Display additional information by clicking on the following:
Brief and OIRA conclusion
Common Form Info.
View Information Collection (IC) List
View Supporting Statement and Other Documents
Please note that the OMB number and expiration date may not have been determined when this Information Collection Request and associated Information Collection forms were submitted to OMB. The approved OMB number and expiration date may be found by clicking on the Notice of Action link below.
View ICR - OIRA Conclusion
OMB Control No:
ICR Reference No:
Previous ICR Reference No:
Agency Tracking No:
Willingness to Pay Survey for Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Cooling Water Intake Structures
Type of Information Collection:
No material or nonsubstantive change to a currently approved collection
Common Form ICR:
Type of Review Request:
OIRA Conclusion Action:
Approved without change
Retrieve Notice of Action (NOA)
Date Received in OIRA:
Terms of Clearance:
We approve the request for the increase in burden hours associated with fielding the survey in the rest of the US. As stated in the previous terms of clearance, the results of the NorthEast study including the nonresponse bias analysis should be submitted to OMB as soon as possible. We anticipate the results no later than November 28, 2011. They should be accompanied by a proposal for any changes that the NorthEast study suggests are needed for the remainder of the study so that OMB can work with EPA expeditiously. The overall results of the study, including the nonresponse bias analysis, should be also submitted to OMB as soon as possible.
Inventory as of this Action
Time Burden (Hours)
Cost Burden (Dollars)
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. At question here is the regulation of the existing steam electric and manufacturing facilities. Under Executive Order 12866, EPA is required to estimate the potential benefits and costs to society of proposed rule options of significant rules. To assess the importance of the ecological gains from the section 316(b) regulation, EPA requests approval from the OMB 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 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 key elicitation questions 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 populations, [c] long-term populations of all fish, and [d] condition of aquatic ecosystems. The respondents' 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 use of the affected aquatic resources, household income, and other demographics, can be analyzed statistically (using a mixed logit framework) to estimate total WTP for the quantified environmental benefits of the 316(b) rulemaking. Data analysis and interpretation is grounded in a standard random utility model. The welfare values that can be derived from this stated preference survey 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. 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.
EO: EO 12866 Name/Subject of EO: Regulatory Planning and Review
Citations for New Statutory Requirements:
Associated Rulemaking Information
Stage of Rulemaking:
Federal Register Citation:
Not associated with rulemaking
Federal Register Notices & Comments
Did the Agency receive public comments on this ICR?
Number of Information Collection (IC) in this ICR:
Willingness to Pay Survey
Fish and Aquatic Habitat US Survey
Fish and Aquatic Habitat Regional Survey
ICR Summary of Burden
Change Due to New Statute
Change Due to Agency Discretion
Change Due to Adjustment in Estimate
Change Due to Potential Violation of the PRA
Annual Number of Responses
Annual Time Burden (Hours)
Annual Cost Burden (Dollars)
Burden increases because of Program Change due to Agency Discretion:
Burden Increase Due to:
Burden decreases because of Program Change due to Agency Discretion:
Burden Reduction Due to:
OMB originally approved only a portion of the planned study under this ICR, using the New England Region as a pilot. Now that preliminary results have been received from New England, EPA is requesting approval to conduct the entire survey as originally planned.
Annual Cost to Federal Government:
Does this IC contain surveys, censuses, or employ statistical methods?
Part B of Supporting Statement
Is the Supporting Statement intended to be a Privacy Impact Assessment required by the E-Government Act of 2002?
Is this ICR related to the Affordable Care Act [PPACA, P.L. 111-148 & 111-152]?
Is this ICR related to the Dodd-Frank Act [Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, P.L. 111-203]?
Is this ICR related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)?
Erik Helm 202 566-1049 email@example.com
Common Form ICR:
On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3).
The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:
(a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;
(b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;
(c) It reduces burden on small entities;
(d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous language that is understandable to respondents;
(e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;
(f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;
(g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8 (b)(3) about:
(i) Why the information is being collected;
(ii) Use of information;
(iii) Burden estimate;
(iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);
(v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and
(vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;
(h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected.
(i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology (if applicable); and
(j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.
If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item by leaving the box unchecked and explain the reason in the Supporting Statement.