Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 34927 

17The Monte Carlo analysis is described in EPA 

(2010a), Section 2.4.4.2.8. 

of these processing technologies are 

provided in the docket for this NODA. 

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

Fuel type Feedstock Production process requirements D-code 

Ethanol ....................................... Grain Sorghum ........................... Dry mill process, using Natural Gas for Process Energy .............. 6 

Ethanol ....................................... Grain Sorghum ........................... Dry mill process, using Biogas for Process Energy, without Combined Heat and Power.6 

Ethanol ....................................... Grain Sorghum ........................... Dry mill process, using Biogas for Process Energy, with Combined Heat and Power.5 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of data availability. 

SUMMARY: On April 20, 2011, EPA 

published proposed standards for 

cooling water intake structures at all 

existing power generating, 

manufacturing, and industrial facilities 

as part of implementing section 316(b) 

of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This 

notice presents a summary of new 

information EPA has developed since 

the rule proposal. The information 

results from a stated preference survey 

that EPA conducted after the proposed 

rule was published. Stated preference 

surveys are an attempt to determine the 

economic value of goods or services by 

means other than by assessing the 

effects of changes in the market for the 

goods and services. In this notice EPA 

solicits comment on the information 

presented in this notice and on what 

role, if any, it should play in EPA’s 

assessment of the benefits of regulatory 

options for the final rule, pending 

completion of the survey and external 

peer review. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2008–0667 by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: OW-Docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2008–0667. 

• Mail: Water Docket, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code: 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2008– 

0667. Please include a total of 3 copies. 

In addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA 

Docket Center, EPA West Building 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0667. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected should not be 

submitted through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is 202– 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Water Docket is 202–566–2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional technical information, 

contact Paul Shriner at 202–566–1076; 

email: shriner.paul@epa.gov. For 

additional economic information, 

contact Erik Helm at 202–566–1049; 

email: helm.erik@epa.gov or Wendy 

Hoffman at 202–564–8794; email: 

hoffman.wendy@epa.gov. For additional 

biological information, contact Tom 

Born at 202–566–1001; email: 

born.tom@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Supporting Documentation 

A. Docket 

EPA has established an official public 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0667. The 

official public docket consists of the 

documents specifically referenced in 

this action, any public comments 

received, and other information related 

to this action. Although a part of the 

official docket, the public docket does 

not include information claimed as 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information for which the 

disclosure is restricted by statute. For 

information on how to access materials 

in the docket, refer to the preceding 

ADDRESSES section. To view docket 

materials, please call ahead to schedule 

an appointment. Every user is entitled 

to copy 266 pages per day before 

incurring a charge. The Docket may 

charge 15 cents for each page over the 

266-page limit plus an administrative 

fee of $25.00. 

B. Electronic Access 

You may access this Federal Register 

document and the docket electronically, 

as well as submit public comments, 

through the Web site http:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2008– 

0667. For additional information about 

the public docket, visit the EPA Docket 

Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Table of Contents 

I. Purpose of This Notice 

II. Willingness To Pay Survey 

III. General Solicitation of Comment 

I. Purpose of This Notice 

On April 20, 2011, EPA published 

proposed standards for cooling water 

intake structures at all existing power 

generating facilities and existing 

manufacturing and industrial facilities 

as part of EPA’s implementation of its 

responsibilities under section 316(b) of 

the Clean Water Act (CWA), at 76 FR 

22174. EPA received voluminous 

comments and data submissions during 

the 90-day public comment period. 

After many commenters requested 

additional time to review the proposal, 

on July 20, 2011, EPA extended the 

comment period by an additional 30 

days (76 FR 43230). 

In today’s NODA, EPA is providing 

additional preliminary data that may be 

relevant to the benefits of the rule, based 

on the results of a stated preference 

survey. Stated preference surveys are an 

attempt to determine the economic 

value of goods or services outside of the 

context of the marketplace. Simply 

described, a stated preference survey 

attempts to gauge the value of an item 

through questions designed to mimic 

consumer decision-making in actual 

markets. A stated preference survey, in 

this case, was used to measure values 

associated with ecosystem 

improvements. Such values were only 

partially monetized at proposal. The 

stated preference survey estimates the 

value held by the public for ecosystem 

improvements based on the choices the 

surveyed members of the public make 

between hypothetical policy options 

and current conditions. EPA solicits 

public comment on all aspects of the 

study, including the methodology used, 

the strengths and weaknesses of stated 

preferences methods generally, and the 

appropriate role, if any, the study 

should play in the analysis of the final 

rule. 

EPA notes that the preliminary results 

presented in this NODA are dependent 

on the background information that was 

presented to respondents to the stated 

preference survey, including 

information about regional and national 

impacts on aquatic resources both in the 

baseline and under various policy 

scenarios. Thus, these preliminary 

national and regional results are not 

directly transferable to site specific 

assessments. 

Section II provides a brief description 

of the stated preference survey to date, 

and refers to technical support 

documents available on EPA’s Web site 

and in the docket for the proposal, 

which includes the data and a set of 

preliminary statistical results in which 

each respondent’s answers are given 

similar weight, even as some groups 

may be over- or underrepresented. Such 

unweighted results are presented for the 

Northeast, Southeast, Inland, Pacific 

regions, and a national survey. EPA is 

making the preliminary results of this 

study available for public comment and 

peer review in order to inform its 

determination of whether to include 

these results in the benefits analysis for 

the final rule. 

This information is presented in more 

detail in a document referred to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/ 

lawsguidance/cwa/316b/. EPA 

encourages the interested public to 

monitor this web site periodically for 

additional information about the survey. 

EPA will also add the technical support 

documents to the docket for this rule, 

and interested parties may wish to sign 

up for the notification feature for this 

docket at regulations.gov, to be notified 

automatically via email when these 

results are posted. 

This notice is intended to apprise the 

public of the preliminary results of the 

stated preference survey, make this 

information available for public review, 

and provide an opportunity for the 

public to comment on this new 

information. EPA has not decided 

whether to use the results of the stated 

preference survey in the benefits 

analysis for the final rule. After 

completing the non-response studies, 

conducting scope and validity testing, 

and reviewing and responding to public 

comment, EPA will revise its results 

(including a summary of the public 

comments) and present these materials 

for external peer review. After making 

any additional revisions based on the 

peer review, EPA will determine 

whether the monetized benefits based 

on the stated preference survey should 

be included in the benefits analysis for 

the final rule, and if so, what role they 

should play. However, EPA notes that 

the Agency is not reopening the 

proposed rule for comment through this 

notice. 

II. Willingness To Pay Survey 

In today’s NODA, EPA is 

documenting the availability of data 

collected from a stated preference 

survey designed to facilitate the 

estimation of households’ willingness to 

pay to reduce the number of fish 

impinged or entrained in cooling water 

intake structures. Stated preference 

methods provide a non-market approach 

to quantifying values associated with 

ecosystem improvements, such as 

increased protection of aquatic species 

or the restoration of habitats with 

specific attributes. These methods rely 

on an analysis of responses to survey 

questions through which individuals 

state information about their values. 

Estimation of monetized non-use 

benefits is challenging, since market 

proxies are generally not available, and 

in the absence of such proxies, they can 

only be estimated by using either stated 

preference methods or benefits transfer 

based on prior stated preference results. 

For this reason, non-use benefits are 

often discussed qualitatively instead of 

attaching monetized values to them. 

Today’s notice presents data collected 

from a stated preference study (EPA ICR 

# 2402.01) that EPA conducted 

regarding total (use plus non-use) 

benefits from reductions in fish 

mortality at cooling water intake 

structures. EPA’s peer-reviewed 

guidelines for benefits analysis (U.S. 

EPA 2010, pp. 7–41, DCN 11–4712) 

recognize ‘‘advantages of [stated 

preference] methods includ[ing] their 

ability to estimate non-use values and to 

incorporate hypothetical scenarios that 

closely correspond to a policy case.’’ 

The data described in this NODA 

were collected using a stated preference 

survey based on a ‘‘choice experiment’’ 

design. Choice experiments involve 

asking survey respondents to indicate 

their most preferred option from a set of 

two or more hypothetical options and a 

‘‘status quo’’ or ‘‘no policy’’ option. The 

options differ in the levels of 

environmental improvements and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

34930 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1See Exhibit II–3 of the Survey Support 

Document for a list of the states included in each 

region. 

impose different costs on the 

respondent’s household. 

Stated preference methods have 

‘‘* * * been tested and validated 

through years of research and are widely 

accepted by * * * government agencies 

and the U.S. courts as reliable 

techniques for estimating non-market 

values’’ (Bergstrom and Ready 2009, 

p. 26, DCN 11–4762). EPA’s own peer 

reviewed Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analysis (US EPA 2010, DCN 

11–4712) indicates that the use of stated 

preference study data, when the study is 

conducted properly in accord with best 

current practices, is the only potential 

method for monetizing non-use values. 

Nonetheless, EPA recognizes that 

several issues have been raised 

regarding the estimation of welfare 

values from stated preference surveys. 

For example, the stated preference study 

discussed in this NODA creates a 

hypothetical market where respondents 

are asked to state their values for 

increases in ‘‘fish saved’’ in conjunction 

with increases in fish populations (total 

and commercial) and aquatic conditions 

by voting for or against alternative 

hypothetical policies that would 

regulate cooling water intake structures 

and that would impose increases in 

annual household cost of living. The 

issue of whether respondents are 

capable of respecting hypothetical 

budget constraints, knowing that their 

responses to the survey would not 

compel them to incur any costs, is a 

concern that has been cited as a reason 

to question the results of stated 

preference studies. The hypothetical 

nature of the market has raised 

questions as to whether this type of 

elicitation accurately reveals and elicits 

WTP associated with the good being 

considered. 

Substantial research has been 

conducted over the past two decades on 

hypothetical bias in stated preference 

surveys. While many studies have found 

evidence of hypothetical bias (List and 

Gallet 2001, DCN 11–4763), a recent 

meta-analysis indicates that 

‘‘hypothetical bias in SP studies may 

not be as important’’ as some have 

argued previously (Murphy et al. 2005, 

DCN 11–4764). This mirrors similar 

findings in prior studies that compare 

hypothetical and actual referenda (see 

discussion in Johnston 2006, DCN 11– 

4765). EPA solicits comment on the 

degree to which the potential for 

hypothetical bias may still be present in 

the 316(b) survey, and whether EPA has 

taken appropriate steps to ameliorate 

issues of bias and to what degree 

potential biases may have been reduced. 

Stated preference surveys also require 

the provision of information to enable 

respondents to comprehend the 

potential implications of their 

hypothetical choices. For example, in 

this case, respondents may not be aware 

that the ‘‘fish saved’’ by actions 

addressing cooling water intake 

structures include large numbers of eggs 

and larvae as well as fish, or that the 

vast majority of those organisms are 

species that provide no consumptive 

use (e.g., commercial or recreational 

fishing) to humans. Even if they are 

aware of this issue in a general way, it 

is unlikely that most respondents will 

have previously considered what 

preserving those species is worth to 

them. In order to elicit informed 

responses, it is necessary to provide 

information to respondents about the 

general context and scope of the issue. 

Following standard practice, EPA 

pretested the information provided to 

respondents in focus groups and 

cognitive interviews to determine what 

quantity and types of information were 

required by respondents in order to feel 

confident and well-informed in their 

responses (DCN 11–4710). For example, 

in the introductory materials 

accompanying the four regional and 

national stated preference surveys, EPA 

presents the number of ‘‘young adult 

fish’’ (also called ‘‘age-one-equivalents’’) 

that are ‘‘lost’’ in coastal and fresh 

waters due to cooling water use and 

notes that these losses include eggs and 

larvae. That educational material was 

designed to inform survey respondents 

that reported effects on ‘‘fish saved per 

year’’ in the valuation questions 

partially result from reduced mortality 

of eggs and larvae. The presentation of 

this type of background information, if 

not properly vetted in the survey 

instrument development process, can 

result in focusing respondent attention 

on particular environmental amenities 

to the exclusion of other market and 

non-market goods that may also be 

important to some respondents’ 

decision making with regard to the 

choice questions. 

Consistent with established best 

practices for stated preference surveys, 

EPA has sought to minimize possible 

biases by careful and thorough 

construction and testing of the survey 

instrument. The Agency recognizes that 

potential biases may still remain and 

may influence the results of the study. 

While in EPA’s view, the study 

incorporates current best professional 

practice in the conduct of stated 

preference studies, EPA acknowledges 

that the results of any empirical study 

depend on the methodology applied. 

EPA has not yet completed its statistical 

analyses of these survey data and 

therefore has not determined whether 

the results of the stated preference 

survey will play a role in the benefits 

analysis for the final rule, and if so what 

role they will play. EPA requests 

comment on these issues. 

At the time this NODA was prepared, 

EPA had finished fielding all five 

versions of the main mail survey (four 

regional and one national). EPA 

undertook the Northeast version in 

advance of the other versions as a pilot 

study to inform potential changes to 

other survey versions, as described in 

the ICR for the 316(b) stated preference 

survey (EPA ICR #2402.01) and as 

recommended in published guidance for 

stated preference survey design (Arrow 

et al. 1993, DCN 11–4701; Bateman et al. 

2002, DCN 11–4702). As noted above, 

the preliminary results of the survey are 

available in the docket and at http:// 

water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/ 

cwa/316b/. 

EPA notes that the stated preference 

survey regions differ from the benefits 

regions used in the Environmental and 

Economic Benefits Assessment (EEBA) 

document for the proposed rule.1 The 

Agency will perform additional analysis 

comparing the results of the regional 

survey versions to the results of the 

national survey version. This additional 

analysis will allow EPA to look at the 

impacts of program size (regional vs. 

national) on willingness to pay and 

consider the implications of any 

differences for the validity of results. 

Before considering any application of 

this information in the final rule, EPA 

will also provide the full results and 

public comments to the planned 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 

50 CFR Part 20 

[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 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of meeting 

date change. 

SUMMARY: 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. 

DATES: 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. 

ADDRESSES: 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: 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS