```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 154 (Friday, August 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45066-45067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3916]

[[Page 45066]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

30-Day Notice of Submission to the Office of Management and 
Budget; Opportunity for Public Comment

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 
CFR Part 1320, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, the National 
Park Service (NPS) invites public comments on a proposed new collection 
of information (OMB 1024-XXXX).

DATES: Public comments on this Information Collection Request (ICR) 
will be accepted on or before September 10, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments directly to the Desk Officer for the 
Department of the Interior (OMB 1024-XXXX), Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, by fax at 202/395-6566, or by 
electronic mail at [email protected]. Please also send a copy of 
your comments to Susan Johnson, Air Resources Division, NPS, 12795 W. 
Alameda Parkway, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, Colorado 80225; or 
electronically at [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Johnson, Air Resources Division, 
NPS, 12795 W. Alameda Parkway, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, Colorado 80225; 
or via phone at 303/987-6694; or via fax at 303/969-2822; or via e-mail 
address at [email protected]. You are entitled to a copy of the 
entire ICR package free-of-charge.
    The NPS published a 60-Day Notice to solicit public comments on 
this ICR in the Federal Register on October 10, 2006 (Vol. 71, No. 195, 
Pages 59521-59522). The comment period closed on December 11, 2006. The 
NPS received one comment as a result of the publication of this 60-Day 
Federal Register Notice.
    Comment: The commenter questioned why the visibility study was 
necessary. The commenter noted that regulations that protect air 
quality are already in place, but are not stringent enough or 
inadequately enforced. The commenter also added that the most important 
air quality-related issue is human health, particularly the health of 
children.
    Response: Regulations to protect and improve air quality are 
currently in place, and new regulations may be proposed in the future. 
Periodic economic information is necessary to determine whether these 
regulations are efficient. Visibility is a valued component of air 
quality, but current information is outdated, and lacks the benefit of 
recent advances in measuring such values. The information proposed in 
this collection will assist regulators in making better-informed air 
policy decisions. Human health related issues are outside the purview 
of this proposed effort, but are well recognized as the predominant 
economic benefit of improved air quality.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title: Visibility Valuation in National Parks and Wilderness Areas: 
Pre-Test and Pilot Test.
    Bureau Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Number: To be requested.
    Expiration Date: To be requested.
    Type of Request: New Collection.
    Description of Need: The Clean Air Act includes provisions designed 
to maintain and enhance visibility at national parks and wilderness 
areas (Sections 169A, 169B, and 110(a)(2)(j)). The NPS is directed by 
its Organic Act to ``conserve the scenery * * * unimpaired for the 
enjoyment of future generations'' (16 U.S.C. 1) and the Clean Air Act 
charges the NPS with an ``affirmative responsibility to protect air 
quality related values (including visibility)'' (42 U.S.C. 
7475(d)(2)(B)). Therefore, the NPS believes it is imperative that the 
value of visibility changes is adequately represented in cost-benefit 
analyses related to State and Federal efforts that may affect 
visibility (including the Regional Haze Rule, 40 CFR Part 51). Although 
several studies were conducted to estimate visibility benefits in the 
1970s and 1980s, methodologies for estimating the benefits of 
improvements in environmental goods have advanced signifcantly since 
that time. Furthermore, baseline visibility conditions in national 
parks and wilderness areas have changed significantly over the last few 
decades. As a result, updated estimates of benefits are required.
    Current evaluation of Federal and state air quality legislation or 
regulations, as well as regional plans or policies that impact NPS-
managed areas, is based on virility valuation information in Chestnut 
and Rowe, 1990 (e.g., see EPA, 2005). The vintage of this study aside, 
several limitations have been identified by regulators and stakeholders 
alike, including its limited sample frame (EPA, 2005; Leggett et al., 
2004). Thus, the NPS seeks current visibility valuation information 
that will permit accurate evaluation of programs and policies affecting 
visibility in NPS-managed areas.
    The NPS plans to conduct a nationwide stated preference survey to 
estimate the value of visibility changes in national parks and 
wilderness areas. Stated-preference surveys use carefully designed 
questions to elicit respondents' willingness to pay for improvements in 
environmental quality. A general population stated-preference survey is 
required in this case, as many U.S. citizens may be willing to pay to 
improve visibility at national parks and wilderness areas, even if they 
do not use these areas. Stated-preference surveys are the only 
methodology available to estimate these non-use values. But to ensure 
that the nationwide survey is unbiased and readily understood by 
respondents, and that the likely effect of non-response on benefit 
estimates is known, the pre-test and pilot test must first be 
conducted.
    The pre-testing will be done through focus groups, which will be 
used to develop and refine a survey instrument for the pilot study. 
Twelve focus groups will be conducted, with approximately 10 
participants in each group (120 in total). Thus, a sufficient number of 
responses will be gathered to evaluate the information presentation, 
reliability, internal consistency, response variability, and other 
properties of the draft survey. Results will be used to make 
improvements to the survey instrument. NPS will proceed iteratively, 
modifying the draft survey instrument after each focus group to ensure 
that the wording of the questions is clear and unbiased, and 
effectively address the relevant issues.
    The pilot study will be designed to account for the potential 
impact of mail survey non-response on benefit estimates. The pilot 
study will involve a split-sample comparison between a mail and in-
person survey. Respondents will be asked to complete the survey 
instrument developed during the pre-testing stage. The results will 
ultimately be used to adjust the benefit estimates obtained in the 
nationwide survey for potential non-response bias. The final content of 
the pilot survey instrument will depend on the pre-testing results. At 
a minimum, the survey will describe the characteristics of various 
visibility improvement programs and ask respondents to select a 
preferred program. The survey will also include socio-demographic 
questions and questions designed to evaluate the respondents' 
motivation in selecting a preferred program. Surveys will be conducted 
with approximately 800 individuals.

[[Page 45067]]

    For this pilot study, 16 neighborhoods will be selected in two 
metropolitan areas (Phoenix, AZ and Syracuse, NY). Each neighborhood 
sample will be split into two groups, with 50 households assigned to a 
mail survey group and 50 households assigned to an in-person survey 
group. The in-person survey will be conducted in a manner that 
minimizes the differences between the two survey modes.
    Comments are invited on: (1) The practical utility of the 
information being gathered; (2) the accuracy of the burden hour 
estimate; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden to 
respondents, including use of automated information collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Before including 
your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal 
identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your 
entire comment--including your personal identifying information--may be 
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your 
comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public 
review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Frequency of collection: Once.
    Description of Respondents: Residents of Atlanta, GA, Chicago, IL, 
Sacramento, CA (focus groups) and Phoenix, AZ and Syracuse, NY 
(response rate pilot study).
    Estimated average number or respondents: Focus groups: 1,200 in 
recruitment and 120 in pre-testing activities. Pilot study: 480 mail 
refusals, 320 in-person refusals, and 800 respondents.
    Estimated average number of responses: 920 (120 responses for focus 
groups; 800 responses for pilot study).
    Estimated average time burden per respondent: 2.5 hours for focus 
group respondents, 20 minutes for pilot survey respondents.
    Frequency of response: 1 time per respondent.
    Estimated total annual reporting burden: 567 hours.

    Dated: July 12, 2007.
Leonard E. Stowe,
NPS, Information Collection Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-3916 Filed 8-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-M
```