45066 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 154 / Friday, August 10, 2007 / Notices 

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 

oira_docket@omb.eop.gov. 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 

Susan_Johnson@nps.gov. 

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 

Susan_Johnson@nps.gov. 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 NPSmanaged 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 pretesting 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 154 / Friday, August 10, 2007 / Notices 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Work Group (AMWG) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Adaptive Management 

Program (AMP) was implemented as a 

result of the Record of Decision on the 

Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final 

Environmental Impact Statement to 

comply with consultation requirements 

of the Grand Canyon Protection Act 

(Pub. L. 102–575) of 1992. The AMP 

includes a federal advisory committee 

(AMWG), a technical work group 

(TWG), a monitoring and research 

center, and independent review panels. 

The AMWG makes recommendations to 

the Secretary of the Interior concerning 

Glen Canyon Dam operations and other 

management actions to protect resources 

downstream of Glen Canyon Dam 

consistent with the Grand Canyon 

Protection Act. The TWG is a 

subcommittee of the AMWG and 

provides technical advice and 

recommendations to the AMWG. 

Dates and Addresses: The AMWG 

will conduct the following public 

meeting: 

Flagstaff, Arizona—August 29–30, 

2007. The meeting will begin at 9:30 

a.m. and conclude at 5:30 p.m. on the 

first day and begin at 8 a.m. and 

conclude at 4 p.m. on the second day. 

The meeting will be held at the Grand 

Canyon Monitoring and Research 

Center, 2255 N. Gemini Drive, Building 

3 Main Conference Room, Flagstaff, 

Arizona. 

Agenda: The purpose of the meeting 

will be to (1) Review and develop a 

recommendation to the Secretary of the 

Interior for the fiscal year 2008 Budget, 

Workplan, and hydrograph; (2) receive 

updates on the Monitoring and Research 

Plan, the Beach/Habitat Building Flow 

Science Plan, public outreach efforts, 

Long-Term Experimental Plan 

Environmental Impact Study, and 

Humpback Chub Recovery 

Implementation Plan; (3) review fiscal 

year 2007 mid-year program 

expenditures; (4) discuss the Roles Ad 

Hoc Group Report; and (5) discuss basin 

hydrology/climate changes, and other 

administrative and resource issues 

pertaining to the AMP. To view a copy 

of the draft agenda, please visit 

Reclamation’s Web site at: http:// 

www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/ 

07aug29/index.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Randall Peterson, Bureau of 

Reclamation, telephone (801) 524–3758; 

facsimile (801) 524–3858; e-mail at 

rpeterson@uc.usbr.gov. 

To allow full consideration of 

information by the AMWG members, 

written notice must be provided to 

Randall Peterson, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional 

Office, 125 South State Street, Room 

6107, Salt Lake City, Uta 84138; 

telephone (801) 524–3758; faxogram 

(801) 524–3858; e-mail at 

rpeterson@uc.usbr.gov at least five (5) 

days prior to the meeting. Any written 

comments received will be provided to 

the AMWG members. 

Dated: July 19, 2007. 

Randall V. Peterson, 

Manager, Environmental Resources Division, 

Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake 

City, Utah. 

[FR Doc. E7–15699 Filed 8–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND 

WATER COMMISSION, UNITED 

STATES AND MEXICO 

United States Section; Notice of 

Availability of Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Improvements to the USIBWC Rio 

Grande Flood Control Projects Along 

the Texas-Mexico Border 

AGENCY: United States Section, 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission (USIBWC). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the 

United States Section, International 

Boundary and Water Commission 

(USIBWC) has prepared a Draft 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (Draft PEIS) for future 

improvements to three Rio Grande 

Flood Control Projects (FCP) operated 

by the USIBWC along the Texas-Mexico 

Border: the Rectification FCP, the 

Presidio FCP and Lower Rio Grande 

FCP. The PEIS, prepared in cooperation 

with the United States Bureau of 

Reclamation, United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service and United States 

Army Corps of Engineers, analyzes 

potential impacts of the No Action 

Alternative and three action alternatives 

for future FCP improvements under 

consideration. 

Because several measures under 

consideration are at a conceptual level 

of development, the USIBWC has taken 

a broad programmatic look at the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS