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, 34927-34931 [2012-14104]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules
of these processing technologies are
provided in the docket for this NODA.
34927
We invite comment on all aspects of this
analysis.
TABLE II–14—APPLICABLE D CODES FOR GRAIN SORGHUM ETHANOL PRODUCED WITH DIFFERENT PROCESSING
TECHNOLOGIES FOR USE IN GENERATING RINS
Feedstock
Production process requirements
Ethanol .......................................
Ethanol .......................................
Grain Sorghum ...........................
Grain Sorghum ...........................
Ethanol .......................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Fuel type
Grain Sorghum ...........................
Dry mill process, using Natural Gas for Process Energy ..............
Dry mill process, using Biogas for Process Energy, without Combined Heat and Power.
Dry mill process, using Biogas for Process Energy, with Combined Heat and Power.
2. Consideration of Uncertainty
Because of the inherent uncertainty
and the state of evolving science
regarding lifecycle analysis of biofuels,
any threshold determinations that EPA
makes for grain sorghum ethanol will be
based on an approach that considers the
weight of evidence currently available.
For this pathway, the evidence
considered includes the mid-point
estimate as well as the range of results
based on statistical uncertainty and
sensitivity analyses conducted by the
Agency. EPA will weigh all of the
evidence available to it, while placing
the greatest weight on the best-estimate
value for the scenarios analyzed.
As part of our assessment of the grain
sorghum ethanol pathway, we have
identified key areas of uncertainty in
our analysis. Although there is
uncertainty in all portions of the
lifecycle modeling, we focused our
analysis on the factors that are the most
uncertain and have the biggest impact
on the results. The indirect,
international emissions are the
component of our analysis with the
highest level of uncertainty. The type of
land that is converted internationally
and the emissions associated with this
land conversion are critical issues that
have a large impact on the GHG
emissions estimates.
Our analysis of land use change GHG
emissions includes an assessment of
uncertainty that focuses on two aspects
of indirect land use change—the types
of land converted and the GHG
emissions associates with different
types of land converted. These areas of
uncertainty were estimated statistically
using the Monte Carlo analysis
methodology developed for the RFS2
final rule.17 Figure II–1 and Figure II–2
show the results of our statistical
uncertainty assessment.
Based on the weight of evidence
considered, and putting the most weight
on our mid-point estimate results, the
results of our analysis indicate that
17 The Monte Carlo analysis is described in EPA
(2010a), Section 2.4.4.2.8.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:28 Jun 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
grain sorghum ethanol would meet the
minimum 20% GHG performance
threshold for qualifying renewable fuel
under the RFS program when using
natural gas and average 2022 dry mill
plant efficiencies, and would meet the
minimum 50% GHG performance
threshold for advanced biofuels under
the RFS program when using biogas for
process energy at a dry mill plant, with
combined heat and power. These
conclusions are supported by our
midpoint estimates, our statistical
assessment of land use change
uncertainty, as well as our consideration
of other areas of uncertainty.
The docket for this NODA provides
more details on all aspects of our
analysis of grain sorghum ethanol. EPA
invites comment on all aspects of its
modeling of grain sorghum ethanol. We
also invite comment on the
consideration of uncertainty as it relates
to making GHG threshold
determinations.
Dated: May 24, 2012.
Margo T. Oge,
Director, Office of Transportation & Air
Quality.
[FR Doc. 2012–13651 Filed 6–11–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability.
AGENCY:
On April 20, 2011, EPA
published proposed standards for
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D-code
6
6
5
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:
• https://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
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
34928
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 https://
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 https://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 https://
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 https://
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:28 Jun 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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 https://
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 https://
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
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:28 Jun 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 inscope 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 nonresponse 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
https://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,
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34929
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
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
34930
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:28 Jun 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 https://
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 peerreview 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.
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
1 See Exhibit II–3 of the Survey Support
Document for a list of the states included in each
region.
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 nonresponse 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:55 Jun 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS–R9–MB–2012–0005;
FF09M21200–123–FXMB1231099BPP0L2]
RIN 1018–AX97
Migratory Bird Hunting; Meeting
Regarding Regulations for the 2012–13
Hunting Season
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of meeting
date change.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), proposed in
an earlier document to establish annual
hunting regulations for certain
migratory game birds for the 2012–13
hunting season. This notice revises the
previously announced dates of the June
2012 Service Migratory Bird Regulations
Committee meetings.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The Service Migratory Bird
Regulations Committee (SRC) will meet
to consider and develop proposed
regulations for early-season migratory
bird hunting on June 19 and 20, 2012.
The meetings are open to the public and
will commence at approximately 8:30
a.m.
DATES:
The SRC will meet in room
200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s Arlington Square Building,
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron
W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior, MS
MBSP–4107–ARLSQ, 1849 C Street
NW., Washington, DC 20240; (703) 358–
1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Background
On April 17, 2012, we published in
the Federal Register (77 FR 23094) a
proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The
proposal provided a background and
overview of the migratory bird hunting
regulations process and addressed the
establishment of seasons, limits, and
other regulations for hunting migratory
game birds under §§ 20.101 through
20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K.
On May 17, 2012, we published the
second in a series of proposed,
supplemental, and final rules for
migratory game bird hunting regulations
(77 FR 29516). In that document, we
announced a meeting of the SRC to take
place June 20 and 21, 2012. The dates
of that meeting have now changed: The
SRC will meet June 19 and 20, 2012, at
the location indicated above in
ADDRESSES.
Service Migratory Bird Regulations
Committee Meetings
50 CFR Part 20
SUMMARY:
34931
At the June 19–20, 2012, meeting, the
SRC will review information on the
current status of migratory shore and
upland game birds and develop
recommendations for the 2012–13
migratory game bird regulations for
these species, plus regulations for
migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The SRC
will also develop regulations
recommendations for September
waterfowl seasons in designated States,
special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic
Flyway, and extended falconry seasons.
In addition, the SRC will review and
discuss preliminary information on the
status of waterfowl. In accordance with
Departmental policy, these meetings are
open to public observation. You may
submit written comments to the Service
on the matters discussed. See the May
17, 2012, Federal Register document (77
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
]]>Agencies
[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:
https://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
https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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
https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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
