## Attachment 4 : Federal Register Notice s

a) First Federal Register Notice [EPA

- HQ

- OA

- 2012

- 0033; FRL

- 9674

- 7]

– May 24, 2012

b) Second Federal Register Notice [ EPA

- HQ

- OA

- 2012

- 0033; FRL

- 9706

- 4]

– July 26, 2012

### 31006 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Notices

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 business or other for-profit as well as State, Local, or Tribal governments.

Title: Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0976.14, OMB Control No. 2050–0024.

ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2014. 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: The Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Forms booklet is updated every two years, to comply with the statutory mandate that EPA conduct a survey of hazardous waste generation at least every two years. The report, known as the ‘‘Biennial Report,’’ has been conducted since 1989, every odd-numbered year, known as the data collection year. The even-numbered years are known as the reporting years. The ICR has been renewed every data collection year, and the forms have been made available to respondents at the beginning of the reporting year. However, EPA is amending the current ICR this year so that the booklet for the next cycle, the 2013 cycle, will be available at the beginning of the data collection year. This change is in response to many requests by States.

The proposed changes to the 2013 booklet include: (1) Some management method codes will be consolidated in order to ease reporting, (2) the waste minimization codes will be revised in order to assist filers with reporting their waste minimization activities, and (3) editorial changes will be made to the description of some source codes in order to improve clarity for filers. This amendment will not affect the Notification booklet or the Part A Permit Application booklet, which are both part of this ICR.

Burden Statement: The annual reporting burden for the Hazardous Waste Report is estimated to average 17 hours per respondent, and includes time for reviewing instructions, gathering data, completing and reviewing the forms, and submitting the report. The recordkeeping requirement is estimated to average 4 hours per response and includes the time for filing and storing the Hazardous Waste Report submission for three years.

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for the Notification of Regulated Waste Activity is estimated to average 2 hours per response for the initial notification, and 1 hour per response for any subsequent notifications.

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for the Part A Permit Application is estimated to average 25 hours per response for an initial application and 13 hours per response for a revised application.

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: 56,800.

Frequency of response: biennially, and on occasion.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: varies.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 422,633 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $16,540,823. This includes an estimated burden cost of $16,339,984 in annualized labor cost and $200,839 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. 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: May 10, 2012. Suzanne Rudzinski, Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
[FR Doc. 2012–12628 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**[EPA–HQ–OA–2012–0033; FRL–9674–7]**

**Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;**  **Comment Request; Valuing Improved Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay**  **Using Stated Preference Methods; EPA ICR No. 2456.01, OMB Control No.**  **20XX—New**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency.

**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 July 23, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OA–2012–0033 by one of the following methods:

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

• Email: oei.docket@epa.gov.

• Fax: (202) 566–9744.

• Mail: Office of Environmental Information, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200


### 31007 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Notices

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OA–2012– 0033. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 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 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 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. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Dr. Nathalie Simon, National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, (1809T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566–2347; fax number: 202–566–2363; email address: simon.nathalie@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–OA–2012–0033, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 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 OEI Docket is 202–566–
1752.

Use 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?

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OA–2012–
0033.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are members of the general public who may be contacted to participate in the study.

Title: Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2456.01, OMB Control No. 2012-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: On May 12, 2009 the President signed Executive Order 13508 calling for the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. In response to the Executive Order and other considerations the Environmental Protection Agency established Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment for the Chesapeake Bay. These TMDLs called for reductions of 25, 24, and 20%, respectively, of these pollutants (EPA 2011).

The Chesapeake Bay watershed encompasses 64,000 square miles in parts of six states and the District of Columbia. While efforts have been underway to restore the Bay for more than 25 years, and significant progress has been made over that period, the TMDLs are necessary to continue progress toward the goal of a healthy Bay. As might be expected, a program on this scale is likely to be expensive. A 2004 report on implementation of the ‘‘tributary strategies’’ proposed under an earlier plan for Bay restoration


### 31008 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Notices

estimated their cost at $28 billion in capital costs plus an additional $2.7 billion dollars per year in perpetuity for operating and maintenance costs (Blue Ribbon Panel 2004). The watershed states of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland, as well as the District of Columbia, have developed Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) detailing the steps each will take to meet its obligations under the TMDLs. EPA has begun a new study to estimate costs of compliance with the TMDLs. While these costs may prove high, a multitude of benefits may also be anticipated to arise from restoring the Chesapeake Bay. It is important to put cost estimates in perspective by estimating corresponding benefits.

EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) is undertaking a benefits analysis of improvements in Bay water quality under the TMDLs, as well as of ancillary benefits that might arise from terrestrial measures taken to improve water quality. As part of this analysis, NCEE plans to conduct a broad-based inquiry into benefits using a state-of-the-art stated preference survey. Benefits from the TMDLs for the Chesapeake will accrue to those who live on or near the Bay and its tributaries, as well as to those who live further away and may never visit the Bay but have a general concern for the environment. The latter category of benefits is typically called ‘‘non-use values’’ and estimating the monetary value can only be achieved through a stated preference survey.

In addition, a stated preference survey is able to estimate ‘‘use values,’’ those benefits that accrue to individuals who choose to live on or near the Bay or recreate in the watershed. Stated preference surveys allow the analyst to define a specific object of choice or suite of choices such that benefits are defined in as precise a manner as feasible. While use benefits of water quality improvements in the Chesapeake Bay watershed will also be estimated through other revealed preference methods, the stated preference survey allows for careful specification of the choice scenarios and will complement estimates found using other methods.

Participation in the survey will be voluntary and the identity of the participants will be kept confidential.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.5 hours per response. 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: 1500.

Frequency of response: once. Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 750 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $ 15,975. This includes estimated respondent burden costs only as there are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
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: May 2, 2012. Al McGartland, Office Director, National Center for Environmental Economics.
[FR Doc. 2012–12298 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**  **AGENCY**

**[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0209; FRL–9351–1]**

**Enforceable Consent Agreement Development for Two Cyclic Siloxanes;**  **Solicitation of Interested Parties and Notice of Public Meeting** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is giving notice of a public meeting to negotiate an enforceable consent agreement (ECA) to collect certain environmental monitoring data on octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5). A private organization has submitted a proposed ECA to EPA. EPA has evaluated the proposal and believes that proceeding with the negotiation of a consent agreement is an efficient means of developing the data, and now solicits additional persons with an interest in participating in the negotiations to notify EPA and announces a public meeting to initiate negotiations.

**DATES :**  The meeting to initiate ECA negotiations for D4 and D5 environmental monitoring will be held on Wednesday, June 27, 2012 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

While this meeting is open to the public, you must notify EPA in writing on or before June 25, 2012, if you wish to be considered an ‘‘interested party’’ and participate in the ECA negotiations for D4 and D5 environmental monitoring.

To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the technical person listed under **FOR FURTHER**
**INFORMATON CONTACT** , preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

**ADDRESSES :**  Your written notification that you wish to participate in the ECA negotiation must be submitted to the technical person listed under **FOR**
**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**

.

The public meeting to initiate negotiations on an ECA for D4 and D5 will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA East, Room 1117A, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For technical information contact: Robert Jones, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, East Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 4328G, Washington, DC 20460–0001;


### 43822 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Notices

received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission’s Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at (866)208–3676, or for TTY, contact (202)502–8659.

Docket No. Communication date Presenter or requester

1. CP11–72–000 .......................................................... 6–27–12 Ryan Bernstein 1

. 2. CP11–515–000 ........................................................ 7–9–12 Michael Mojica 2

. 3. CP08–6–000 ............................................................ 7–11–12 David J. Devine. 4. CP11–161–000 ........................................................ 7–13–12 Jolie DeFeis 3

. Exempt: 1. P–12796–004 ........................................................... 6–21–12 Eileen McLanahan 4

. 2. P–12690–005 ........................................................... 6–22–12 FERC Staff 5

. 3. P–2458–000 ............................................................. 6–27–12 Hon. Michael H. Michaud. 4. CP11–161–000 ........................................................ 6–27–12 Hon. Tom Marino. 5. P–11810–000 ........................................................... 6–28–12 Hon. Jeff Duncan. 6. CP11–72–000 .......................................................... 6–28–12 Hon. Mary L. Landrieu. 7. CP11–161–000 ........................................................ 7–5–12 Members of Congress 6

. 8. OR12–17–000 .......................................................... 7–6–12 Tex ‘‘Red Tipped Arrow’’ Hall. 9. CP12–72–000 .......................................................... 7–11–12 Dept. of the Interior Staff.

1 Email record.

2 Email record.

3 Email record.

4 Email record.

5 Email record.

6 Hons. Robert P. Casey, Jr. and Tom Marino.

Dated: July 20, 2012. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–18238 Filed 7–25–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6717–01–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**[EPA–HQ–OA–2012–0033; FRL–9706–4]**

**Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Valuing**  **Improved Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Using Stated**  **Preference Methods (New)**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), ‘‘Valuing Improved Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Using Stated Preference Methods (New)’’ (EPA ICR No. 2456.01, OMB Control No. 2010–NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. On May 24, 2012 EPA solicited public comments for 60 days on the proposed ICR. Certain supporting documents were not available for public review in the docket during the first 30 days of the comment period, thus EPA is re-opening the comment period for an additional 30 days from the publication of this notice. Public comments are being solicited on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a request for approval of a new collection. 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.

**DATES :**  Comments must be submitted on or before August 27, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OA–2012–0033 online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method); by email to oei.docket@epa.gov; by fax at (202) 566– 9744; or by mail to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Dr. Nathalie Simon, National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, (1809T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566–2347; fax number: 202–566–2363; email address: simon.nathalie@epa.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202–566–1744. For additional information about EPA’s public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/ dockets

.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting 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. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package


### 43823 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Notices

will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

Abstract: The Clean Water Act (CWA) directs EPA to coordinate Federal and State efforts to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. In 2009, Executive Order (E.O.) 13508 re-emphasized this mandate, directing EPA to define the next generation of tools and actions to restore water quality in the Bay and describe the changes to be made to regulations, programs, and policies to implement these actions. In response, EPA is undertaking an assessment of the costs and benefits of meeting established pollution budgets, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment for the Chesapeake Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay watershed encompasses 64,000 square miles in parts of six states and the District of Columbia. While efforts have been underway to restore the Bay for more than 25 years, and significant progress has been made over that period, the TMDLs are necessary to continue progress toward the goal of a healthy Bay. The watershed states of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland, as well as the District of Columbia, have developed Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) detailing the steps each will take to meet its obligations under the TMDLs. EPA has begun a new study to estimate costs of compliance with the TMDLs. A multitude of benefits may also be anticipated to arise from restoring the Chesapeake Bay. It is important to put cost estimates in perspective by estimating corresponding benefits.

EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) is undertaking a benefits analysis of improvements in Bay water quality under the TMDLs, as well as of ancillary benefits that might arise from terrestrial measures taken to improve water quality. As part of this analysis, NCEE plans to conduct a broad-based inquiry into benefits using a state-of-the-art stated preference survey. Benefits from the TMDLs for the Chesapeake will accrue to those who live on or near the Bay and its tributaries, as well as to those who live further away and may never visit the Bay but have a general concern for the environment. The latter category of benefits is typically called ‘‘non-use values’’ and estimating the monetary value can only be achieved through a stated preference survey.

In addition, a stated preference survey is able to estimate ‘‘use values,’’ those benefits that accrue to individuals who choose to live on or near the Bay or recreate in the watershed. Stated preference surveys allow the analyst to define a specific object of choice or suite of choices such that benefits are defined in as precise a manner as feasible. While use benefits of water quality improvements in the Chesapeake Bay watershed will also be estimated through other revealed preference methods, the stated preference survey allows for careful specification of the choice scenarios and will complement estimates found using other methods. Participation in the survey will be voluntary and the identity of the participants will be kept confidential.

Form Numbers: None. Respondents/affected entities: Individuals 18 years of age or older, residing in one of 18 east coast states and the District of Columbia.

Respondent’s obligation to respond: voluntary.

Estimated number of respondents: Primary survey: 2,400 respondents; 400
non-response survey.

Frequency of response: one time collection.

Total estimated burden: 1,034 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $24,123 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Dated: July 20, 2012. Al McGartland, Director, National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012–18319 Filed 7–25–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION**

**[Notice 2012–05]**

**Filing Dates for the Michigan Special Election in the 11th Congressional**  **District**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Election Commission.

**ACTION :**  Notice of filing dates for special election.

**SUMMARY :**  Michigan has scheduled elections on September 5, 2012, and November 6, 2012, to fill the U.S. House seat in the 11th Congressional District vacated by Representative Thaddeus McCotter.

Committees required to file reports in connection with the Special Primary Election on September 5, 2012, shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report. Committees required to file reports in connection with both the Special Primary and Special General Election on November 6, 2012, shall file a 12-dayPre-Primary Report, a 12-day PreGeneral Report, and a 30-day PostGeneral Report.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694–1100; Toll Free (800) 424–9530.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Principal Campaign Committees

All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Michigan Special Primary and SpecialGeneral Elections shall file a 12-day PrePrimary Report on August 24, 2012; a 12-day Pre-General Report on October 25, 2012; and a 30-day Post-General Report on December 6, 2012. (See chart below for the closing date for each report).

All principal campaign committees of candidates participating only in the Special Primary Election shall file a 12- day Pre-Primary Report on August 24, 2012. (See chart below for the closing date for each report).

Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee’s quarterly filing in October. (See chart below for the closing date for each report).
Unauthorized Committees (PACs and Party Committees)

Political committees filing on a quarterly basis in 2012 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Michigan Special Primary or Special General Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See chart below for the closing date for each report).

Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Michigan Special Primary or General Elections will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.

Additional disclosure information in connection with the Michigan Special Election may be found on the FEC Web site at http://www.fec.gov/info/ report

_ dates.shtml

. Disclosure of Lobbyist Bundling Activity

Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of $16,700 during the special election reporting periods