not outside what would be expected for normal temperature distributions across the 30-year period (1990-2019). To be considered "unrepresentative", EPA would expect the average temperatures to be well outside the range indicated by the 30-year average temperature, +/- the standard deviation. Generally speaking, a true "outlier" would be several standard deviations from the calculated mean. While this might be the case for several months in the base year (January, July and November for example), the vast majority of PIT's 2011 monthly temperature averages fall well within the range they would be expected; +/- 1 standard deviation.
Table 2 is constructed similarly to Table 1 expect it shows monthly and annual precipitation totals for PIT. Base year 2011 precipitation totals at PIT were above the 30-year mean but again within 1 standard deviation of the constructed 30-year data (1990-2019).  EPA acknowledges the 2011 base year has periods of unusually high precipitation, especially in the February through May time period, but there are also months in the base year that were unusually dry (June and July). While precipitation could be expected to remove some PM-2.5 concentrations, EPA submitted an analysis during Allegheny County's public comment period that shows local PM-2.5 concentrations may be weakly correlated with humidity levels. Higher humidity levels may be present during the base year 2011 due to periods with higher than average precipitation in Allegheny County and could paradoxically lead to higher PM-2.5 concentrations.

Table 1.  Pittsburgh International Airport 1990-2019 Average Daily Temperatures

Table 2.  Pittsburgh International Airport 1990-2019 Monthly Precipitation Totals

Clean Air Council also questioned the validity of using PIT for determining inversion strengths in all of the major river valleys in Allegheny County, especially in the Mon Valley where the Liberty PM-2.5 monitor is located. To test this assertion, EPA reconstructed the 30-year average temperatures from the Allegheny County Airport (AGC) located near West Mifflin, PA and several miles north and northwest of the US Steel Irving and Clairton Coke Works. The average monthly and annual temperatures along with the standard deviations for each month and the annual average are shown in Table 3. There does not appear to be any appreciable difference in both site's temperatures over the 30-year period. EPA recognizes both airports are located in the higher terrain of the Allegheny Plateau physiographic province; airports would not normally be placed within the steep river valleys of southwest Pennsylvania for flight safety reasons. None the less, the similarity of the 30-year average temperatures at PIT and AGC would seem to support that the daily inversion strength calculations Allegheny County make, which are in part based on the surface temperature measurements, are applicable over a wide area, or at least over areas that have similar terrain features.

    Table 3.  Allegheny County Airport 1990-2019 Average Daily Temperatures

Allegheny County Health Department reported Inversion Strength Values:  The Allegheny County Health Department releases daily reports on pollutant dispersion conditions across the county. These reports quantify vertical temperature inversion strength based upon morning upper air rawinsonde measurements taken daily at Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) in Findlay and Moon Townships and predicted wind speeds to calculate a ventilation rate. Similar ventilation index calculations were made by the Pittsburgh National Weather Forecasting office in the past. Allegheny County prepares these air dispersion conditions and outlook reports to assist in predicting periods of poor air quality over the county. Local (vertical temperature) inversions can lead to prolonged episodes of poor air quality. The 1948 Donora, Pennsylvania Smog Event is a classic example of how vertical temperature inversions can trap emissions in confined river valleys which can lead to extremely poor air quality that impacts respiratory sensitive individuals. These extreme pollution trapping events, while no longer as serious due to emission control programs enacted under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, still occur in southwest Pennsylvania and are well correlated with episodes of poor air quality. A basic description of these types of events was included in Problem Statement and Meteorology sections of Allegheny County's PM-2.5 SIP document.
Allegheny County has summarized its analysis of inversion strength over the county in annual reports available on its website. The latest report summarizes information from 2008 through 2019. A 2018 report was referenced by the Clean Air Council in its comments to Allegheny County's PM-2.5 SIP. Table 4 is taken from Allegheny County's Allegheny County Surface Temperature Inversion Analysis dated March 9, 2020 (Rev.4/8/'20). Liberty's mean quarterly and 98[th]% 24-hour PM-2.5 concentrations are added to this table for comparison to the inversion summaries.
At first glance, it does appear that the inversion (day) count and PM-2.5 concentrations are roughly correlated; more inversion days appear to coincide with higher PM-2.5 concentrations at Liberty. Inversion strength (the difference in vertical temperatures) and inversion depth appear less correlated though lower inversion depths should lead to higher concentrations since any trapped emissions will have a lower volume of air in which to mix.
EPA recognizes Clean Air Council's claim that Allegheny County's use of 2011 as a base year would coincide with a lower PM-2.5 potential due to the unusually low number of inversion days during that year. The chosen 2011 base year's number of inversion days is outside the standard deviation for the 2008-19 period providing some statistical validity to Clean Air Council's comment. Inversion strength and depth, however, are firmly within 1 standard deviation of the means meaning these values are not that unusual. EPA also notes that Liberty's PM-2.5 concentrations are falling over this period (EPA has already established Liberty's declining PM-2.5 concentrations are statistically significant).

Table 4.  Summary of Allegheny County's Yearly Inversion Strength and Liberty PM-2.5 Values (ug/m[3])

Comparison of 2021 Model Projected and 2019 Monitor Design Values

This section examines the base year (2011) and projected year (2021) PM-2.5 design value concentrations produced by the Allegheny County modeling analysis. Modeled values for all monitors in Allegheny County, except for Liberty, were derived using the CAMx 1.33 km results and passing them through EPA's Model Attainment Test Software (MATS version 2.6.1). Future PM-2.5 design values, similar to ozone, are calculated using Relative Response Factors (RRF). This allows the model to be used in a relative sense; the RRFs are applied to the base year weighted monitor design value concentrations to produce the projected design values. Allegheny County used a combination of the 1.33 km CAMx results representing the chemically reactor PM-2.5 species and a local area analysis using AERMOD for the non-reactive PM-2.5 species for the Liberty monitor.
EPA also pulled Allegheny County's most recent design values for comparison with the projected 2021 PM-2.5 design values. A modeled PM-2.5 design value trend line was constructed by using the change in each Allegheny County monitor's base year and projected year design value (divided by the time in between or 10 years). This model projected trend line was then used to calculate a projected 2019 design value, which then could be compared to the monitor's actual PM-2.5 design value for 2019 to gauge how well the model is predicting.
Table 5 shows modeled and monitored annual PM-2.5 values for each monitor in Allegheny County. Each monitor's modeled 2011 base year design value, actual 2009-11 monitored design value (if valid), model projected 2021 design value, modeled trend line (difference between the projected and base year divided by 10 years, so it's ug/m[3] change per year), actual monitor 2017-19 design value and the projected model 2019 design value. Each monitor's monitor ID and what model or combination of models was used to construct the base year and projected year annual PM-2.5 concentrations is included in the table. The Liberty monitor is highlighted given it is the highest monitor in the Allegheny County, PA PM-2.5 nonattainment area.

Table 5.  Allegheny County Monitor Modeled & Monitored Annual PM-2.5 Concentrations

Allegheny County's modeled 2011 base year annual design values are generally lower than the actual annual monitor design values for the 2009-11 time period. This may be due to more favorable meteorological set up (fewer inversion days) as noted by the Clean Air Council or faults in the model's base year inventory. Liberty's CAMx/AERMOD developed modeled trend line doesn't appear to be all that different from the CAMx only trend lines for the other Allegheny County monitors (-0.24 ug/m[3] per year). While not shown, Liberty's CAMx only trend line was -0.19 ug/m[3] per year or about 25% lower. Project 2019 design values using these trend lines show the model is almost uniformly over predicting current design values in Allegheny County; actual 2017-19 annual PM-2.5 design value concentrations are below what the model projected for 2019 using the linear trend lines. While the Liberty monitor is currently still above the annual PM-2.5 NAAQS, the model trend line indicates additional reductions (up to 0.5 ug/m[3] in the next 2 years) could bring this monitor into attainment by 2021.
Table 6 is identically constructed but shows modeled and monitored 24-hour PM-2.5 values for each monitor in Allegheny County. Each monitor's modeled 2011 base year design value, actual 2009-11 monitored design value (if valid), model projected 2021 design value, modeled trend line (difference between the projected and base year divided by 10 years, so it's ug/m[3] change per year), actual monitor 2017-19 design value and the projected model 2019 design value. Each monitor's monitor ID and what model or combination of models was used to construct the base year and projected year 24-hr PM-2.5 concentrations is also included in the table. The Liberty monitor is highlighted given it is by far the highest monitor in the Allegheny County, PA PM-2.5 nonattainment area.

Table 5.  Allegheny County Monitor Modeled & Monitored 24-hour PM-2.5 Concentrations

Allegheny County's modeled 2011 base year 24-hour design values are slightly lower than the actual 24-hour monitor design values for the 2009-11 time period. This may be due to a more favorable meteorological set up (fewer inversion days) as noted by the Clean Air Council or faults in the model's base year inventory. Liberty's CAMx/AERMOD developed modeled trend line doesn't appear to be all that different from the CAMx only trend lines for the other Allegheny County monitors (-0.66 ug/m[3] per year). While not shown, Liberty's CAMx only modeled trend line was -0.28 ug/m[3] per year, which is about 60% lower than the CAMx /AERMOD modeled trend line. Projected 2019 design values using trend lines from Table 6 show the model is almost uniformly over predicting current design values in Allegheny County. The Liberty monitor is currently just at the 24-hour PM-2.5 NAAQS (35 ug/m[3]). The (CAMx/AERMOD) model trend line indicates additional reductions (up to 1.3 ug/m[3] over the next 2 years) should provide additional reductions such that Liberty's 24-hour PM-2.5 design value will be slightly below the 24-hour PM-2.5 NAAQS by the projected 2021 attainment date.

Allegheny County Recent (2017-19) Monitored PM-2.5 Design Values

EPA has downloaded the most recent (2017-19) PM-2.5 design values for each monitor in Allegheny County. Figure 1 displays all PM-2.5 monitors currently operating in Allegheny County, PA. In addition to the PM-2.5 monitors already discussed in this TSD, the Allegheny County Health Department has recently deployed a near-road PM-2.5 monitor. This monitor is located near the Hosanna House Event Center and is the Parkway East Near-Road monitor on Figure 1.

      Figure 1.  Locations of all PM-2.5 Monitors in Allegheny County, PA

The most current PM-2.5 design values are shown in Figure 3 (annual PM-2.5 NAAQS) and Figure 4 (24-hr PM-2.5 NAAQS). All PM-2.5 monitor design values in Allegheny County currently meet the 24-hr PM-2.5 NAAQS (35 ug/m[3]) and only the Liberty monitor currently exceeds the annual PM-2.5 NAAQS (12.0 ug/m[3]). PM-2.5 design values at the Liberty monitor tend to be higher than other monitors in Allegheny County and this monitor has historically had the highest PM-2.5 concentrations in the county (and has been the subject of previous PM-2.5 nonattainment area designations in Allegheny County).

  Figure 3.  Allegheny County 2017-19 Annual PM-2.5 Design Values (ug/m[3])

  Figure 4.  Allegheny County 2017-19 24-Hour PM-2.5 Design Values (ug/m[3])


Discounting Recreational and Commercial Fishing Benefits At proposal, EPA did not apply any discounting to the beneficial fishery impacts from the reduced I& E attributed to regulatory options, and instead assumed a steady state scenario ( in effect, applying a discount rate of zero). This was due to a lack of time available to conduct the appropriate species specific analysis of the time lags that may exist between implementation of an I& E reducing BTA and the subsequent timing of increased commercial or recreational catches. The Agency has now completed an analysis of the timing of such beneficial impacts for all species in the case studies, and this section of the NODA describes the methods and findings of the discounting analysis.

The issue of time lags between implementation of BTA and resulting increased fishery yields stems from the fact that one or more years may pass between the time an organism is spared impingement or entrainment, and the time of its ultimate harvest. For example, a larval fish spared from entrainment ( in effect, at age 0) may be caught by a recreational angler at age 3, meaning that a 3 year time lag arises between the incurred cost of BTA and the realization of the estimated recreational benefit. Likewise, if a 1 year old fish is spared from impingement and is then harvested by a commercial waterman at age 2, there is a 1 year lag between the incurred BTA cost and the subsequent commercial fishery benefit.

Two key factors determine how much the discounting will affect the benefit cost results. The first factor is the discount rate applied in the analysis. The greater the discount rate applied to future benefits, the lower the present value. For the 316( b) rulemaking, EPA is using two discount rates: a real rate of 3% is applied as a reasonable estimate of the social rate of time preference; and a real rate of 7% is also used.

The second key factor in the analysis is the range of ages at which different types of fish are typically landed by commercial or recreational anglers. These results are species specific, as they account for the life history of each species ( i. e., the percent harvested in each year class, and weight attained in each year). For each species, EPA's model uses fishery data that indicate what percent of the impacted fish will survive to a given age. Then, for each cohort of fish that survives to a given age ( for each species), EPA applies a suitable fishery mortality estimate that indicates how many of that cohort will get harvested. The methods and associated life history data are presented in the Case Study Document prepared for proposal and available at http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ casestudy/ .

For example, for a given fish species, X, killed in a larval stage ( i. e. at age 0), assume that 3% of the surviving fish typically are landed at age 1, and 15% at age 2. Thus, 3% of the surviving fish of species X would have their landed values discounted over a 1 year period for entrainment ( since once spared of mortality from entrainment, it takes 1 year until they are landed and the benefit is " realized"). Also, 15% of the fish in this entrainment example for species X would have their associated landed values discounted for 2 yrs. Then, the present values are summed across the cohort of base year entrainment survivors for species X, to indicate the present value of the stream of commercial ( or recreational) landings associated with implementing BTA in the base year. In this example, with a 3% discount rate, if 1,000 fish are saved today at age 0 an estimated 3%, or 30, would be caught next year. If the value for each fish is $ 1 today, the total value would be $ 30 now, while the discounted value one year in the future would be $ 29.10. Similarly, an estimated 15%, or 150 fish, would be caught in year two, which at $ 1 per fish would be valued at $ 150, but when discounted would be valued at $ 141.10. The total value of saved fish that are caught is $ 180 with no discounting, which equals $ 170.20 when discounted at 3%. Thus, the discounted losses in this example are equal to 0.95 the undiscounted losses.

The discounted values vary depending on the life history of each fish species affected. Fish that tend to be harvested at young ages will have relatively short time lags between implementation of BTA and the subsequent timing of changes in landings. In contrast, long lived fish that tend to be caught at relatively older ages will tend to have longer time lags ( and, hence, they will have larger impacts from discounting and lower present values).

The discounted results also vary between commercial and recreational landings, because the former is based on weight of landings, whereas the latter is based on number of fish landed. Results also vary between impingement and entrainment, because impacts from the former are reflected as adult fish with age distributions that vary by species, whereas entrainment impacts are predominantly on eggs and larvae ( age 0).

To calculate the discounted impacts, EPA has compiled data on the time stream of landed fish ( and associated fish mass), and applied for three generalized classes of fish ranging from relatively long lived fish ( e. g., striped bass, pollack) to short lived species that tend to be harvested by or at age 1 ( e. g., pink shrimp).

In brief, at a 3% discount rate, the present value benefits will be at about 90% to 95% of the undiscounted estimate ( i. e., between 5% to 10% less than stated at proposal) for most of the fish with mid range life/ harvest histories ( e. g., walleye). For longer lived species, the present values will tend to be lower ( e. g., 80% to 91%), and the opposite for shorter lived species ( where discounted values are between 96% and 100% of undiscounted results).

For each benefits analysis region, EPA has calculated species specific discount factors for commercial and recreational catch, for impingement and entrainment separately. The impacts of discounting at each site vary, depending on the types of species relevant, the relative number of each impacted species affected, and the site specific mix of commercial versus recreational landings of the relevant species.

The results of these discounting methods have been applied to the new regional analyses for Northern California and the North Atlantic. The results can be found in the NODA. Discounted Losses as a Percentage of Undiscounted Losses 3% rate of discount Entrainment Impingement Species Group Commercial Recreation Commercial Recreation Low ( pollack, striped bass) 0.83 0.88 0.86 0.91 Mid Range ( walleye, crappie) 0.90 0.93 0.92 0.95 High ( silverside, pink shrimp) 0.96 0.97 1.0 1.0 Discounted Losses as a Percentage of Undiscounted Losses 7% rate of discount Entrainment Impingement Species Group Commercial Recreation Commercial Recreation Low ( pollack, striped bass) 0.66 0.75 0.71 0.80 Mid Range ( walleye, crappie) 0.78 0.84 0.83 0.90 High ( silverside, pink shrimp) 0.93 0.93 1.0 1.0