Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71057 

label or in labeling of meal products as 

defined in § 101.13(l) or main dish 

products as defined in § 101.13(m), 

provided that the food contains less 

than 10 g total fat, 4.5 g or less saturated 

fat, and less than 95 mg cholesterol per 

100 g and per labeled serving; 

(4) The term ‘‘extra lean’’ may be used 

on the label or in labeling of foods, 

except meal products as defined in 

§ 101.13(l) and main dish products as 

defined in § 101.13(m), provided that 

the food is a discrete seafood or game 

meat product and as packaged contains 

less than 5 g total fat, less than 2 g 

saturated fat, and less than 95 mg 

cholesterol per reference amount 

customarily consumed and per 100 g; 

and 

(5) The term defined in paragraph 

(e)(4) of this section may be used on the 

label or in labeling of meal products as 

defined in § 101.13(l) and main dish 

products as defined in § 101.13(m), 

provided that the food contains less 

than 5 g of fat, less than 2 g of saturated 

fat, and less than 95 mg of cholesterol 

per 100 g and per labeled serving. 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 18, 2005. 

Michael M. Landa, 

Deputy Director for Regulatory Affairs, Center 

for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 

[FR Doc. 05–23293 Filed 11–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 123, 124, and 125 

[OW–2004–0002, FRL–8002–3] 

RIN 2040–AD70 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Proposed 

Regulations To Establish 

Requirements for Cooling Water Intake 

Structures at Phase III Facilities; 

Notice of Data Availability 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of data availability. 

SUMMARY: On November 24, 2004, EPA 

published proposed regulations to 

establish requirements for cooling water 

intake structures at Phase III facilities 

under section 316(b) of the Clean Water 

Act (CWA). EPA proposed the following 

three options for defining which 

existing facilities would be subject to 

uniform national requirements, based 

on the facility’s design intake flow 

threshold and source waterbody type: 

The facility has a total design intake 

flow of 50 million gallons per day 

(MGD) or more, and withdraws from 

any waterbody; the facility has a total 

design intake flow of 200 MGD or more, 

and withdraws from any waterbody; or 

the facility has a total design intake flow 

of 100 MGD or more and withdraws 

specifically from an ocean, estuary, tidal 

river, or one of the Great Lakes. The 

proposed rule would also establish 

national section 316(b) requirements for 

new offshore oil and gas extraction 

facilities. This notice of data availability 

(NODA) summarizes significant data 

EPA received or collected since 

publication of the proposed rule and 

discusses how EPA may use this data in 

revising its analyses. EPA solicits public 

comment on the information presented 

in this notice and the record supporting 

this notice. 

DATES: Comments on this notice of data 

availability must be received or 

postmarked on or before midnight 

December 27, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by mail addressed to Water 

Docket, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No OW–

2004–0002. Comments may also be 

submitted electronically, or by hand 

delivery. Follow the detailed 

instructions as provided in Section B.1 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section to file comments electronically. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional technical information contact 

Paul Shriner at (202) 566–1076. For 

additional economic information 

contact Erik Helm at (202) 566–1066. 

For additional biological information 

contact Ashley Allen at (202) 566–1012. 

The e-mail address for the above 

contacts is rule.316b@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Information 

A. How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. OW–2004–0002. 

The official public docket consists of the 

documents specifically referenced in 

this action, any public comments 

received, and other information related 

to this action. Although a part of the 

official docket, the public docket does 

not include Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

The official public docket is the 

collection of materials that is available 

for public viewing at the Water Docket 

in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) 

EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA Docket Center Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Water Docket is (202) 

566–2426. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ 

to submit or view public comments, 

access the index listing of the contents 

of the official public docket, and to 

access those documents in the public 

docket that are available electronically. 

Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’

then key in the appropriate docket 

identification number. 

Certain types of information will not 

be placed in the EPA Dockets. 

Information claimed as CBI and other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute, which is not 

included in the official public docket, 

will not be available for public viewing 

in EPA’s electronic public docket. EPA’s 

policy is that copyrighted material will 

not be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. To the extent feasible, publicly 

available docket materials will be made 

available in EPA’s electronic public 

docket. When a document is selected 

from the index list in EPA Dockets, the 

system will identify whether the 

document is available for viewing in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

Although not all docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

docket materials through the docket 

facility identified in Section A.1. EPA 

intends to work towards providing 

electronic access to all of the publicly 

available docket materials through 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

For public commenters, it is 

important to note that EPA’s policy is 

that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing in EPA’s electronic public 

docket as EPA receives them and 

without change, unless the comment 

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. When EPA 

71058 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

identifies a comment containing 

copyrighted material, EPA will provide 

a reference to that material in the 

version of the comment that is placed in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. The 

entire printed comment, including the 

copyrighted material, will be available 

in the public docket. 

Public comments submitted on 

computer disks that are mailed or 

delivered to the docket will be 

transferred to EPA’s electronic public 

docket. Public comments that are 

mailed or delivered to the Docket will 

be scanned and placed in EPA’s 

electronic public docket. Where 

practical, physical objects will be 

photographed, and the photograph will 

be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket along with a brief description 

written by the docket staff. 

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit 

Comments? 

You may submit comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier. To ensure proper 

receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 

docket identification number in the 

subject line on the first page of your 

comment. Please ensure that your 

comments are submitted within the 

specified comment period. Comments 

received after the close of the comment 

period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not 

required to consider these late 

comments, however, late comments may 

be considered if time permits. If you 

wish to submit CBI or information that 

is otherwise protected by statute, please 

follow the instructions in Section C. Do 

not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit 

CBI or information protected by statute. 

1. Electronically. If you submit an 

electronic comment as prescribed 

below, EPA recommends that you 

include your name, mailing address, 

and an e-mail address or other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment. Also include this contact 

information on the outside of any disk 

or CD–ROM you submit, and in any 

cover letter accompanying the disk or 

CD–ROM. This ensures that you can be 

identified as the submitter of the 

comment and allows EPA to contact you 

in case EPA cannot read your comment 

due to technical difficulties or needs 

further information on the substance of 

your comment. EPA’s policy is that EPA 

will not edit your comment, and any 

identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of a comment will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the official public docket, 

and made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA’s 

electronic public docket to submit 

comments to EPA electronically is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets 

at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. To access EPA’s 

electronic public docket from the EPA 

Internet Home Page, select ‘‘Information 

Sources,’’ ‘‘Dockets,’’ and ‘‘EPA 

Dockets.’’ Once in the system, select 

‘‘search,’’ and then key in Docket ID No. 

OW–2004–0002. The system is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity, 

e-mail address, or other contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. 

ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to OW–

Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. OW–2004–0002. In contrast to 

EPA’s electronic public docket, EPA’s email system is not an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to the Docket without 

going through EPA’s electronic public 

docket, EPA’s e-mail system 

automatically captures your e-mail 

address. E-mail addresses that are 

automatically captured by EPA’s e-mail 

system are included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the official 

public docket, and made available in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit 

comments on a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to the mailing address 

identified in Section B.2. These 

electronic submissions will be accepted 

in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. 

Avoid the use of special characters and 

any form of encryption. 

2. By Mail. Send an original and three 

copies of your comments to the Water 

Docket, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No OW–

2004–0002. 

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. 

Deliver your comments to: Water Docket 

in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) 

EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC., Attention Docket ID No. OW–2004–

0002. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation as identified in Section A.1. 

C. How Should I Submit CBI to the 

Agency? 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI electronically 

through EPA’s electronic public docket 

or by e-mail. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the 

following address: Office of Science and 

Technology, Mailcode 4303T, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OW–

2004–0002. You may claim information 

that you submit to EPA as CBI by 

marking any part or all of that 

information as CBI (if you submit CBI 

on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

CBI). Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. 

In addition to one complete version of 

the comment that includes any 

information claimed as CBI, a copy of 

the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be 

submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket and EPA’s electronic public 

docket. If you submit the copy that does 

not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

clearly that it does not contain CBI. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and EPA’s 

electronic public docket without prior 

notice. If you have any questions about 

CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

You may find the following 

suggestions helpful for preparing your 

comments: 

1. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible. 

2. Describe any assumptions that you 

used. 

3. Provide any technical information 

and/or data you used that support your 

views. 

4. If you estimate potential burden or 

costs, explain how you arrived at your 

estimate. 

5. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns. 

6. Offer alternatives. 

7. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

identify the appropriate docket 

identification number in the subject line 

on the first page of your response. It 

would also be helpful if you provided 

the name, date, and Federal Register 

citation related to your comments. 

Table of Contents 

I. Purpose of this Notice 

II. Environmental Impacts 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71059 

1Adam Rettig and Blaine Snyder, Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Memorandum to Ashley Allen, EPA. A summary of 

ichthyoplankton presence and abundance in the 

Gulf of Mexico, as part of an assessment of the 

potential for entrainment by offshore oil and gas 

facilities. DCN 8–5220. Document ID OW–2004–

0002–951. 

2A. L. Allen (EPA). Memorandum to EPA Docket 

OW–2004–0002. Information on Ichthyoplankton 

Densities in Various Aquatic Ecosystems in the 

United States. DCN 8–5240. 

3 Ditty, J.G. Seasonality and depth distribution of 

larval fishes in the northern Gulf of Mexico above 

latitude 26 (degrees) 00 (minutes) N. DCN 7–

0013A03. Document ID OW–2004–0002–0174. 

4A.L. Allen (EPA). Memorandum to EPA Docket 

OW–2004–0002. Information on Fish Species that 

Live and Spawn off the Coasts of Alaska and 

California in the Vicinity of Offshore Oil and Gas 

Production Areas. DCN 8–5260. 

III. Engineering Costing Revisions 

IV. Economic Impact 

V. Benefits 

I. Purpose of This Notice 

This notice presents a summary of 

significant data EPA has received, 

collected, or developed since proposal 

and a discussion of how EPA is 

considering using these data in revised 

analyses supporting the final rule. 

Section II of this notice discusses 

additional data about the environmental 

impacts associated with cooling water 

intake structures at facilities potentially 

subject to regulation under Phase III. 

This includes data obtained from the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), which 

characterize the nature and abundance 

of fish and shellfish in the vicinity of 

offshore oil and gas extraction facilities 

in the Gulf of Mexico potentially subject 

to regulation under Phase III. It also 

includes data extracted during EPA’s 

review of additional cooling water 

intake structure impact studies relevant 

to Phase III. 

This notice also discusses EPA’s 

revision of certain elements of the 

proposed Phase III rule cost estimates 

and presents the revised costing 

information. This includes revisions to 

the Phase III cost development 

methodology (i.e., cost-test tool) and the 

data inputs to this methodology, which 

are discussed in more detail in section 

III of today’s notice. 

For the proposed regulation, EPA 

conducted an economic analysis of four 

major categories of manufacturers 

potentially subject to regulation under 

Phase III: paper and allied products, 

chemical and allied products, petroleum 

and coal products, and primary metals. 

These manufacturing categories, 

combined with steam electric facilities, 

represent 99 percent of cooling water 

use by all existing facilities potentially 

subject to regulation under section 

316(b). Therefore, all other existing 

manufacturing facilities were grouped 

together in ‘‘other industries.’’ EPA has 

now revised its economic impact 

analysis for these ‘‘other industries,’’ to 

better capture the food and kindred 

products sector, which represents the 

next largest user of cooling water among 

the ‘‘other industries.’’ The updated 

technology modules, costs, and 

economic analyses, including these 

additional industrial categories, are not 

anticipated to significantly affect the 

proposed benefits analyses. However, 

EPA has made minor adjustments to the 

benefits analysis through use of the 

population matrix fish model discussed 

at proposal (69 FR 68510), which has 

been peer reviewed subsequent to 

publication of the proposed rule. Data 

and adjustments to the economic impact 

and benefits analyses are discussed in 

sections IV and V of today’s notice, 

respectively. 

EPA solicits public comment on the 

information presented in this notice and 

the record supporting this notice. 

II. Environmental Impacts 

For today’s NODA, EPA analyzed 

additional data on the regions in which 

offshore oil and gas extraction facilities 

operate in order to better characterize 

the potential for entrainment of 

ichthyoplankton (planktonic egg and 

larval life stages of fish) by these 

facilities. Offshore oil and gas extraction 

facilities operate off the coasts of 

California and Alaska and in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Most activity takes place in the 

Gulf of Mexico region (see Phase III 

proposed TDD; DCN 7–0004, document 

ID OW–2004–0002–0027, pp. 3–130 to 

3–148). 

Because planktonic organisms have 

limited swimming ability, those present 

in offshore regions where oil and gas 

activities take place are at risk of 

entrainment by cooling water intake 

structures at offshore oil and gas 

facilities. EPA obtained data on 

densities of ichthyoplankton in the Gulf 

of Mexico from the Southeast Area 

Monitoring and Assessment Program 

(SEAMAP).1 This long-term sampling 

program collects information on the 

density of fish larvae and eggs 

throughout the Gulf of Mexico. 

EPA analyzed the SEAMAP data to 

determine average ichthyoplankton 

densities in the Gulf of Mexico for the 

available sampling period (1982–2003). 

Actual conditions at any one location 

and at any one time vary from this 

average. EPA’s analysis of the SEAMAP 

data indicates that ichthyoplankton 

occur throughout the Gulf of Mexico. 

On average, densities are highest at 

sampling stations in the shallower 

regions of the Gulf of Mexico and lowest 

at sampling stations in the deepest 

regions. Average densities are greater 

than 450 organisms/100 m3 at sampling 

stations in waters less than 50 meters 

deep. Average densities gradually 

decrease to 100 organisms/100 m3 as 

sampling station depth-at-location 

increases to 150 meters. At stations in 

waters greater than 150 meters deep, 

densities are relatively uniform and fall 

between 25 organisms/100 m3 and 100 

organisms/100 m3. 

The wide range of ichthyoplankton 

densities seen in the offshore Gulf of 

Mexico region falls within the range of 

ichthyoplankton densities seen in 

freshwater and coastal water bodies in 

coastal and inland regions of the United 

States.2 Over 600 different fish taxa 

were identified in the SEAMAP 

samples, including species of 

commercial and recreational utility. 

Spawning events occur at all times of 

the year in the Gulf of Mexico, with 

different species typically spawning at a 

time of year particular to that species.3

In the area surrounding offshore oil 

and gas extraction facilities off the 

California coast, the California 

Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries 

Investigations (CalCOFI) program has 

gathered data on densities of 

ichthyoplankton and other organisms. 

According to the CalCOFI and other 

research programs, a number of fish and 

shellfish species, including species of 

commercial and recreational value, are 

known to live and spawn in this region.4

EPA does not know of similarly 

extensive sampling programs for the 

Alaska offshore region. However, a 

number of fish and shellfish species, 

including species of commercial and 

recreational value, are known from 

various research programs to live and 

spawn in the offshore regions of Alaska 

where oil and gas activities currently 

take place or may take place in the 

future. The eggs and larvae of many 

species found in the offshore regions of 

California and Alaska are planktonic 

and could therefore also be vulnerable 

to entrainment by a facility’s cooling 

water intake structure operating in these 

regions. Larger life stages (e.g. adults 

and juveniles) could be vulnerable to 

impingement. EPA believes these data 

indicate the potential for entrainment 

and impingement from cooling water 

intake structures at oil and gas facilities 

operating in offshore regions. 

EPA also continued to collect 

impingement and entrainment studies 

from Phase II and Phase III facilities that 

indicated in their industry 

questionnaire that they had conducted 

such studies (see 69 FR 68458). Since 

71060 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

5 ‘‘Summary Descriptions of Facilities with 

Impingement and Entrainment Studies Collected 

Since Proposal of the Section 316(b) Phase III Rule’’

provides a summary of these studies supplementing 

the Regional Benefits document DCN 8–5282. These 

12 studies are also in the record for today’s NODA. 

6 Input parameters for the cost-test tool are 

defined and discussed in the Proposed 316(b) Phase 

III Technical Development Document, Section 5 

(DCN 7–0004). The decision tree used to apply 

technology cost modules is also detailed in the 

TDD. 

7See Revisions for Phase III Compliance Cost 

Estimates (DCN 8–6600) for a detailed discussion. 

8For the NODA, revisions were made to the 

capital costs, O&M costs, and downtime costs. Costs 

increased for some model facilities, and decreased 

for others. In some cases, only one of the three cost 

categories changed for a model facility, but in many 

cases, revisions were made in all three categories. 

proposal, EPA has collected 12 

additional studies containing data that 

can be used for the national 

environmental assessment.5 (See the 

Regional Benefits Assessment for the 

Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase 

III Facilities [EPA–821–R–04–017], p. 

A1–3 for a description of data needs and 

quality criteria for the environmental 

assessment.) Though EPA has not fully 

evaluated the data in these studies, the 

data from these studies appear to be 

consistent with data from previously 

collected studies. 

III. Engineering Costing Revisions 

As described in the preamble for the 

Phase III proposed rule (69 FR 68498), 

EPA used a spreadsheet program called 

the ‘‘cost-test tool’’ to estimate 

engineering costs for model facilities. In 

contrast to Phase II, EPA does not have 

facility-level data for all potentially 

regulated facilities, and is therefore 

conducting the analysis using a model 

facility approach. Based on a series of 

data inputs, such as cooling system 

type, waterbody type, intake location, 

design intake flow (DIF), technology inplace, and through-screen velocity, the 

cost-test tool determines one of two 

possible performance expectations: (1) 

Impingement requirements only, or (2) 

both impingement and entrainment 

requirements.6 The cost-test tool then 

determines a compliance response for 

each intake at a model facility and 

assigns one of 12 technology modules as 

the best-performing technology for that 

model intake. Cost estimates are derived 

through a series of computations that 

apply facility-specific data to the 

selected technology module. Cost 

outputs include capital costs, 

incremental operation and maintenance 

(O&M) costs, and installation downtime 

(in weeks) where appropriate (69 FR 

68498). These model facility costs are 

then weighted and summed to provide 

national technology cost estimates for 

the proposal. 

For today’s NODA, EPA’s analyses 

reflect updated data inputs to the costtest tool. In a few cases, EPA has 

provided technical corrections to certain 

data inputs. EPA has revised the capital 

costs, the annual O&M costs, and any 

monitoring and study costs 

correspondingly. Additionally, EPA 

conducted a sensitivity analysis using 

two different intake flow values to 

estimate engineering compliance costs. 

Technical corrections to the cost-test 

tool and the results of the intake flow 

analyses are discussed below.7 Costs 

were revised for 149 of the 155 facilities 

(weighted value) potentially subject to 

the Phase III regulations.8 In aggregate, 

the national technology capital costs 

decreased by approximately 10% from 

the capital costs at proposal and O&M 

costs decreased by approximately 38%. 

A. Corrections to Cost-Test Tool Data 

Inputs 

Since the publication of the proposed 

rule, EPA reviewed elements of the 

survey database for Phase III facilities 

for technical accuracy. These data serve 

as model facility inputs to the cost-test 

tool. Today’s NODA reports the 

outcome of this review. EPA found a 

few inconsistencies and checked them 

against the original data reported in a 

given facility’s 316(b) survey. Most 

inconsistencies were identified in the 

following fields of the cost-test tool: 

• Technology in-place (the current 

technology at the facility); 

• Intake water depth and intake well 

depth; 

• Through-screen velocity; and 

• Design intake flow (DIF). 

For technology in-place, intake water 

depth and intake well depth, and 

through-screen velocity, EPA corrected 

data inputs that were incorrectly 

interpreted for the cost-test tool in the 

proposed rule analysis. To do so, EPA 

reviewed 316(b) survey responses and 

written comments submitted with the 

survey to ensure that the correct 

parameters were identified and input 

into the cost-test tool. EPA also 

reviewed the facility-level data for DIF 

and found that some model facilities 

included emergency intake flows in 

their calculation of DIF. These facilities’

costs were potentially overstated, and 

the costs were adjusted to remove 

emergency intakes and emergency 

intake flows. Some facilities also 

reported more than one technology inplace and also operate more than one 

intake, indicating that the facility has 

two distinct types of intake structure 

(e.g., a facility may have a shoreline 

intake and a submerged offshore intake). 

The costs for these ‘‘split’’ intakes are 

now generated separately for each 

intake. The corrected values for DIF 

(‘‘corrected DIF’’ or ‘‘revised DIF’’) were 

subsequently used in the cost tool to 

calculate facility costs. 

Other corrections were made to the 

canal length for certain model facilities. 

Additionally, adjustments were made to 

model facilities to account for multiple 

intakes with unique characteristics, e.g., 

model facilities with intakes 

withdrawing from different waterbody 

types, model facilities with both 

shoreline and submerged intakes, and 

model facilities with intake velocities 

less than and greater than 0.5 foot per 

second (fps). These model facilities’

costs were potentially overstated at 

proposal, as they included costs of 

technology modules for the model 

facilities’ total flows rather than just 

those intakes needing technology 

modules. 

EPA also reviewed the calculation of 

O&M costs for all scenarios and revised 

costs to ensure that all incremental 

variable O&M costs were based on the 

actual intake flow (AIF). For the 

proposal, EPA used AIF for some 

variable O&M costs and DIF for others. 

EPA previously noted that the AIF is, on 

average, less than half of the total DIF 

(69 FR 68460). EPA believes that using 

AIF for all cost modules is more 

appropriate for use in estimating 

technology O&M costs since the AIF 

will more accurately capture periods in 

which screens are not required to be 

operated as long or backwashed as 

frequently. Using the AIF more 

accurately reflects any incremental costs 

associated with reductions in power 

demand, wear on the system, and 

operator labor hours. Since AIF is on 

average less than half of the DIF, 

incremental O&M costs based on DIF 

tend to overstate costs. 

EPA also revised the baseline O&M 

costs for existing technologies for all 

technology modules except modules 5 

(fish barrier net) and 8 (add velocity 

cap). In doing so, EPA accounted for 

O&M costs currently borne by facilities 

to maintain any existing technologies, 

and only calculated the incremental 

baseline O&M costs for a new 

technology (as required by the rule). 

Modules 5 and 8 remain unchanged, as 

any existing technologies would likely 

remain in place after a new technology 

is installed as a result of the regulations. 

For all other modules, the existing 

technology would be removed and 

replaced by a new technology. In one 

additional case, EPA failed to account 

for a model facility’s baseline O&M 

costs. In this case, EPA has now 

included the baseline O&M costs, and 

the model facility’s costs were corrected 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71061 

9 Id. 

10See Downtime Duration Input and Analysis of 

Manufacturing Facilities (DCN 8–6601). 

11See Revisions for Phase III Compliance Cost 

Estimates (DCN 8–6600) for a detailed discussion. 

12Where MRIF values were not provided on the 

316(b) survey, EPA imputed the values from the 

reported AIF. 

13See DCNs 8–6608A, 8–6608B, and 8–6608C. 

to reflect only the incremental O&M 

costs. 

The corrections to the engineering 

costs also resulted in changes to some 

of the pilot study costs estimated for the 

Information Collection Request (ICR). 

B. Installation Downtime 

For the analysis supporting the 

proposal, installation downtime (the 

amount of time that a facility may need 

to shut down due to the installation of 

an impingement and/or entrainment 

technology) was estimated using EPA’s 

Phase II modeling methodology (see 

Phase II Technical Development 

Document DCN 6–0004). This approach 

primarily presumes that the facility 

would need to shut down operations 

completely to retrofit an intake to either 

add a larger intake or relocate an intake 

to be submerged offshore. Although this 

is true for most electric generators, 

manufacturing facilities may have 

greater flexibility regarding operation of 

various production operations and 

cooling water requirements.9 Alternate 

electricity sources may be available or 

other intakes with sufficient excess 

capacity may be available for use during 

construction of a new intake technology. 

Therefore, EPA believes that the 

assumptions used for Phase II facilities 

may be overly conservative for Phase III 

model facilities and may tend to 

overestimate downtime potentially 

incurred by Phase III model facilities 

and the associated lost revenue. 

Since the proposal, EPA has contacted 

several manufacturing facilities to verify 

the technology in-place, and has 

collected additional vendor and 

consultant data to update the downtime 

estimates.10 Based on this information, 

EPA corrected DIF values and revised 

cost module allocations for some model 

facilities, reduced downtime estimates 

by two weeks for technology modules 3, 

4, 7, 12, and 14 (see exhibit 5–23 of the 

proposed Development Document DCN 

6–0004), and considered each intake at 

those model facilities with multiple 

intakes separately. These activities 

resulted in significant reductions in the 

need for any downtime at some 

facilities, and reduced downtime 

estimates for others. The revised 

installation downtime estimates are 

presented below for the three regulatory 

options and compared with values 

presented at proposal. 

EXHIBIT III–1.—REVISED INSTALLATION DOWNTIME ESTIMATES

National Net Downtime Estimates (Weeks) 

50 MGD all 100 MGD certain 

waterbodies 200 MGD all 

Proposal NODA Proposal NODA Proposal NODA 

104 ............................................................................................................................... 55 16 2 28 17 

For Phase III model facilities with 

multiple intakes, downtime estimates 

remain at zero for those facilities with 

shoreline intakes that are not dedicated 

intakes, as discussed in the proposal. 

Using the approach presented in today’s 

NODA, and applying the model 

facilities’ weights to achieve a national 

estimate, downtime estimates would be 

reduced by 49 weeks, 14 weeks, and 11 

weeks, respectively, for the three 

regulatory options (50 MGD–All, 100 

MGD Certain Waterbodies, and 200 

MGD–All, weighted values). 

EPA is soliciting comments on this 

approach to calculating installation 

downtime for Phase III facilities. EPA 

presents the revised estimates of 

downtime costs in Section IV.B. Exhibit 

IV–4 of this notice. 

C. Use of Alternate Intake Flow Data to 

Estimate Costs 

For the proposed rule, EPA used the 

DIF to estimate all engineering 

compliance costs. The DIF is typically 

established prior to the design phase of 

construction and is estimated based on 

the maximum potential flow volume 

requirement for that facility. As stated 

previously, facilities rarely operate at 

flows close to the maximum DIF, and 

several commenters on the Phase III 

proposal stated that this methodology 

may have overestimated costs for the 

Phase III rulemaking. 

Several facilities commented that for 

older facilities, especially those that 

have implemented flow reduction 

measures, the plant’s original DIF may 

be significantly higher than what is 

required under normal operations today. 

The costs developed for the proposed 

rule reflected the entire DIF as originally 

reported by the facility. EPA believes 

this may have resulted in overestimating 

flow for costing purposes. For example, 

EPA’s costs should exclude technology 

retrofits to those structures where the 

intakes and/or pump houses have been 

permanently taken out of service. 

However, EPA is not able to identify all 

cases where a facility’s reported DIF is 

significantly higher than the plant’s 

current maximum intake flow or 

‘‘MRIF.’’ To assess the impact of using 

DIF in the cost analysis, EPA conducted 

a sensitivity analysis using the three 

different intake flow values: The DIF 

with the corrections noted above in 

Section III.A. (‘‘corrected DIF’’); the AIF; 

and the MRIF.11 The AIF is calculated 

as the three-year average (1996–1998) of 

intake flow volume reported on the 

316(b) surveys. The MRIF is calculated 

as the three-year average (also 1996–

1998) of the maximum reported daily 

intake flow reported on the 316(b) 

surveys.12 Estimated engineering 

compliance costs for the three flow 

values are presented in Section IV.B, 

Exhibit IV–7 for each proposed option 

(50 MGD all, 200 MGD all, and 100 

MGD certain waterbodies).13

As part of the sensitivity analysis, 

installation downtime estimates were 

also developed using the AIF and the 

MRIF values and are presented in 

Exhibit III–2. 

EXHIBIT III–2.—ESTIMATED NATIONAL

INSTALLATION DOWNTIME USING ALTERNATIVE INTAKE FLOWS

Intake flow 

alternative 

Net downtime (weeks) for 

NODA (weighted) 

50 

MGD 

all 

100 MGD 

certain 

waterbodies 

200 

MGD 

all 

Corrected 

DIF ......... 55 2 17 

AIF ............. 54 2 16 

MRIF .......... 54 2 16 

71062 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

14Meadows, K. Memo to P. Shriner, EPA RE: 

Estimates of Operating Days for Phase III Facilities. 

DCN 8–6604. 

15See Statistical Analysis of Other Industries and 

Primary Manufacturing Industries Facility Data, 

DCN 8–2502 and Evaluation of Similarities Between 

Intakes at Phase III Food and Kindred Products 

Facilities and Other Phase III Manufacturers; 

DCN8–6607. 

16See Profile of Food and Kindred Products 

Industry (SIC 20), DCN 8–2500. 

EPA acknowledges that using DIF to 

estimate engineering capital costs may 

overestimate costs for some facilities, 

but believes that DIF provides the best 

margin of safety for periods of peak 

flows and allows for growth of future 

operations. EPA also believes that using 

the AIF or MRIF flows as the design 

basis for capital costs is not appropriate 

since many manufacturing facilities 

have flow requirements that vary greatly 

over time. Using the AIF may result in 

technologies being substantially 

undersized during periods of peak flow 

requirements, thus limiting the proper 

function of the technology. For example, 

intake screens are sized based on an 

acceptable through-screen velocity; 

when the actual flow exceeds the AIF, 

the performance of the technology 

suffers and greater impingement and 

entrainment may result. EPA also 

reviewed survey data that showed the 

MRIF exceeding the DIF in some 

extreme cases; in these instances, a 

technology sized for the MRIF may not 

be adequately protective. For these 

reasons, EPA intends to use the 

corrected DIF values in developing 

engineering capital costs for the final 

rule. EPA solicits comments on this 

approach. 

D. Consideration of Operating Time 

Under the Phase II rule, facilities with 

a capacity utilization rate less than 15 

percent are afforded reduced regulatory 

requirements, i.e., impingement 

mortality only regardless of waterbody 

type or DIF. Capacity utilization rate is 

defined as ‘‘the ratio between the 

average annual net generation of power 

by the facility (in Megawatt hours 

(MWh)) and the total net capability of 

the facility to generate power (in MW) 

multiplied by the number of hours 

during a year’’ (69 FR 41684). In the 

proposed rule for Phase III, EPA 

solicited comments on an analogous 

approach for manufacturing facilities 

(69 FR 68484). No comments were 

received that reflected a specific 

approach; however, several commenters 

noted that reductions in flow or 

sporadic intake use should be addressed 

in the final requirements. In today’s 

NODA, EPA is considering using a 

threshold of fewer than 60 days of 

operation for manufacturing facilities 

for reduced regulatory requirements.14

The 60 day value was approximated as 

15 percent of 365 days. For facilities 

with intakes operating fewer than 60 

days per year, the intake would only be 

subject to impingement mortality 

requirements similar to those 

requirements for a Phase II facility 

operating at less than 15 percent 

capacity utilization rate. EPA solicits 

comments on this approach. 

IV. Economic Impact 

In this section of today’s NODA, EPA 

first describes additional analyses that 

were undertaken for the ‘‘Other 

Industries,’’ which, as described at 

proposal, are industries in addition to 

the electric power industry and the 

Primary Manufacturing Industries that 

are potentially within the scope of the 

section 316(b) regulation. Second, EPA 

reviews an alternative concept for 

valuing the social cost of installation 

downtime. Third, EPA presents revised 

estimates of the social cost of 

compliance based on the revisions to 

the engineering cost analysis for 

regulatory compliance, as discussed in 

Section III, above. 

A. Additional Analyses for the Other 

Industries 

As described in the proposal, EPA 

framed its initial analysis and datagathering for the proposed Phase III rule 

on the electric power industry (facilities 

with design intake flow of less than 50 

MGD) and four manufacturing 

industries: Paper, Chemicals, Petroleum, 

and Primary Metals, (the ‘‘Primary 

Manufacturing Industries’’). EPA 

focused on these industrial categories 

because they are cooling-waterintensive, and EPA therefore expected a 

substantial number of facilities in these 

categories would potentially be subject 

to the proposed regulation. Collectively, 

this target population was estimated to 

generate 99 percent of the cooling water 

in the nation (see 69 FR 68457). Because 

other industries contribute relatively 

little cooling water generation, EPA 

excluded them from the target 

population for purposes of data 

collection activities. 

From a list of facilities in the target 

population, EPA selected a statistical 

sample to receive a questionnaire. 

Selecting facilities in this manner 

allows statistical inferences to be made 

about all eligible facilities in the target 

population, including those that did not 

respond or did not receive the 

questionnaire. When EPA received the 

responses, it found a few (22) 

questionnaires had been completed by 

facilities that were not part of the target 

population for the questionnaire. 

However, EPA determined that the 22 

facilities may be subject to the rule 

because their operations include cooling 

water usage. For this reason, EPA 

retained the data and considered them 

on a facility-level basis in the impact 

analysis of the proposed rule. EPA 

performed a less detailed assessment of 

the economic circumstances in terms of 

the industries’ ability to comply with 

the proposed Phase III regulation 

without material economic/financial 

impact. In its analysis at proposal, EPA 

found that none of the 22 facilities 

would be expected to incur an adverse 

economic impact from compliance with 

any of the proposed regulatory options. 

EPA proposed to extrapolate these 

findings to all ‘‘other’’ industries, 

because the associated (‘‘other’’) 

industries collectively contribute one 

percent or less of the cooling water 

usage, and therefore EPA believes there 

would be few, if any, additional 

potentially regulated facilities in the 

‘‘other’’ industries. Comments on the 

proposal suggested that EPA should 

consider the impacts of the Other 

Industries, not just the facilities 

themselves. 

Since the proposal, EPA has 

continued to investigate these facilities 

and the Other Industries more generally 

to increase its understanding of the 

potential impact of the 316(b) regulation 

on such industries. These efforts 

include: 

1. A comparative analysis of cooling 

water use and compliance cost for the 

Other Industries and Primary 

Manufacturing Industries facilities. This 

analysis considered several normalized 

measures of cooling water use and 

compliance cost for facilities in the 

Other Industries and Primary 

Manufacturing Industries.15

2. Preparation of a detailed industry 

profile and assessment of business 

conditions and outlook for the Food and 

Kindred Products industry. EPA chose 

this industry for additional analysis 

because it submitted over half (12) of 

the 22 Other Industries questionnaires 

that EPA received and because it is the 

next largest user of cooling water, after 

the electric power industry and the 

Primary Manufacturing Industries, as 

reported in the Census of Manufacturers 

reports of cooling water usage.16 None 

of the twelve facilities analyzed are 

expected to experience financial stress 

as a result of any of the proposed Phase 

III options. 

3. Development of a basis for 

extrapolating results from the analysis 

of subset of the Food and Kindred 

Products industry facilities to the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71063 

17See Using Cooling Water Usage Data to 

Extrapolate Analysis Results for the 12 Food & 

Kindred Products Facilities to the Industry Level, 

DCN 8–2503. 

18See Using Cooling Water Usage Data to 

Extrapolate Analysis Results for the 10 Other 

Industries’ Facilities Not In Food & Kindred 

Products to the Industry Level, DCN 8–2558 for 

further information on these facilities. 

broader population of facilities in the 

industry. In addition to preparing an 

economic profile for the Food and 

Kindred Products industry, EPA also 

sought to develop a method for 

extrapolating the findings from the 

analysis of the 12 individual Food and 

Kindred Products facilities to the 

broader population of facilities in the 

industry.17 EPA considered an ex-poststratification approach to develop 

sample weights for facilities in the 

industry, but EPA concluded that 

sufficient data were not available to 

develop reliable sample weights by this 

method. As an alternative, less rigorous 

approach, EPA also considered 

extrapolating facility results to the 

broader population based on the 

approximate fraction of total cooling 

water use in the Food and Kindred 

Products industry represented by the 12 

facilities from which EPA received 

questionnaires. This analysis indicated 

that these facilities account for 

approximately 32 percent of estimated 

total cooling water usage in the Food 

and Kindred Products industry at the 

time of EPA’s survey, which, in turn, 

would imply an extrapolation multiplier 

of 3.11. This concept of extrapolation 

assumes that compliance cost, facility 

counts, and other regulatory impact 

measures are directly proportional to 

cooling water usage, as represented by 

the 12 facilities, and thus can be scaled 

to the total Food and Kindred Products 

industry on this basis. Of these 12 Food 

and Kindred Products facilities, 3 

reported design intake flow of at least 50 

MGD, and thus could be subject to the 

Phase III regulation under the regulatory 

applicability thresholds as outlined at 

Proposal and carried forward to this 

NODA. The remaining 9 Food and 

Kindred Products facilities reported 

design intake flow of less than 50 MGD 

and thus would not be subject to the 

Phase III regulation, based on the 

regulatory applicability thresholds set 

forth in the proposed regulation. For the 

purposes of EPA’s analyses for the 

Phase III regulation, the estimated 

extrapolation multiplier of 3.11 would 

thus apply only to those facilities with 

design intake flow of at least 50 MGD. 

Applying this extrapolation multiplier 

to the 3 Food and Kindred Products 

facilities with at least 50 MGD design 

intake flow, EPA estimates that 

approximately 9 to 10 facilities, total, in 

the Food and Kindred Products industry 

could potentially be within the scope of 

the Phase III regulation, based on the 

lowest of the three regulatory 

applicability thresholds as presented for 

the proposed regulation. EPA seeks 

comment on usage of this extrapolation 

concept for estimating the industry-level 

impact of Phase III regulatory 

compliance for the Food and Kindred 

Products industry. 

4. Further review of Other Industries 

facilities outside of the Food and 

Kindred Products industry. As 

described above, 12 of the 22 Other 

Industries facilities are within the Food 

and Kindred Products. The remaining 

10 facilities lie in a broad range of 

industries, with five being in 

manufacturing industries and five in 

resource and agricultural (nonmanufacturing) industries. Four of these 

remaining facilities have a DIF greater 

than 50 MGD, and are in the Fabricated 

Metal Products, Transportation 

Equipment, and Metal Mining 

industries.18

In the same way as described above 

for the Food and Kindred Products 

industry facilities, EPA considered 

extrapolating regulatory analysis 

findings for the non Food and Kindred 

Products facilities based on the fraction 

of estimated total cooling water usage 

represented by these facilities in their 

respective industries, and in the 

aggregate of the remaining industries 

not accounted for by the five Primary 

Manufacturing Industries or the Food 

and Kindred Products industry. This 

potential basis for extrapolation is 

limited to only those Other Industries 

facilities that are in Manufacturing 

sectors, because cooling water usage 

data were collected in the Economic 

Census only for manufacturing 

industries. Using the same concepts as 

described in the preceding paragraph, 

EPA calculated that cooling water usage 

in the five manufacturing sector Other 

Industries facilities represented from 0.7 

percent to 13.8 percent of the estimated 

cooling water usage in the respective 

industries of each of these facilities. 

When the calculation is performed on 

an aggregate basis for all of the 

industries not accounted for by the five 

Primary Manufacturing Industries or the 

Food and Kindred Products industry, 

the resulting fraction of total cooling 

water usage accounted for by the five 

manufacturing sector Other Industries 

facilities is 1.5 percent. These relatively 

low estimated percentage coverages 

would indicate relatively high 

extrapolation multipliers, ranging from 

7.2 to 149.0, for the individual 

industries, and of 67.3 for the aggregate 

remaining industry comparison. 

Because the estimated fractions of 

cooling water usage covered by the five 

manufacturing sector Other Industries 

facilities, both by individual industry 

and in the aggregate, are low (0.7 to 13.8 

percent), the implied statistical error in 

using this information as a basis for 

extrapolation to the remainder of the 

industries would be very high. 

Accordingly, EPA has considerably less 

confidence in using the information 

from the scant number of Other 

Industries facilities outside the Food 

and Kindred Products industry as a 

basis for extrapolating regulatory 

findings from the five manufacturing 

sector Other Industries to the industry 

level than is the case for the Food and 

Kindred Products industry, where the 

cooling water usage coverage is 

relatively high—32 percent. EPA seeks 

comment on the usage of this 

extrapolation concept for estimating the 

industry-level impact of Phase III 

regulatory compliance for Other 

Industries outside of the Food and 

Kindred Products industry. 

EPA’s analysis shows, with only one 

exception, that the values for Other 

Industries facilities fall within the 

distributions of values for the Primary 

Industries facilities. As a result, EPA 

continues to propose to include the 

Other Industries within the scope of the 

316(b) Phase III regulation. EPA notes 

this general approach is appropriate for 

determining the national costs and 

economic impacts of the proposed 

regulations, and these results should not 

be used for facility-specific costing 

exercises. 

B. Alternative Approach to Valuing the 

Social Cost of Installation Downtime 

For the proposal (see Proposed Phase 

III Economic Analysis Appendix 2 to 

Chapter B3: Calculation of Installation 

Downtime Cost, DCN 7–0002), EPA 

calculated the cost of installation 

downtime for the manufacturers facility 

impact/private cost analysis, as the loss 

in pre-tax income, accounting for lost 

revenue, reduced variable production 

costs, and cost of replacement 

electricity, if any. However, as described 

in the proposal, the social cost of 

downtime is based on a different 

economic concept. Specifically, under 

the assumption that the total quantity of 

goods and services produced and sold 

by the affected industries would not 

change as a result of the regulation, the 

cost to society from installation 

downtime is the increase in cost for 

producing the goods and services that 

would otherwise have been produced by 

the affected facilities’ except for the 

71064 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

occurrence of installation downtime. 

That is, other producers are assumed to 

replace the production of goods and 

services lost due to installation 

downtime, or even the affected facilities 

may produce these goods and services, 

but in a different time period. Either 

way, the cost to society is the amount, 

if any, by which the cost to produce 

these replacement goods and services 

exceeds the cost at which the affected 

facilities would have produced these 

goods and services if they were not to 

incur installation downtime due to the 

316(b) regulation. Another possibility is 

that the quantity of goods and services 

produced would change, in which case 

social cost comparison must also 

account for lost consumer surplus. EPA 

believes it is reasonable to ignore this 

effect as long as the overall impacts (and 

any associated price changes) are small 

relative to the size of the affected 

sectors. 

EPA is not able to estimate precisely 

what this additional cost is likely to be. 

Conceptually, the cost to society could 

vary over a broad range depending on 

the structure of, and character of 

competition in, the production of goods 

and services in the individual markets 

affected by the 316(b) Phase III 

regulation. 

At the low end of this possible range, 

if the replacement goods and services 

can be provided by other producers (or 

by the affected facilities but at a 

different time) at the same variable 

production cost as otherwise would 

have been incurred by the affected 

316(b) Phase III facilities, then the cost 

to society of installation downtime 

would be zero. Because the cost for 

alternative producers is the same as for 

the producers incurring downtime, 

society incurs no incremental resource 

cost when other producers provide the 

replacement goods and services. In this 

case, although the affected 316(b) Phase 

III facilities might incur a financial 

impact from installation downtime, this 

impact—the loss in pre-tax income 

described in the preceding section—

becomes a transfer of income from the 

producers incurring installation 

downtime losses to the producers who 

make up the lost production. 

At the high end of this possible range, 

the cost to society would be 

approximately equal to the pre-tax 

income loss incurred by facilities due to 

installation downtime. That is, the cost 

to society would again be the lost 

revenue from installation downtime less 

the variable cost of producing the goods 

and services not produced due to the 

installation downtime. In this case, the 

variable production cost for other 

producers to replace the lost goods and 

services is assumed to be essentially the 

same as the price received for the sale 

of the goods and services not produced 

by the facilities incurring the 

installation downtime. This assumption 

is consistent with a competitive market 

model of increasing marginal 

production cost, such that the variable 

production cost of the marginal supplier 

of goods and services produced and sold 

in any period is approximately equal to 

the price received for those goods and 

services in the market. 

EPA believes that this latter highsocial-cost-valuation approach is 

reasonable for the analysis of 

installation downtime in the electric 

power industry. For electricity, this 

assumption is consistent with the 

electricity market concept that the 

variable production cost of the last 

generating unit to be dispatched is 

approximately the same as the price 

received for the last unit of production. 

However, for manufacturers, EPA 

believes that this latter approach may 

overstate the cost to society of 

installation downtime. The goods and 

services produced by facilities in the 

manufacturers segment are not 

necessarily produced and sold in as 

orderly markets as the markets for 

electricity. In addition, unlike 

electricity, the goods and services 

produced by Phase III manufacturers 

may be able to be produced at a 

different time than the time at which the 

goods and services would otherwise 

have been produced by the affected 

facilities. As a result of these differences 

in market and production 

characteristics, the cost of producing the 

replacement goods and services may be 

lower than the price at which the goods 

and services are sold, and as a result, 

the cost to society of downtime would 

be correspondingly lower. In the lower 

bound case, as outlined above, the 

replacement goods and services might 

be produced at the same cost as they 

would otherwise have been produced by 

the affected 316(b) facilities and, in this 

case, society would incur no cost from 

downtime. 

The likely reality is that the cost to 

society from installation downtime lies 

somewhere between these cases. At the 

time of the proposal, lacking specific 

knowledge of the overall production 

cost structure of the affected industries 

and for the numerous goods and 

services provided by the affected 

industries, to be conservative in its 

analysis, EPA adopted the higher end 

assumption for its analysis of the social 

cost of downtime for the manufacturers 

segment, but explained that the 

resulting value likely overstates social 

cost. For example, 12 percent of Phase 

III facilities (manufacturers with a loss 

of goods produced) incurred average 

downtime costs of $10,650 per MGD of 

design intake flow (see Technical 

Development Document for the 

Proposed 316(b) Phase III Rule, page 5–

41; DCN 7–0004). In comparison, 18 

percent of Phase II facilities (i.e. electric 

generators) incurred average downtime 

costs of $882 per MGD of design intake 

flow. Actual downtime costs (in dollars) 

vary for each individual facility; see the 

proposed Economic Analysis for more 

information. 

For this NODA, EPA has calculated 

the social cost of installation downtime 

both according to the conservative, 

higher end assumption (as presented in 

the proposal) and according to the lower 

bound case, in which the social cost of 

downtime is zero. As stated above, EPA 

is not able to know with certainty where 

the social cost of downtime will actually 

fall along this scale but believes these 

two cases provide a reasonable upper 

and lower bound of the social cost of 

downtime. EPA seeks comment on 

which of these approaches to valuing 

the social cost of installation downtime 

best reflects the national social cost of 

installation downtime for the proposed 

rule. 

C. Estimated Social Cost of Compliance 

Based on Revised Engineering Cost 

Analysis 

EPA calculated new social cost 

estimates for the direct cost of 

compliance using costs based on the 

three different intake flow values—the 

corrected DIF, the AIF, and the MRIF—

and reflecting the other revisions to the 

engineering cost analysis as described in 

Section III, above. For this analysis, EPA 

used the same methodology as 

described in the proposal, but brought 

all costs forward to mid-2004$ using the 

Implicit Price Deflator for Gross 

Domestic Product or another 

appropriate index to adjust costs to the 

year of interest. For the analysis of 

social costs, EPA used two discount 

rates, 3% and 7%, to discount all costs 

to the beginning of 2007, the date at 

which the rule is assumed to become 

effective. EPA assumed that all 

regulated facilities would achieve 

compliance between 2010 and 2014, 

and estimated the time profile of 

compliance and related costs over 30 

years from the year of compliance for 

each complying facility. The last year 

for which costs were tallied is 2043. The 

basis for these projections can be found 

in Chapter B1 of the Economic Analysis 

for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for 

Phase III Facilities (DCN 7–0002). For 

this NODA, EPA did not estimate costs 

incurred by governments for 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71065 

administering the regulation as these 

costs are not expected to differ 

materially from those presented at 

proposal. 

Below, EPA presents these revised 

social cost estimates of the direct cost of 

compliance to facilities, based on the 

three threshold options in the proposed 

Phase III rule: (1) Design intake flow of 

at least 50 MGD, any source waterbody 

type (‘‘50 MGD ALL’’), (2) design intake 

flow of at least 200 MGD any source 

waterbody type (‘‘200 MGD ALL’’), and 

(3) design intake flow of at least 100 

MGD, from an ocean, estuary, tidal 

river, or Great Lake (‘‘100 MGD Certain 

Waterbodies’’). The first set of exhibits 

and discussion bring forward to midyear 2004$ the costs based on DIF as 

known at proposal and compare these 

values to the cost estimates based on the 

corrected DIF, which reflect the 

corrections and adjustment made to the 

DIF since proposal, as described in 

Section III. C, above. These cost 

estimates reflect the upper bound 

valuation of downtime, as presented at 

proposal. In the second section, EPA 

presents the alternative cost estimates 

for the corrected DIF values using the 

lower bound valuation of downtime, as 

described in Section IV.B, above. The 

third section presents costs using the 

alternative intake flow concepts as the 

basis for determining regulatory 

applicability—Maximum Reported 

Intake Flow (MRIF) and Average Intake 

Flow (AIF). Finally, EPA presents a 

summary comparison of the cost 

estimates under the original and 

corrected DIF and alternative intake 

flow concepts, and for the upper and 

alternative, lower bound estimate of the 

social cost of downtime. 

Adjusting Proposal Cost Estimates to 

2004 Dollars and Applying DIF 

Corrections 

Exhibits IV–3 and IV–4 summarize 

the changes in the cost estimates from 

proposal, based first, on bringing the 

cost values forward from mid-year 2003 

to mid-year 2004, and second, on the 

corrections to DIF, as described at 

Section III. C, above. As shown in 

Exhibit IV–3, the proposal cost 

estimates were brought forward to midyear 2004 using the Implicit Price 

Deflator for Gross Domestic Product. 

This adjustment resulted in a uniform 

increase of 2.6% (rounded) to each 

component of social cost and to total 

social cost. 

EXHIBIT IV–3.—ANNUALIZED TOTAL SOCIAL COSTS OF COMPLIANCE FOR ALL OPTIONS AS PRESENTED AT PROPOSAL

BROUGHT FORWARD TO 2004$ 

[In millions] 

Cost component 

In 2003$ In 2004$ 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

50 MGD All Option 

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................ $0.3 $0.4 $0.3 $0.4 

Initial Permitting ............................................................................................... 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.8 

Downtime ......................................................................................................... 14.3 18.6 14.6 19.1 

Capital Cost ..................................................................................................... 14.1 13.9 14.5 14.2 

O&M ................................................................................................................. 8.0 6.7 8.2 6.9 

Repermitting ..................................................................................................... 3.1 2.5 3.2 2.6 

Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 4.4 3.7 4.5 3.8 

Total Social Cost ...................................................................................... 46.8 49.5 48.0 50.8 

200 MGD All Option 

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................ 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 

Initial Permitting ............................................................................................... 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 

Downtime ......................................................................................................... 7.4 9.9 7.6 10.1 

Capital Cost ..................................................................................................... 7.9 7.7 8.1 7.9 

O&M ................................................................................................................. 4.9 4.1 5.1 4.2 

Repermitting ..................................................................................................... 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 

Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.9 

Total Social Cost ...................................................................................... 22.6 24.0 23.2 24.6 

100 MGD Certain Waterbodies Option 

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................ 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 

Initial Permitting ............................................................................................... 0.8 1.1 0.9 1.2 

Downtime ......................................................................................................... 4.3 5.6 4.4 5.8 

Capital Cost ..................................................................................................... 7.1 6.9 7.3 7.0 

O&M ................................................................................................................. 2.9 2.4 3.0 2.5 

Repermitting ..................................................................................................... 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 

Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.1 

Total Social Cost ...................................................................................... 17.5 18.1 17.9 18.6 

Note: Prices adjusted to 2004$ using the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product. See DCN 8–2521. 

As described above, EPA corrected 

the DIF for certain facilities and revised 

the estimates of compliance costs based 

on these corrected DIF values. Exhibit 

IV–4, below, compares the total 

annualized social costs of the three 

proposed options under the DIF as 

known at proposal to the new costs 

based on the corrected DIF. For the 50 

71066 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

MGD All Option, total social costs 

decline from $48.0 million to $36.7 

million under the 3% rate, and from 

$50.8 to $37.5 million at the 7% rate. 

The 200 MGD All Option’s total social 

costs decrease from $23.2 million to 

$18.1 million at the 3% rate, and from 

$24.6 million to $18.8 million at the 7% 

rate. Total social costs under the 100 

MGD Certain Waterbodies Option fall 

from $17.9 million to $13.7 million at 

the 3% rate, and from $18.6 to $13.3 

million at the 7% rate. EPA notes that 

due to the smaller number of facilities 

potentially regulated under the 200 

MGD All and the 100 MGD Certain 

Waterbodies options, changes in costs 

for any one model facility are more 

likely to result in large changes in the 

total national costs. 

EXHIBIT IV–4.—COMPARISON OF ANNUALIZED SOCIAL COSTS OF COMPLIANCE USING DIF AS KNOWN AT PROPOSAL AND

USING CORRECTED DIF 

[In millions, mid-2004$] 

Cost component 

In 2003$ In 2004$ 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

50 MGD All Option 

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................ $0.3 $0.4 $0.3 $0.4 

Initial Permitting ............................................................................................... 2.7 3.8 3.2 4.5 

Downtime ......................................................................................................... 14.6 19.1 5.9 7.9 

Capital Cost ..................................................................................................... 14.5 14.2 13.1 12.9 

O&M ................................................................................................................. 8.2 6.9 5.1 4.3 

Repermitting ..................................................................................................... 3.2 2.6 3.8 3.1 

Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 4.5 3.8 5.3 4.5 

Total Social Cost ...................................................................................... 48.0 50.8 36.7 37.5 

200 MGD All Option 

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................ 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 

Initial Permitting ............................................................................................... 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.9 

Downtime ......................................................................................................... 7.6 10.1 4.3 5.9 

Capital Cost ..................................................................................................... 8.1 7.9 8.1 7.9 

O&M ................................................................................................................. 5.1 4.2 2.8 2.3 

Repermitting ..................................................................................................... 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.6 

Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 1.1 0.9 1.4 1.1 

Total Social Cost ...................................................................................... 23.2 24.6 18.1 18.8 

100 MGD Certain Waterbodies Option 

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................ 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 

Initial Permitting ............................................................................................... 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.3 

Downtime ......................................................................................................... 4.4 5.8 0.0 0.0 

Capital Cost ..................................................................................................... 7.3 7.0 8.3 8.1 

O&M ................................................................................................................. 3.0 2.5 1.7 1.4 

Repermitting ..................................................................................................... 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.9 

Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.3 

Total Social Cost ...................................................................................... 17.9 18.6 13.7 13.3 

Compliance Costs Based on Upper and 

Lower Bound Valuation of Installation 

Downtime and Using Corrected DIF 

Values 

As described at Section IV.B, EPA 

also developed social cost estimates 

based on an alternative concept of 

downtime valuation. Exhibit IV–5 

compares the estimates of social cost 

using the corrected DIF values under the 

original, upper bound downtime 

valuation concept and the alternative, 

lower bound valuation concept. For this 

comparison, all components of cost 

except downtime cost are unchanged 

between the two cases, and, as 

described, for the alternative, lower 

bound valuation concept, the estimated 

downtime cost is simply set to zero. As 

shown in Exhibit IV–5, the total social 

cost values decline by 16 percent (3% 

discount rate) and 21 percent (7% 

discount rate) under the 50 MGD All 

Option and by 24 percent (3% discount 

rate) and 31 percent (7% discount rate) 

under the 200 MGD All Option. Because 

no facilities are expected to incur 

downtime costs under the 100 MGD 

Certain Waterbodies Option, the 

estimated social costs are the same 

under both the upper and lower bound 

downtime valuation cases. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71067 

EXHIBIT IV–5.—ANNUALIZED SOCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE USING CORRECTED DIF AT UPPER AND LOWER BOUND

ESTIMATES OF DOWNTIME

[In millions, mid-2004$] 

Regulatory Option 

Upper valuation of downtime Lower valuation of downtime 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

50 MGD All ...................................................................................................... $36.7 $37.5 $30.7 $29.6 

200 MGD All .................................................................................................... 18.1 18.8 13.7 13.0 

100 MGD Certain Waterbodies ....................................................................... 13.7 13.3 13.7 13.3 

Comparison of Alternative Intake Flow 

Concepts as Basis for Determining 

Regulatory Applicability 

EPA also estimated social costs using 

the two alternative intake flow concepts 

for determining regulatory 

applicability—Maximum Reported 

Intake Flow (MRIF) and Average Intake 

Flow (AIF). Exhibit IV–6 presents the 

social costs under these alternative flow 

concepts for each option, using the 

upper bound downtime valuation 

concept, as described at proposal. Costs 

are lower under both of the alternative 

intake flow approaches than under the 

DIF approach. Costs decrease by a 

greater amount (relative to the corrected 

DIF values) under the AIF approach 

than under the MRIF approach. As 

discussed at proposal, these costs 

assume all facilities would comply with 

the regulations by installing the single 

best-performing technology module, 

which does not necessarily reflect the 

most cost-effective compliance 

alternative (69 FR 68499). 

Overall, the costs for the 50 MGD All 

Option decrease, at the 3 percent rate, 

from $36.7 million under the corrected 

DIF, to $33.5 million (MRIF basis) and 

to $32.0 million (AIF basis). At the 7 

percent rate, total costs decline from 

$37.5 million under the corrected DIF to 

$34.2 million (MRIF), and to $32.7 

million (AIF). Under the 200 MGD All 

Option, costs decline, at the 3 percent 

rate, from $18.1 million under the 

corrected DIF to $16.5 million (MRIF), 

and to $15.4 million (AIF). At the 7 

percent rate, costs decline from $18.8 

million under the corrected DIF to $17.1 

million (MRIF) and to $16.1 million 

(AIF). Under the 100 MGD Certain 

Waterbodies Option, at the 3 percent 

discount rate, total social costs decline 

from $13.7 million under the corrected 

DIF to $11.7 million (MRIF) and to 

$10.6 million (AIF). At the 7 percent 

discount rate, costs decline from $13.3 

million under the corrected DIF to $11.3 

million (MRIF), and to $10.2 million 

(AIF). 

EXHIBIT IV–6.—ANNUALIZED SOCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE UNDER MRIF AND AIF BASES FOR DETERMINING

REGULATORY APPLICABILITY, UPPER BOUND DOWNTIME VALUATION

[In millions, mid-2004$] 

Cost Component 

MRIF AIF 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

50 MGD All Option 

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................ $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 

Initial Permitting ............................................................................................... 3.2 4.5 3.2 4.5 

Downtime ......................................................................................................... 5.4 7.2 5.4 7.2 

Capital Cost ..................................................................................................... 11.0 10.8 9.6 9.4 

O&M ................................................................................................................. 4.7 3.9 4.5 3.8 

Repermitting ..................................................................................................... 3.8 3.1 3.8 3.1 

Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 5.3 4.5 5.3 4.5 

Total Social Cost ...................................................................................... 33.5 34.2 32.0 32.7 

200 MGD All Option 

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................ 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Initial Permitting ............................................................................................... 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.9 

Downtime ......................................................................................................... 3.8 5.1 3.8 5.1 

Capital Cost ..................................................................................................... 7.3 7.1 6.4 6.2 

O&M ................................................................................................................. 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.0 

Repermitting ..................................................................................................... 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 

Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.1 

Total Social Cost ...................................................................................... 16.5 17.1 15.4 6.1 

100 Certain MGD Waterbodies Option 

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................ 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Initial Permitting ............................................................................................... 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 

Downtime ......................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Capital Cost ..................................................................................................... 6.8 6.6 5.7 5.5 

O&M ................................................................................................................. 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.1 

71068 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

19A.L. Allen (EPA). Memorandum to EPA Docket 

OW–2004–0002. Materials for Peer Review of the 

Population Projection Matrix Model. DCN 8–5200. 

EXHIBIT IV–6.—ANNUALIZED SOCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE UNDER MRIF AND AIF BASES FOR DETERMINING

REGULATORY APPLICABILITY, UPPER BOUND DOWNTIME VALUATION—Continued 

[In millions, mid-2004$] 

Cost Component 

MRIF AIF 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

Repermitting ..................................................................................................... 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.9 

Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.3 

Total Social Cost ...................................................................................... 11.7 11.3 10.6 10.2 

Summary of Social Costs Over 

Regulatory Options, Alternative Intake 

Flow Concepts, and Alternative 

Installation Downtime Valuations 

Exhibit IV–7, below, summarizes 

social costs according to the various 

regulatory and analytic configurations 

as outlined in the preceding discussion. 

EXHIBIT IV–7.—ANNUALIZED SOCIAL COSTS OVER REGULATORY OPTIONS, ALTERNATIVE INTAKE FLOW CONCEPTS, AND

ALTERNATIVE INSTALLATION DOWNTIME VALUATIONS

[In millions, mid-2004$] 

Regulatory option Discount rate 

(percent) Proposed rule Corrected DIF MRIF AIF 

Upper Bound Downtime Valuation Concept, as Presented 

at Proposal: 

50 MGD All Option ....................................................... 3 

7 

48.0 

50.8 

36.7 

37.5 

33.5 

34.2 

32.0 

32.0 

200 MGD All Option ..................................................... 3 

7 

23.2 

24.6 

18.1 

18.8 

16.5 

17.1 

15.4 

16.1 

100 MGD Certain Waterbodies Option ........................ 3 

7 

17.9 

18.6 

13.7 

13.3 

11.7 

11.3 

10.6 

10.2 

Alternative, Lower Bound Downtime Valuation Concept: 

50 MGD All Option ....................................................... 3 

7 

33.4 

31.7 

30.7 

29.6 

28.1 

28.1 

26.6 

25.5 

200 MGD All Option ..................................................... 3 

7 

15.7 

14.5 

13.7 

13.0 

12.7 

11.9 

11.6 

10.9 

100 MGD Certain Waterbodies Option ........................ 3 

7 

13.5 

12.8 

13.7 

13.3 

11.7 

11.3 

10.6 

10.2 

D. Additional Regulatory Costs to 316(b) 

Facilities 

EPA’s after-tax cash flow (ATCF) 

adjustment analysis brings the estimates 

of cash flow forward from the time of 

the 316(b) facility survey (years 1996–

1998) to the time of the regulatory 

analysis (2003). The ATCF analysis does 

account implicitly for additional 

regulatory costs incurred through 2003. 

However, the ATCF adjustment analysis 

does not capture the impact of new 

regulations that came into effect during 

this period and for which costs had not 

yet been incurred, or fully incurred, by 

2003. The EPA is aware of other 

environmental regulations that were 

recently or soon to be promulgated, 

potentially imposing additional costs 

beyond those reflected in the survey 

financial statements. Prior to 

determining the final compliance costs 

for the 316(b) Phase III regulations, EPA 

will review EPA’s Unified Agenda for 

EPA regulatory actions that may affect 

Phase III regulated facilities during the 

time horizon of the analysis. EPA does 

not have cost information to provide at 

this time; however, EPA intends to 

review regulatory actions not captured 

in the proposed rule ATCF adjustment 

analysis, and then consider whether 

estimation of model facility costs for 

these regulations might be warranted for 

the Phase III final regulation analysis. 

EPA intends to include these 

evaluations as supplemental economic 

analyses in the final record. 

V. Benefits 

In today’s NODA, EPA is making 

several minor corrections to its analysis 

of national benefits. The meta-analysis 

used for the proposal to estimate 

recreational fishing benefits was revised 

in response to peer review comments.19

These corrections help to better 

characterize the summary level data 

generated by the analysis and are 

discussed below. In addition, a revised 

commercial fishing benefits approach 

that uses both revenue and cost data 

that are region and species specific, and 

also accounts for the effect of region and 

species specific fishery management 

regimes on the potential benefits is 

discussed. EPA also examined a 

modeling approach that considers the 

effects of population-level dynamics in 

estimating the impact of impingement 

mortality and entrainment. 

A. Recreational Benefits 

In this NODA, EPA is documenting a 

few minor changes to the meta-analysis 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71069 

20See Recreational Fishing Analysis for the 

316(b) Regulation for Phase III Facilities (DCN 8–

4601). 

methodology used to estimate 

recreational fishing benefits.20 Meta 

regressions are designed to statistically 

summarize the relationship between 

benefit measures and a set of 

characteristics compiled from multiple 

primary study sources. The changes, 

which were made in response to peer 

reviewers’ comments, all relate to the 

way the explanatory variables are 

defined in the meta-analysis equation 

that allows EPA to estimate the 

recreational benefits. 

The first change made to the 

specification of the meta-model was to 

combine the trout_west, trout_east, and 

trout_other variables into a new 

variable, trout_nonGL. This variable 

represents all species of trout caught 

outside of the Great Lakes region. This 

change was made to address concerns 

about the limited number of 

observations within each of the three 

initial variables, particularly 

trout_other. The estimated coefficients 

on these fish type variables may reflect 

more than influences of trout_other on 

the calculation of willingness-to-pay 

dollar values, and may inadvertently 

capture other study-specific influences 

not fully modeled, such as study 

geography. The new variable, 

trout_nonGL, now includes 49 

observations. This increased number of 

observations is expected to decrease 

overall sensitivity of the model to any 

single data point. 

EPA also changed the meta-model by 

revising the specification of the trips 

and age variables using categorical 

(dummy) variables. Age and trips are 

now represented by two dummy 

variables each: age42_down, age43_up, 

trips19_down, and trips20_up. For 

example, age42_down is a binary 

variable indicating that the mean age of 

sample respondents in a particular 

study was less than 43 years. This 

means that the variable is one if the 

mean age of the sample respondents is 

less then 43 and zero if the mean sample 

age was greater than or equal to 43, or 

was not reported. The variable p 

age43_up is a binary variable indicating 

that the mean age of sample respondents 

was 43 or greater. This means that the 

variable is one if the mean age of the 

sample respondents is 43 or greater and 

zero if the mean sample age was less 

than 43, or was not reported. The 

default case captures studies in which 

mean age was not reported. Similar 

logic applies to the trips variables. 

Because age and trips were not reported 

by all studies, EPA believes that this is 

a more appropriate and transparent 

means of representing these variables. 

These new dummy variables are 

interpreted as the additional impact on 

willingness-to-pay values associated 

with studies that reported age (or trips) 

that fall in the four defined categories, 

compared to the default of when age (or 

trips) data are not reported. The values 

at which the two sets of dummy 

variables were divided (43 and 20, for 

age and trips, respectively) were chosen 

because they occur approximately 

halfway through the range of age and 

trips values observed in the meta-data. 

The final change that EPA made to the 

meta-model was to drop the gender 

variable. EPA chose to eliminate this 

variable because, after the model 

modifications discussed above, all 

categorical (dummy) variable 

specifications of the gender variable 

were not statistically significantly 

different. Other model results were not 

affected by this omission. 

The following Exhibit IV–8 presents 

the marginal recreational values per fish 

used in the proposed rule analysis and 

the values calculated based on the 

revised meta-model. Most of the revised 

marginal per fish values are 10% to 50% 

lower than the values used in the 

proposed rule analysis. The greatest 

decrease in per fish values occurred in 

the California region. The revised values 

for the California region are, however, 

more consistent with the values 

estimated for other regions. The revised 

marginal values for freshwater bass and 

panfish in the Great Lakes region are 3% 

(panfish) to 19% (bass) higher. 

EXHIBIT IV–8.—MARGINAL RECREATIONAL VALUE PER FISH, BY REGION AND SPECIES

[Mid-2004$] 

Marginal Recreational Value per Fish, by Region and Species (June 2004$) a

Species California North Atlantic Mid-Atlantic South Atlantic Gulf of Mexico Great Lakes Inland 

Marginal Recreational 

Value per Fish Used 

in the Proposed Rule 

Analysis: 

Small game b ......... $12.98 $7.89 $7.09 $5.83 $5.49 ........................ $7.62 

Flatfish .................. 16.12 8.32 7.14 6.03 ........................ ........................ ........................

Other saltwater c .... 4.67 4.34 3.85 3.19 2.97 ........................ ........................

Salmon .................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ $11.56 ........................

Trout ...................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 8.25 2.88 

Walleye/pike .......... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 4.73 5.32 

Bass ...................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 6.09 7.19 

Panfish .................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1.09 1.00 

Revised Marginal Recreational Value per 

Fish: 

Small game b ......... 6.14 5.03 4.99 4.84 4.76 ........................ 4.53 

Flatfish .................. 8.25 5.04 4.75 4.75 ........................ ........................ ........................

Other saltwater c .... 2.50 2.52 2.47 2.41 2.34 ........................ ........................

Salmon .................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ $11.23 ........................

Trout ...................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 7.98 2.40 

Walleye/pike .......... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 3.48 3.47 

Bass ...................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 7.24 7.62 

71070 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

21See DCNs 8–4800 to 8–4906. 

22See Caswell, H. 1989. Matrix Population 

Models: Construction, Analysis, and Interpretation. 

Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. 

23Myers, R.A., K.G. Bowen, and N.J. Barrowman. 

1999. Maximum reproduction rate of fish at low 

population sizes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 56:2004–2419 (DCN OW–2002–

0004–1793). 

24See Section 4 in Newbold, S. and R. Iovanna. 

2005. Population-level Impacts on Fish of Cooling 

Water Intake Withdrawals. Report prepared for the 

316(b) Scientific and Economic Review panel. 

EXHIBIT IV–8.—MARGINAL RECREATIONAL VALUE PER FISH, BY REGION AND SPECIES—Continued 

[Mid-2004$] 

Marginal Recreational Value per Fish, by Region and Species (June 2004$) a

Species California North Atlantic Mid-Atlantic South Atlantic Gulf of Mexico Great Lakes Inland 

Panfish .................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1.13 0.90 

a Marginal values per fish are presented only for species in regions in which they are affected by one of the regulatory options evaluated for 

the proposed rule. bOther saltwater species include bottom fish and other miscellaneous species 

cAnadromous species such as striped bass and American shad can be found in freshwater coastal rivers as well as in saltwater. 

EPA estimates the recreational welfare 

gain from the proposed regulation by 

multiplying the marginal value per fish 

by the additional number of fish caught 

by recreational anglers that would have 

been impinged or entrained in the 

absence of the regulation. Whether the 

total value of recreational fishing 

benefits of the final 316b rule will be 

revised downward or upward will 

depend on the estimated reduction in 

impingement and entrainment 

attributed to the 316(b) regulation for 

Phase III facilities and species affected 

by impingement and entrainment. 

B. Commercial Fishing Benefits 

EPA is considering a revision to its 

methodology for estimating the 

commercial fishing-related benefits to 

society from the 316(b) Phase III 

regulation. Whereas the previous 

analysis for the Phase II regulation and 

the Phase III proposed regulation relied 

on region- and species-specific revenue 

data, those analyses did not use regionspecific harvesting cost data and also 

did not account for the effect of regionand species-specific fishery 

management regimes on expected 

societal benefits. The revised approach 

uses both revenue and cost data that are 

region- and species-specific, and also 

accounts for the effect of region- and 

species-specific fishery management 

regimes on the potential benefits. In 

addition, the data underlying the 

revised analysis are also considerably 

more recent than the data used in the 

previous analyses. 

The analysis develops estimates of 

societal net benefits derived from 

increased commercial fishing harvest 

resulting from reduced impingement 

and entrainment of marine aquatic 

species. For this analysis, the Agency 

retained the proposed assumption that 

the 316(b) regulations will not affect the 

commercial catch landing price, but will 

affect the quantity of fish harvested at 

that price. As a result, the analysis 

continues to focus on the increase in 

producer surplus as the measure of 

societal benefit in the commercial 

fishing sector. Net benefits are assessed 

as the product of an estimated net 

benefits ratio for each species and 

region-specific fishery, multiplied by 

the gross revenue from increased 

commercial fishing harvest. The 

analysis utilizes the most recent 

available variable cost, landings and exvessel price data collected by the 

regional offices of NOAA’s National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA 

Fisheries).21 The data and the 

methodology used in this analysis are 

the same as those used by NOAA 

Fisheries to assess the effect of new or 

amended fishery regulations on the U.S. 

commercial fishing industry and the 

U.S. economy. EPA solicits comment on 

the use of these data in the revised 

commercial fishing benefits analysis. 

Today’s NODA provides results of 

this revised approach for the North and 

Mid Atlantic regions. The decrease in 

fishermen’s costs produces an increase 

in social welfare with monetized 

regional values that range from zero to 

$9,418 ($2002, undiscounted) 

depending on the species of interest. 

The complete analysis is described in 

more detail in the memo, ‘‘Revised 

Assessment of Commercial Fishery 

Benefits for 316(b) Regulations; The 

North and Mid Atlantic Regions’’ (DCN 

8–4918). EPA solicits comment on the 

use of this revised approach for all 

regions for which NOAA Fisheries data 

are available. 

C. Impingement and Entrainment 

EPA is using an age-structured matrix 

population model to examine the 

potential population-level consequences 

of impingement mortality and 

entrainment of individual organisms. 

EPA refers to the model as the 

Population Projection Matrix (PPM) 

model. A matrix population model uses 

stage-specific rates of survival and 

reproduction, combined with the 

number of individuals in each stage, to 

estimate changes in population size over 

time.22 The model considers the effects 

of certain population-level dynamics 

(i.e., density-dependent survival and 

reproduction) that are not directly 

considered in EPA’s other modeling 

efforts. 

For those species and populations for 

which sufficient data are available, EPA 

is first using the PPM model to 

represent a species’ population under 

current conditions (i.e., without 

implementation of the regulatory 

options proposed in this rulemaking 

effort). The model uses the same species 

and stage-specific rates of survival used 

for EPA’s modeling efforts presented as 

part of the proposed rule (see DCNs 2–

0016 to 2–0024), as well as reproductive 

rates estimated by a calibration 

procedure based on the intrinsic growth 

rate of the population size.23 By 

reference to historical harvest rates for 

the population and facility-provided 

impingement and entrainment loss 

records, the model partitions total 

mortality for the population into three 

sources of mortality: Natural mortality, 

fishing mortality, and mortality due to 

impingement and entrainment. Densitydependent survival in a single life stage 

is modeled as a linear function of 

population abundance, with the 

carrying capacity of the population set 

so that the equilibrium harvest level 

predicted by the model under baseline 

conditions matches the average historic 

harvest level for the population. The 

model does not strictly specify the life 

stage in which density dependent 

survival occurs, but instead allows users 

to designate one life stage as being 

subject to density dependent survival. 

EPA will consider available information 

on density dependent survival 

dynamics when making this designation 

so as to identify biologically realistic 

model scenarios.24

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71071 

National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. 

EPA, Washington, DC. DCN 8–5201. 

25A.L. Allen (EPA). Memorandum to EPA Docket 

OW–2004–0002. Materials for Peer Review of the 

Population Projection Matrix Model. DCN 8–5200. 

EPA is then using the PPM model to 

evaluate the potential impacts of 

regulatory options described in the 

proposed rule. To do this, EPA adjusts 

the life stage-specific rates of 

impingement and entrainment mortality 

to reflect the estimated effectiveness of 

a given regulatory option. EPA then 

compares the model’s estimates with 

and without implementation of a given 

regulatory option to estimate the 

option’s impact on population 

abundance. 

Given the limited number of species 

populations for which sufficient data is 

available to implement the PPM model, 

EPA foresees using the model as a 

supplement to, rather than as a 

replacement for, the modeling efforts 

described in the proposal. Some 

preliminary results from use of the PPM 

model are described in Section 4 of DCN 

8–5201. EPA has also conducted a peer 

review of the model.25 EPA solicits 

comment on the use of the PPM model 

for the final rule. EPA also solicits 

submission of data that may be used to 

implement the model. 

Dated: November 18, 2005. 

Benjamin H. Grumbles, 

Assistant Administrator for Water. 

[FR Doc. 05–23276 Filed 11–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R05–OAR–2005–IN–0007; FRL–7999–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plan; Indiana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

Indiana’s April 8, 2005, submittal which 

revises existing sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emission limits for sources in Dearborn 

County. On April 8, 2005, Indiana 

submitted its final rule as published in 

the Indiana Register. Indiana held 

public hearings on the submittal on May 

5, 2004 and October 6, 2004. Indiana is 

requesting that EPA approve the 

revisions to Indiana’s SO2 rule for 

Dearborn County, which removes 

obsolete rule language and updates 

information for sources listed in the 

rule. These revisions will not result in 

an increase in SO2 emissions in 

Dearborn County because no emission 

limits were increased. 

In the final rules section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal, because EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial 

revision and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If we do not receive any adverse 

comments in response to these direct 

final and proposed rules, we do not 

contemplate taking any further action in 

relation to this proposed rule. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, we will 

withdraw the direct final rule and will 

respond to all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 27, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID No. R05–OAR–2005–

IN–0007 by one of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. 

RME, EPA’s electronic public docket 

and comment system, is EPA’s preferred 

method for receiving comments. Once 

in the system, select ‘‘quick search,’’

then key in the appropriate RME Docket 

identification number. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

Mail: You may send written 

comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Hand delivery: Deliver your 

comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

RME ID No. R05–OAR–2005–IN–0007. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through RME, regulations.gov, 

or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and 

the Federal regulations.gov Web site are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through RME or 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section I(B) 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the RME 

index at http://www.epa.gov/rmepub/. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in RME or 

in hard copy at Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

(Please telephone Charles Hatten at 

(312) 886–6031 before visiting the 

Region 5 Office.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Environmental 

Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), USEPA, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031. 

Hatten.Charles@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information. 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

II. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?