Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Notices 52909 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

30 Day Notice of Submission to the 

Office of Management and Budget; 

Opportunity for Public Comment 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

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 October 

17, 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 

electronicallyat 

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. 

Comments Received on the 60-Day 

Federal Register Notice: 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, Page 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 

significantly 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 visibility 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 

addresses 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52910 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / Notices 

questions designed to evaluate the 

respondents’ motivation in selecting a 

preferred program. Surveys will be 

conducted with approximately 800 

individuals. 

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 of 

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: 900 (120 responses for focus 

groups; 800 responses for pilot study). 

Estimated average time burden per 

respondent: Focus groups: 3 minutes 

per recruitment, 30 minutes traveling to 

focus group, and 2 hours for 

participating in focus group. Pilot study: 

5 minutes per mail refusal, 3 minutes 

per in-person refusal, and 24 minutes 

per respondent. 

Frequency of response: 1 time per 

respondent. 

Estimated total annual reporting 

burden: 736 hours. 

Dated: September 10, 2007. 

Leonard E. Stowe, 

NPS, Information Collection Clearance 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 07–4589 Filed 9–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–53–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Notice of Intent To Prepare a General 

Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement for Agate Fossil 

Beds National Monument, Nebraska 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

National Park Service (NPS) is preparing 

an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for a General Management Plan 

(GMP) for the Agate Fossil Beds 

National Monument (Monument). The 

GMP will prescribe the resource 

conditions and visitor experiences that 

are to be achieved and maintained at the 

Monument over the next 15 to 20 years. 

To facilitate sound planning and 

environmental assessment, the NPS 

intends to gather information necessary 

for the preparation of the EIS and obtain 

suggestions and information from other 

Agencies and the public on the scope of 

issues to be addressed in the EIS. 

Comments and participation in this 

scoping process are invited. 

Participation in the planning process 

will be encouraged and facilitated by 

various means, including newsletters 

and public meetings. The NPS will 

conduct public scoping meetings to 

explain the planning process and to 

solicit opinion about issues to address 

in the GMP/EIS. Notification of all such 

meetings will be announced in the local 

press and in NPS newsletters. 

ADDRESSES: Additionally, if you wish to 

comment on any issues associated with 

the GMP, you may submit your 

comments by any one of several 

methods. You may mail or hand-deliver 

comments to the Superintendent, Agate 

Fossil Beds National Monument, 301 

River Road, Harrison, Nebraska 69346–

2743. You also may provide comments 

electronically by entering them into the 

NPS’s Planning, Environment, and 

Public Comment Web site http:// 

parkplanning.nps.gov. Information will 

be available for public review and 

comment from the Office of the 

Superintendent at the above address. 

Requests to be added to the project 

mailing list should be sent by mail to 

Pamela Carey, Agate Fossil Beds 

National Monument, 301 River Road, 

Harrison, Nebraska 69346–2743, by 

telephone 308–668–2211 or by e-mail to 

Pamela_Carey@nps.gov. 

Before including your address, 

telephone number, e-mail address, or 

other personal identifying information 

in your comments, you should be aware 

that your entire comments (including 

your personal identifying information) 

may be made publicly available at any 

time. While you can ask us in your 

comments to withhold your personal 

identifying information from public 

review, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. We will make all 

submissions from organizations or 

businesses, from individuals identifying 

themselves as representatives or 

officials, or organizations or businesses, 

available for public inspection in their 

entirety. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Superintendent Blanca Stransky, Agate 

Fossil Beds National Monument, 301 

River Road, Harrison, Nebraska 69346–

2743, telephone 308–668–2211. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agate 

Fossil Beds National Monument, located 

in western Nebraska, was established in 

1965 to preserve paleontological and 

geological sites and to protect and 

exhibit a collection of American Indian 

artifacts. The park is currently operating 

under a 1965 Master Plan, which is 

outdated because of several additions to 

the infrastructure that require new 

management direction. The park also 

needs to identify major program areas, 

provide a context for activities, and 

program planning. 

The GMP will prescribe the resource 

conditions and visitor experiences that 

are to be achieved and maintained in 

the Monument over the next 15 to 20 

years. The clarification of what must be 

achieved according to law and policy 

will be based on review of the unit’s 

purpose, significance, special mandates, 

and the body of laws and policies 

directing park management. Based on 

determinations of desired conditions, 

the GMP will outline kinds of resource 

management activities, visitor activities, 

and appropriate future development. A 

range of reasonable management 

alternatives will be developed through 

this planning process and will include, 

at a minimum, a no-action alternative, 

and a preferred alternative. To facilitate 

sound analysis of environmental 

impacts, the NPS is gathering 

information necessary for the 

preparation of an associated EIS. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES