Federal Register, Volume 75 Issue 139 (Wednesday, July 21, 2010)

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42438-42440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17808]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595; FRL-9177-3; EPA ICR No. 2402.01; OMB Control No.
2040-NEW]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Willingness To Pay Survey for Section 316(b) Existing
Facilities Cooling Water Intake Structures (New)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request for a new Information Collection Request (ICR) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before submitting the ICR to OMB
for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2010-0595 by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2010-0595.
Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595. Please include a total of
3 copies.
Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements
should be made.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-
0595. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, 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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, 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 http://www.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 information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik Helm, Office of Water, Office of
Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division, Economic and
Environmental Assessment Branch, 4303T, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: 202-566-1049; fax number: 202-566-1053; e-mail address:
Helm.Erik@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595 which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC

[[Page 42439]]

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 Reading
Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is
202-566-1752.
Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What information is EPA particularly interested in?

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What should I consider when 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 and provide specific
examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of 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 the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
individuals/households.
Title: Willingness to Pay Survey for Section 316(b) Existing
Facilities Cooling Water Intake Structures: Instrument, Pre-test, and
Implementation (New).
ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2402.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW.
ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
Abstract: Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA
to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of
cooling water intake structures (CWIS) reflect the best technology
available (BTA) to protect aquatic organisms from being killed or
injured by impingement or entrainment. EPA divided this rulemaking into
three phases. At question here are the Phases II and III.
The Phase II rule, which covered existing electric generating
plants that withdraw at least 50 million gallons a day (MGD) of cooling
water, was completed in July 2004. Industry and environmental
stakeholders challenged the Phase II regulations. On judicial review,
the Second Circuit remanded several key provisions. In July 2007, EPA
suspended the Phase II Rule. Following additional review in 2009 by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc., which decided
that ``EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting the
national performance standards * * * as part of the Phase II
regulations.'' EPA has voluntary remanded the rule.
In June of 2006, EPA promulgated the 316(b) Phase III Rule for
existing manufacturers, small flow power plants (facilities that
withdraw less than 50 MGD), and new offshore oil and gas facilities.
Offshore oil and gas firms and environmental groups petitioned for
judicial review, which was to occur in the Fifth Circuit, but was
stayed pending the completion of the Phase II litigation. EPA has asked
the Fifth Circuit to remand the existing facilities portion of the
Phase III rule so that it can consider what might be appropriate
requirements for all existing facilities. While the 5th Circuit has not
yet issued a decision, EPA is anticipating combining Phases II and III
into one rulemaking covering all existing facilities.
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA is required to estimate the
potential benefits and costs to society of proposed rule options. To
assess the public policy significance or importance of the ecological
gains from the section 316(b) regulation for existing facilities, EPA
requests approval from the Office of Management and Budget to conduct a
stated preference survey. Data from the associated stated preference
survey will be used to estimate values (willingness to pay, or WTP)
derived by households for changes related to the reduction of fish
losses at CWIS, and to provide information to assist in the
interpretation and validation of survey responses. EPA has designed the
survey to provide data to support the following specific objectives:
[a] The estimation of the total values (use plus non-use) that
individuals place on preventing losses of fish and other aquatic
organisms caused by 316(b) facilities; [b] to understand how much
individuals value preventing fish losses, increasing fish populations,
and increasing commercial and recreational catch rates; [c] to
understand how such values depend on the current baseline level of fish
populations and fish losses, the scope of the change in those measures,
and the certainty level of the predictions; and [d] to understand how
such values vary with respect to individuals' economic and demographic
characteristics.
The target population for this stated preference survey is all
individuals from continental U.S. households who are 18 years of age or
older. The population of households will be stratified by the
geographic boundaries of 5 EPA study regions: California, Great Lakes,
Inland, Northeast, and Southeast. Survey participants will be recruited
randomly through random digit dialing. The

[[Page 42440]]

intended sample size for the survey is 2,000 households including only
households providing completed surveys. This sample size was chosen to
provide statistically robust results while minimizing the cost and
burden of the survey. In addition to the sample size, EPA will take
steps to both test for and ameliorate survey non-response bias. EPA
will follow standard practice in stated preference design, including
the extensive use of focus groups and pretesting to develop survey
questionnaires.
The key elicitation questions in each of the five regional surveys
ask respondents whether or not they would vote for policies that would
increase their cost of living, in exchange for specified multi-
attribute changes in (a) impingement and entrainment losses of fish,
(b) commercial fish sustainability, (c) long-term fish populations, and
(d) condition of aquatic ecosystems. This ``choice experiment'' or
``choice modeling'' framework allows respondents to state their
preferences by making a voting-type selection between two hypothetical
multi-attribute regulatory options (and a third ``status quo'' choice
that rejects both options). These stated preferences with respect to
levels of environmental goods and cost to households, when used in
conjunction with other information collected in the survey on the
respondent's use of the affected aquatic resources, household income,
and other demographics, can be analyzed statistically (using either a
fixed or random effects mixed logit framework) to estimate total WTP
for the quantified environmental benefits of the 316(b) existing
facilities rulemaking. Data analysis and interpretation is grounded in
a standard random utility model.
In addition, to the total values, the survey will allow the
estimation of values associated with specific choice attributes
(following standard methods for choice experiments), and will also
allow the flexibility to provide some insight into the relative
importance of use versus non-use values in the 316(b) context. Analysis
also allows estimation of the variation in WTP across different types
of households, in different areas. As indicated in prior literature, it
is virtually impossible to justify, theoretically, the decomposition of
empirical total willingness-to-pay estimates into separate use and non-
use components. The survey will, however, provide the flexibility to
estimate nonuser values, using various nonuser definitions drawn from
responses to survey questions. The structure of the choice attribute
questions will also allow the analysis to separate value components
related to the most common sources of use values--effect on harvested
recreational and commercial fish.
The various welfare values that can be derived from this stated
preference survey (discussed above) along with those that are estimated
apart from the survey effort will offer insight into the composition of
the value people place on the 316(b) environmental impacts. But within
rulemaking, among the most crucial concerns is the avoidance of benefit
(or cost) double counting. Here, for example, WTP estimates derived
from the survey may overlap--to a potentially substantial extent--with
estimates that can be provided through some other methods. Therefore,
particular care will be given to avoid any possible double counting of
values that might be derived from alternative valuation methods. In
doing so, the Office of Water will rely upon standard theoretical tools
for non-market welfare analysis, as presented by authors including
Freeman (2003) and Just et al. (2004).
Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5
minutes per telephone screening participant and 30 minutes per mail
survey respondent including the time necessary to complete and mail
back the questionnaire. Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
Estimated total number of potential respondents: 8,333 for
telephone screening and 2,000 for mailed questionnaires.
Frequency of response: One-time response.
Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
One-time response.
Estimated total burden hours: 1,527 hours.
Estimated total costs: $34,600. EPA estimates that there will be no
capital and operating and maintenance cost burden to respondents.

What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Dated: July 13, 2010.
Ephraim S. King,
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2010-17808 Filed 7-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P