[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34927-34931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14104]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, and 125
[EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667, FRL-9681-5]
RIN 2040-AE95
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--Proposed
Regulations To Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake
Structures at Existing Facilities; Notice of Data Availability Related
to EPA's Stated Preference Survey
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 20, 2011, EPA published proposed standards for
cooling water intake structures at all existing power generating,
manufacturing, and industrial facilities as part of implementing
section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This notice presents a
summary of new information EPA has developed since the rule proposal.
The information results from a stated preference survey that EPA
conducted after the proposed rule was published. Stated preference
surveys are an attempt to determine the economic value of goods or
services by means other than by assessing the effects of changes in the
market for the goods and services. In this notice EPA solicits comment
on the information presented in this notice and on what role, if any,
it should play in EPA's assessment of the benefits of regulatory
options for the final rule, pending completion of the survey and
external peer review.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 12, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2008-0667 by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: OW-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2008-0667.
Mail: Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail Code: 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667. Please include a total of
3 copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West
Building Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the
[[Page 34928]]
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information by calling 202-566-2426.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-
0667. 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. Information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or email. The 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 email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your email 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.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in
the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information,
contact Paul Shriner at 202-566-1076; email: shriner.paul@epa.gov. For
additional economic information, contact Erik Helm at 202-566-1049;
email: helm.erik@epa.gov or Wendy Hoffman at 202-564-8794; email:
hoffman.wendy@epa.gov. For additional biological information, contact
Tom Born at 202-566-1001; email: born.tom@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Supporting Documentation
A. Docket
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667. 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 information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information for which the disclosure is restricted by statute.
For information on how to access materials in the docket, refer to the
preceding ADDRESSES section. To view docket materials, please call
ahead to schedule an appointment. Every user is entitled to copy 266
pages per day before incurring a charge. The Docket may charge 15 cents
for each page over the 266-page limit plus an administrative fee of
$25.00.
B. Electronic Access
You may access this Federal Register document and the docket
electronically, as well as submit public comments, through the Web site
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2008-0667. For additional information about the public docket, visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Table of Contents
I. Purpose of This Notice
II. Willingness To Pay Survey
III. General Solicitation of Comment
I. Purpose of This Notice
On April 20, 2011, EPA published proposed standards for cooling
water intake structures at all existing power generating facilities and
existing manufacturing and industrial facilities as part of EPA's
implementation of its responsibilities under section 316(b) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), at 76 FR 22174. EPA received voluminous comments
and data submissions during the 90-day public comment period. After
many commenters requested additional time to review the proposal, on
July 20, 2011, EPA extended the comment period by an additional 30 days
(76 FR 43230).
In today's NODA, EPA is providing additional preliminary data that
may be relevant to the benefits of the rule, based on the results of a
stated preference survey. Stated preference surveys are an attempt to
determine the economic value of goods or services outside of the
context of the marketplace. Simply described, a stated preference
survey attempts to gauge the value of an item through questions
designed to mimic consumer decision-making in actual markets. A stated
preference survey, in this case, was used to measure values associated
with ecosystem improvements. Such values were only partially monetized
at proposal. The stated preference survey estimates the value held by
the public for ecosystem improvements based on the choices the surveyed
members of the public make between hypothetical policy options and
current conditions. EPA solicits public comment on all aspects of the
study, including the methodology used, the strengths and weaknesses of
stated preferences methods generally, and the appropriate role, if any,
the study should play in the analysis of the final rule.
EPA notes that the preliminary results presented in this NODA are
dependent on the background information that was presented to
respondents to the stated preference survey, including information
about regional and national impacts on aquatic resources both in the
baseline and under various policy scenarios. Thus, these preliminary
national and regional results are not directly transferable to site
specific assessments.
Section II provides a brief description of the stated preference
survey to date, and refers to technical support documents available on
EPA's Web site and in the docket for the proposal, which includes the
data and a set of preliminary statistical results in which each
respondent's answers are given similar weight, even as some groups may
be over- or underrepresented. Such unweighted results are presented for
the Northeast, Southeast, Inland, Pacific regions, and a national
survey. EPA is making the preliminary results of this study available
for public comment and peer review in order to inform its determination
of whether to include these results in the benefits analysis for the
final rule.
This information is presented in more detail in a document referred
to
[[Page 34929]]
hereinafter as the Survey Support Document (SSD) (DCN 11-4524). In
addition to the unweighted models presented, EPA is also presenting
preliminary weighted model results for the Northeast region. At the
time this NODA was prepared, EPA had only developed weights for the
Northeast region as it is the only region whose non-response study has
been completed. The weights control for statistical differences between
individuals who responded to the main survey and those individuals who
did not respond. Weighted models for the remaining regions and the
national surveys are not presented in the technical support documents,
but will be made available to the public on EPA's Web site at a later
date.
EPA invites comment on the study's preliminary results, including
the extent to which those results are consistent with previous studies
of stated or revealed public preferences; ways of assessing the
external validity of the underlying per household estimates and implied
aggregate WTP, for example by comparison with estimates in the
published literature of WTP for increased species abundance or other
ecosystem attributes; and whether further analyses are needed, and if
so what analyses might be most useful. EPA also invites comment on how
the certainty associated with the environmental attributes in this
survey accord with certainty levels in other stated preference surveys,
and whether that could affect responses.
EPA's rationale for the preferred regulatory option is detailed in
the BTA Consideration section of EPA's proposal (76 FR 22174, Section
VI). This notice is intended only to offer additional information
collected as a result of conducting a stated preference survey. Several
key elements of that proposal are worth restating. ``EPA concluded that
closed cycle cooling is not the best technology available for
minimizing adverse environmental impact on a national basis'' (76 FR
22174, Section VI.E). ``Four factors, in particular, led EPA, for this
proposal, to reject a uniform standard based on closed cycle cooling''
(76 FR 22174, Section VI.E). The four factors have not changed on the
basis of data collected through the stated preference survey, nor does
EPA anticipate that these factors would be changed by any revisions to
the national or regional benefits analysis based on these data, if such
revisions are made in the final rule. The four factors are energy
reliability, air emissions, land availability, and remaining useful
plant life, each of which should be evaluated on a localized basis.
EPA's estimated benefits for this regulation in the original
proposal were partial estimates only--EPA was not able to monetize all
benefits, especially non-use benefits. As part of the proposal, EPA
indicated it was in the process of developing a stated preference
survey to estimate total willingness to pay (WTP) for improvements to
fishery resources affected by impingement and entrainment (I&E)
mortality from in-scope 316(b) facilities (75 FR 42438, July 21, 2010).
EPA acknowledged it did not have sufficient time to fully develop and
implement this survey for the proposed regulation (76 FR 22174). EPA
indicated its intent to issue a Notice of Data Availability (NODA)
pending survey implementation and data analysis. Section II provides an
overview of this new data and preliminary analysis for the Northeast,
Southeast, Inland, and Pacific regions as well as the national survey,
and refers to the technical support documents on EPA's Web site. EPA
presents a set of unweighted models that do not account for possible
systematic variations between the populations of individuals that
responded and did not respond to the surveys. The survey non-response
assessment work has been completed for the Northeast region; therefore
EPA presents a weighted model which statistically adjusts for the
differences among those populations for that region. EPA has not yet
completed the non-response assessments for the Pacific, Southeast, and
Inland regions and the national survey. EPA does not plan to publish
another NODA presenting the full set of adjusted results. Instead, EPA
will post these results on its Web site at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/. EPA encourages the interested public
to monitor this web site periodically for additional information about
the survey. EPA will also add the technical support documents to the
docket for this rule, and interested parties may wish to sign up for
the notification feature for this docket at regulations.gov, to be
notified automatically via email when these results are posted.
This notice is intended to apprise the public of the preliminary
results of the stated preference survey, make this information
available for public review, and provide an opportunity for the public
to comment on this new information. EPA has not decided whether to use
the results of the stated preference survey in the benefits analysis
for the final rule. After completing the non-response studies,
conducting scope and validity testing, and reviewing and responding to
public comment, EPA will revise its results (including a summary of the
public comments) and present these materials for external peer review.
After making any additional revisions based on the peer review, EPA
will determine whether the monetized benefits based on the stated
preference survey should be included in the benefits analysis for the
final rule, and if so, what role they should play. However, EPA notes
that the Agency is not reopening the proposed rule for comment through
this notice.
II. Willingness To Pay Survey
In today's NODA, EPA is documenting the availability of data
collected from a stated preference survey designed to facilitate the
estimation of households' willingness to pay to reduce the number of
fish impinged or entrained in cooling water intake structures. Stated
preference methods provide a non-market approach to quantifying values
associated with ecosystem improvements, such as increased protection of
aquatic species or the restoration of habitats with specific
attributes. These methods rely on an analysis of responses to survey
questions through which individuals state information about their
values.
Estimation of monetized non-use benefits is challenging, since
market proxies are generally not available, and in the absence of such
proxies, they can only be estimated by using either stated preference
methods or benefits transfer based on prior stated preference results.
For this reason, non-use benefits are often discussed qualitatively
instead of attaching monetized values to them. Today's notice presents
data collected from a stated preference study (EPA ICR
2402.01) that EPA conducted regarding total (use plus non-use) benefits
from reductions in fish mortality at cooling water intake structures.
EPA's peer-reviewed guidelines for benefits analysis (U.S. EPA 2010,
pp. 7-41, DCN 11-4712) recognize ``advantages of [stated preference]
methods includ[ing] their ability to estimate non-use values and to
incorporate hypothetical scenarios that closely correspond to a policy
case.''
The data described in this NODA were collected using a stated
preference survey based on a ``choice experiment'' design. Choice
experiments involve asking survey respondents to indicate their most
preferred option from a set of two or more hypothetical options and a
``status quo'' or ``no policy'' option. The options differ in the
levels of environmental improvements and
[[Page 34930]]
impose different costs on the respondent's household.
Stated preference methods have ``* * * been tested and validated
through years of research and are widely accepted by * * * government
agencies and the U.S. courts as reliable techniques for estimating non-
market values'' (Bergstrom and Ready 2009, p. 26, DCN 11-4762). EPA's
own peer reviewed Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis (US EPA
2010, DCN 11-4712) indicates that the use of stated preference study
data, when the study is conducted properly in accord with best current
practices, is the only potential method for monetizing non-use values.
Nonetheless, EPA recognizes that several issues have been raised
regarding the estimation of welfare values from stated preference
surveys. For example, the stated preference study discussed in this
NODA creates a hypothetical market where respondents are asked to state
their values for increases in ``fish saved'' in conjunction with
increases in fish populations (total and commercial) and aquatic
conditions by voting for or against alternative hypothetical policies
that would regulate cooling water intake structures and that would
impose increases in annual household cost of living. The issue of
whether respondents are capable of respecting hypothetical budget
constraints, knowing that their responses to the survey would not
compel them to incur any costs, is a concern that has been cited as a
reason to question the results of stated preference studies. The
hypothetical nature of the market has raised questions as to whether
this type of elicitation accurately reveals and elicits WTP associated
with the good being considered.
Substantial research has been conducted over the past two decades
on hypothetical bias in stated preference surveys. While many studies
have found evidence of hypothetical bias (List and Gallet 2001, DCN 11-
4763), a recent meta-analysis indicates that ``hypothetical bias in SP
studies may not be as important'' as some have argued previously
(Murphy et al. 2005, DCN 11-4764). This mirrors similar findings in
prior studies that compare hypothetical and actual referenda (see
discussion in Johnston 2006, DCN 11-4765). EPA solicits comment on the
degree to which the potential for hypothetical bias may still be
present in the 316(b) survey, and whether EPA has taken appropriate
steps to ameliorate issues of bias and to what degree potential biases
may have been reduced.
Stated preference surveys also require the provision of information
to enable respondents to comprehend the potential implications of their
hypothetical choices. For example, in this case, respondents may not be
aware that the ``fish saved'' by actions addressing cooling water
intake structures include large numbers of eggs and larvae as well as
fish, or that the vast majority of those organisms are species that
provide no consumptive use (e.g., commercial or recreational fishing)
to humans. Even if they are aware of this issue in a general way, it is
unlikely that most respondents will have previously considered what
preserving those species is worth to them. In order to elicit informed
responses, it is necessary to provide information to respondents about
the general context and scope of the issue. Following standard
practice, EPA pretested the information provided to respondents in
focus groups and cognitive interviews to determine what quantity and
types of information were required by respondents in order to feel
confident and well-informed in their responses (DCN 11-4710). For
example, in the introductory materials accompanying the four regional
and national stated preference surveys, EPA presents the number of
``young adult fish'' (also called ``age-one-equivalents'') that are
``lost'' in coastal and fresh waters due to cooling water use and notes
that these losses include eggs and larvae. That educational material
was designed to inform survey respondents that reported effects on
``fish saved per year'' in the valuation questions partially result
from reduced mortality of eggs and larvae. The presentation of this
type of background information, if not properly vetted in the survey
instrument development process, can result in focusing respondent
attention on particular environmental amenities to the exclusion of
other market and non-market goods that may also be important to some
respondents' decision making with regard to the choice questions.
Consistent with established best practices for stated preference
surveys, EPA has sought to minimize possible biases by careful and
thorough construction and testing of the survey instrument. The Agency
recognizes that potential biases may still remain and may influence the
results of the study. While in EPA's view, the study incorporates
current best professional practice in the conduct of stated preference
studies, EPA acknowledges that the results of any empirical study
depend on the methodology applied. EPA has not yet completed its
statistical analyses of these survey data and therefore has not
determined whether the results of the stated preference survey will
play a role in the benefits analysis for the final rule, and if so what
role they will play. EPA requests comment on these issues.
At the time this NODA was prepared, EPA had finished fielding all
five versions of the main mail survey (four regional and one national).
EPA undertook the Northeast version in advance of the other versions as
a pilot study to inform potential changes to other survey versions, as
described in the ICR for the 316(b) stated preference survey (EPA ICR
2402.01) and as recommended in published guidance for stated
preference survey design (Arrow et al. 1993, DCN 11-4701; Bateman et
al. 2002, DCN 11-4702). As noted above, the preliminary results of the
survey are available in the docket and at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/.
EPA notes that the stated preference survey regions differ from the
benefits regions used in the Environmental and Economic Benefits
Assessment (EEBA) document for the proposed rule.\1\ The Agency will
perform additional analysis comparing the results of the regional
survey versions to the results of the national survey version. This
additional analysis will allow EPA to look at the impacts of program
size (regional vs. national) on willingness to pay and consider the
implications of any differences for the validity of results. Before
considering any application of this information in the final rule, EPA
will also provide the full results and public comments to the planned
peer-review panel. EPA does not regard these data as ready for
consideration for use in any benefit cost analysis at this time until
the results of additional EPA internal review, public comment and
independent peer review have been completed. For the final benefits
analysis, EPA may present a range for the total national benefit
estimates produced by the stated preference research. Alternatively,
EPA may decide not to use the results from this study, and instead to
consider non-use benefits qualitatively and/or by using benefits
transfer, as was done for the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Exhibit II-3 of the Survey Support Document for a list
of the states included in each region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time this NODA was prepared, EPA had produced preliminary
estimates of average willingness-to-pay per household per percentage
point improvement in each of the attributes, based on unweighted models
(see Section II.E of the Survey Support
[[Page 34931]]
Document for more details). For example, the average dollar value per
household per percentage point of reduced fish mortality at cooling
water intake structures ranges from $0.75 and $0.78 in the Southeast
and Inland regions, respectively, to $1.12 and $1.13 in the Northeast
and national versions, respectively, to $2.52 in the Pacific region.
EPA is also conducting a non-response study for each version of the
survey, to account for the possibility that respondents are
fundamentally different from non-respondents. EPA would use the non-
response study results to develop weights that correct for any
differences, reducing the weight placed on overrepresented respondent
groups, while increasing the weight placed on any underrepresented
respondent groups. See Section II.G of the Survey Support Document for
details on the non-response study for the Northeast region of the
survey (the only region for which the non-response study has been
completed to date). EPA emphasizes that the relationship between
unweighted and weighted models for the Northeast may not be the same
for the other regional and national versions. EPA currently is still
fielding the non-response studies for the other three regional and
national versions of the survey. EPA intends to complete weighted
models for the remaining regions and the national surveys. After
completing the non-response studies for all regions, reviewing public
comment, and conducting additional scope and validity testing, EPA will
present a more complete set of stated preference survey materials for
an external peer review.
EPA invites comment on the study's preliminary results, including
the extent to which those results are consistent with previous studies
of stated or revealed public preferences; ways of assessing the
external validity of the underlying per household estimates and implied
aggregate WTP, for example by comparison with estimates in the
published literature of WTP for increased species abundance or other
ecosystem attributes; whether further analyses are needed, and if so
what analyses might be most useful; and the certainty levels of
attributes in this survey. After reviewing and responding to public
comment, the results from the planned external peer review, and
additional validity testing informed by public comment, EPA will
determine whether the results of the stated preference survey should be
included in the benefits analysis for the final rule, and if so, what
role they should play.
This notice is intended to apprise the public of the new
information, make this information available for public review and
provide an opportunity to comment on the new information that the
Agency has collected. However, EPA notes that the Agency is not
reopening the proposed rule for comment through this notice.
III. General Solicitation of Comment
EPA encourages public participation and requests comments on all
aspects of the data and analyses presented in this notice of data
availability and in the SSD that EPA is making available on its Web
site.
EPA invites all parties to coordinate their data collection
activities with the Agency to facilitate mutually beneficial and cost-
effective data submissions. Please refer to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section at the beginning of this preamble for technical
contacts at EPA.
To ensure that EPA can properly respond to comments, the Agency
prefers that commenters cite, where possible, the paragraph(s) or
sections in the document or supporting documents to which each comment
refers. Please submit copies of your comments and enclosures (including
references) as specified in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of
this notice.
Dated: June 1, 2012.
Nancy K. Stoner,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2012-14104 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P