42438 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2010 / Notices 

defined in the CAA. Per Sections 

207(c)(1) and 213 of the CAA, when a 

substantial number of properly 

maintained and used engines produced 

by a manufacturer do not conform to 

emission standards, the manufacturer is 

required to recall the engines. Engine 

manufacturers are required to submit 

Defect Information Reports (DIRs) if 

emission-related defects are found on 

engines of the same model year that may 

cause the engines’ emissions to exceed 

the standards. EPA uses these reports to 

target potentially nonconforming classes 

of engines for future testing, to monitor 

compliance with applicable regulations 

and to order a recall, if necessary. 

Manufacturers can also initiate a recall 

voluntarily by submitting a Voluntary 

Emission Recall Report (VERR). VERRs 

and VERR updates allow EPA to 

determine whether the manufacturer 

conducting the recall is acting in 

accordance with the CAA and to 

examine and monitor the effectiveness 

of the recall campaign. 

Burden Statement: The annual public 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection of information is 

estimated to average 354 hours per 

respondent. Burden means the total 

time, effort, or financial resources 

expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 

information to or for a Federal agency. 

This includes the time needed to review 

instructions; develop, acquire, install, 

and utilize technology and systems for 

the purposes of collecting, validating, 

and verifying information, processing 

and maintaining information, and 

disclosing and providing information; 

adjust the existing ways to comply with 

any previously applicable instructions 

and requirements which have 

subsequently changed; train personnel 

to be able to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

Respondents/Affected Entities: 

Manufacturers of heavy-duty highway 

and nonroad engines. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

75. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion, 

quarterly. 

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 

26,563. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: 

$2,293,648, which includes $2,276,608 

in labor costs and $17,040 in O&M 

costs. 

Changes in the Estimates: There is an 

increase of 21,537 hours in the total 

estimated burden currently identified in 

the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR 

Burdens. This increase is due to an 

increase in the estimated number of 

respondents. Changes in the burden 

hours per respondent associated with 

this ICR renewal are negligible, 

therefore, the increase in burden is due 

to an adjustment. 

Dated: July 15, 2010. 

John Moses, 

Director, Collection Strategies Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–17781 Filed 7–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0595; FRL–9177–3; 

EPA ICR No. 2402.01; OMB Control No. 

2040–NEW] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; Willingness To Pay 

Survey for Section 316(b) Existing 

Facilities Cooling Water Intake 

Structures (New) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document 

announces that EPA is planning to 

submit a request for a new Information 

Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). Before 

submitting the ICR to OMB for review 

and approval, EPA is soliciting 

comments on specific aspects of the 

proposed information collection as 

described below. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before September 20, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2010–0595 by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: OW–Docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2010–0595. 

• Mail: Water Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010– 

0595. Please include a total of 3 copies. 

• Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA 

Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0595. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation and 

special arrangements should be made. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010– 

0595. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik 

Helm, Office of Water, Office of Science 

and Technology, Engineering and 

Analysis Division, Economic and 

Environmental Assessment Branch, 

4303T, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: 202–566–1049; fax number: 

202–566–1053; e-mail address: 

Helm.Erik@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

How can I access the docket and/or 

submit comments? 

EPA has established a public docket 

for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OW–2010–0595 which is available 

for online viewing at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or in person 

viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2010 / Notices 42439 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Reading Room 

is 202–566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Water Docket is 202– 

566–1752. 

Use http://www.regulations.gov to 

obtain a copy of the draft collection of 

information, submit or view public 

comments, access the index listing of 

the contents of the docket, and to access 

those documents in the public docket 

that are available electronically. Once in 

the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in 

the docket ID number identified in this 

document. 

What information is EPA particularly 

interested in? 

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of 

the PRA, EPA specifically solicits 

comments and information to enable it 

to: 

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

Agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(iv) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses. In 

particular, EPA is requesting comments 

from very small businesses (those that 

employ less than 25) on examples of 

specific additional efforts that EPA 

could make to reduce the paperwork 

burden for very small businesses 

affected by this collection. 

What should I consider when I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

You may find the following 

suggestions helpful for preparing your 

comments: 

1. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible and provide specific examples. 

2. Describe any assumptions that you 

used. 

3. Provide copies of any technical 

information and/or data you used that 

support your views. 

4. If you estimate potential burden or 

costs, explain how you arrived at the 

estimate that you provide. 

5. Offer alternative ways to improve 

the collection activity. 

6. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the deadline identified 

under DATES. 

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

be sure to identify the docket ID number 

assigned to this action in the subject 

line on the first page of your response. 

You may also provide the name, date, 

and Federal Register citation. 

What information collection activity or 

ICR does this apply to? 

Affected entities: Entities potentially 

affected by this action are individuals/ 

households. 

Title: Willingness to Pay Survey for 

Section 316(b) Existing Facilities 

Cooling Water Intake Structures: 

Instrument, Pre-test, and 

Implementation (New). 

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2402.01, 

OMB Control No. 2040–NEW. 

ICR status: This ICR is for a new 

information collection activity. An 

Agency may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information, unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the CFR, 

after appearing in the Federal Register 

when approved, are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9, are displayed either by 

publication in the Federal Register or 

by other appropriate means, such as on 

the related collection instrument or 

form, if applicable. The display of OMB 

control numbers in certain EPA 

regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR 

part 9. 

Abstract: Section 316(b) of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to 

ensure that the location, design, 

construction, and capacity of cooling 

water intake structures (CWIS) reflect 

the best technology available (BTA) to 

protect aquatic organisms from being 

killed or injured by impingement or 

entrainment. EPA divided this 

rulemaking into three phases. At 

question here are the Phases II and III. 

The Phase II rule, which covered 

existing electric generating plants that 

withdraw at least 50 million gallons a 

day (MGD) of cooling water, was 

completed in July 2004. Industry and 

environmental stakeholders challenged 

the Phase II regulations. On judicial 

review, the Second Circuit remanded 

several key provisions. In July 2007, 

EPA suspended the Phase II Rule. 

Following additional review in 2009 by 

the U.S. Supreme Court in Entergy Corp. 

v. Riverkeeper Inc., which decided that 

‘‘EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit 

analysis in setting the national 

performance standards * * * as part of 

the Phase II regulations.’’ EPA has 

voluntary remanded the rule. 

In June of 2006, EPA promulgated the 

316(b) Phase III Rule for existing 

manufacturers, small flow power plants 

(facilities that withdraw less than 50 

MGD), and new offshore oil and gas 

facilities. Offshore oil and gas firms and 

environmental groups petitioned for 

judicial review, which was to occur in 

the Fifth Circuit, but was stayed 

pending the completion of the Phase II 

litigation. EPA has asked the Fifth 

Circuit to remand the existing facilities 

portion of the Phase III rule so that it 

can consider what might be appropriate 

requirements for all existing facilities. 

While the 5th Circuit has not yet issued 

a decision, EPA is anticipating 

combining Phases II and III into one 

rulemaking covering all existing 

facilities. 

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA is 

required to estimate the potential 

benefits and costs to society of proposed 

rule options. To assess the public policy 

significance or importance of the 

ecological gains from the section 316(b) 

regulation for existing facilities, EPA 

requests approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget to conduct a 

stated preference survey. Data from the 

associated stated preference survey will 

be used to estimate values (willingness 

to pay, or WTP) derived by households 

for changes related to the reduction of 

fish losses at CWIS, and to provide 

information to assist in the 

interpretation and validation of survey 

responses. EPA has designed the survey 

to provide data to support the following 

specific objectives: [a] The estimation of 

the total values (use plus non-use) that 

individuals place on preventing losses 

of fish and other aquatic organisms 

caused by 316(b) facilities; [b] to 

understand how much individuals 

value preventing fish losses, increasing 

fish populations, and increasing 

commercial and recreational catch rates; 

[c] to understand how such values 

depend on the current baseline level of 

fish populations and fish losses, the 

scope of the change in those measures, 

and the certainty level of the 

predictions; and [d] to understand how 

such values vary with respect to 

individuals’ economic and demographic 

characteristics. 

The target population for this stated 

preference survey is all individuals from 

continental U.S. households who are 18 

years of age or older. The population of 

households will be stratified by the 

geographic boundaries of 5 EPA study 

regions: California, Great Lakes, Inland, 

Northeast, and Southeast. Survey 

participants will be recruited randomly 

through random digit dialing. The 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
42440 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2010 / Notices 

intended sample size for the survey is 

2,000 households including only 

households providing completed 

surveys. This sample size was chosen to 

provide statistically robust results while 

minimizing the cost and burden of the 

survey. In addition to the sample size, 

EPA will take steps to both test for and 

ameliorate survey non-response bias. 

EPA will follow standard practice in 

stated preference design, including the 

extensive use of focus groups and 

pretesting to develop survey 

questionnaires. 

The key elicitation questions in each 

of the five regional surveys ask 

respondents whether or not they would 

vote for policies that would increase 

their cost of living, in exchange for 

specified multi-attribute changes in (a) 

impingement and entrainment losses of 

fish, (b) commercial fish sustainability, 

(c) long-term fish populations, and (d) 

condition of aquatic ecosystems. This 

‘‘choice experiment’’ or ‘‘choice 

modeling’’ framework allows 

respondents to state their preferences by 

making a voting-type selection between 

two hypothetical multi-attribute 

regulatory options (and a third ‘‘status 

quo’’ choice that rejects both options). 

These stated preferences with respect to 

levels of environmental goods and cost 

to households, when used in 

conjunction with other information 

collected in the survey on the 

respondent’s use of the affected aquatic 

resources, household income, and other 

demographics, can be analyzed 

statistically (using either a fixed or 

random effects mixed logit framework) 

to estimate total WTP for the quantified 

environmental benefits of the 316(b) 

existing facilities rulemaking. Data 

analysis and interpretation is grounded 

in a standard random utility model. 

In addition, to the total values, the 

survey will allow the estimation of 

values associated with specific choice 

attributes (following standard methods 

for choice experiments), and will also 

allow the flexibility to provide some 

insight into the relative importance of 

use versus non-use values in the 316(b) 

context. Analysis also allows estimation 

of the variation in WTP across different 

types of households, in different areas. 

As indicated in prior literature, it is 

virtually impossible to justify, 

theoretically, the decomposition of 

empirical total willingness-to-pay 

estimates into separate use and non-use 

components. The survey will, however, 

provide the flexibility to estimate 

nonuser values, using various nonuser 

definitions drawn from responses to 

survey questions. The structure of the 

choice attribute questions will also 

allow the analysis to separate value 

components related to the most 

common sources of use values—effect 

on harvested recreational and 

commercial fish. 

The various welfare values that can be 

derived from this stated preference 

survey (discussed above) along with 

those that are estimated apart from the 

survey effort will offer insight into the 

composition of the value people place 

on the 316(b) environmental impacts. 

But within rulemaking, among the most 

crucial concerns is the avoidance of 

benefit (or cost) double counting. Here, 

for example, WTP estimates derived 

from the survey may overlap—to a 

potentially substantial extent—with 

estimates that can be provided through 

some other methods. Therefore, 

particular care will be given to avoid 

any possible double counting of values 

that might be derived from alternative 

valuation methods. In doing so, the 

Office of Water will rely upon standard 

theoretical tools for non-market welfare 

analysis, as presented by authors 

including Freeman (2003) and Just et al. 

(2004). 

Burden Statement: The annual public 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection of information is 

estimated to average 5 minutes per 

telephone screening participant and 30 

minutes per mail survey respondent 

including the time necessary to 

complete and mail back the 

questionnaire. Burden means the total 

time, effort, or financial resources 

expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 

information to or for a Federal agency. 

This includes the time needed to review 

instructions; develop, acquire, install, 

and utilize technology and systems for 

the purposes of collecting, validating, 

and verifying information, processing 

and maintaining information, and 

disclosing and providing information; 

adjust the existing ways to comply with 

any previously applicable instructions 

and requirements which have 

subsequently changed; train personnel 

to be able to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

The ICR provides a detailed 

explanation of the Agency’s estimate, 

which is only briefly summarized here: 

Estimated total number of potential 

respondents: 8,333 for telephone 

screening and 2,000 for mailed 

questionnaires. 

Frequency of response: One-time 

response. 

Estimated total average number of 

responses for each respondent: Onetime response. 

Estimated total burden hours: 1,527 

hours. 

Estimated total costs: $34,600. EPA 

estimates that there will be no capital 

and operating and maintenance cost 

burden to respondents. 

What is the next step in the process for 

this ICR? 

EPA will consider the comments 

received and amend the ICR as 

appropriate. The final ICR package will 

then be submitted to OMB for review 

and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 

1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue 

another Federal Register notice 

pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to 

announce the submission of the ICR to 

OMB and the opportunity to submit 

additional comments to OMB. If you 

have any questions about this ICR or the 

approval process, please contact the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Dated: July 13, 2010. 

Ephraim S. King, 

Director, Office of Science and Technology. 

[FR Doc. 2010–17808 Filed 7–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9177–6] 

Total Coliform Rule Revisions—Notice 

of Public Information Meetings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is hosting public 

information meetings on the proposed 

Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR). 

The proposed RTCR is a proposed 

revision to the current Total Coliform 

Rule (TCR) which was promulgated in 

1989. The proposed RTCR was 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 14, 2010. During the public 

information meetings, EPA will discuss 

the major provisions of the current TCR, 

the history of the development of the 

proposed RTCR, the core elements of 

the proposed RTCR, the comparison 

between the current TCR and the 

proposed RTCR, and specific areas 

where EPA is requesting comment. 

Additional topics that will be discussed 

include the cost and benefit information 

of the proposed rule and the planned 

guidance manuals that will be 

developed to support the 

implementation of the final rule. 

Date and Location: The first public 

information meeting will be held on 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES