Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Notices 51133

the API PIDX User Group meetings

scheduled for October 26, through 30,

1997, a registration fee may apply.

Instructors are MMS employees of the

Royalty Management Program, Systems

Management Division and the Offshore

Minerals Management, Information

Technology Division.

Agenda

Morning Session: 9:00 a.m.–11:30 a.m.

Subject: MMS EC activities,

capabilities, current status,

implementation planning and

schedules.

Afternoon Session: 1:00 p.m.–4:00

p.m.

Subject: Electronic Data Interchange

(EDI) technical issues and mapping

walk-throughs for the transmittal of

regulatory report data via Accredited

Standards Committee (ASC) X12 EDI

standards. The mapping walk-throughs

will focus on the Report of Sales and

Royalty Remittance, Form MMS–2014

and the Semiannual Well Test Report,

Form MMS–126.

Attendees of the afternoon session

will be provided copies of the new MMS

EDI Handbook for Payors and Reporters

for the following reporting forms and

electronic payments:

Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance,

Form MMS–2014; Monthly Report of

Operations, Form MMS–3160; Oil and

Gas Operations Report (OGOR), Form

MMS–4054–A, B, and C;

MMS Bill for Collection, Invoice Form

DI–1040; Semiannual Well Test

Report, Form MMS–126; Well

Potential Test Report and Request for

MPR, Form MMS–128; and National

Automated Clearing House

Association (NACHA) Electronic

Payments.

If you plan to attend the EC

presentation, please leave a message for

Tim Allard or Stephen Adams at the

telephone and FAX numbers or the email address in the information contact

section of this notice no later than

October 24, 1997.

Dated: September 23, 1997.

Lucy Querques Denett,

Associate Director for Royalty Management.

[FR Doc. 97–25848 Filed 9–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Sixty-day Notice of Intention To

Request Clearance of Collection of

Information—Opportunity for Public

Comment

AGENCY: Department of the Interior,

National Park Service.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The National Park Service

(NPS) Social Science Program is

considering submitting to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) a

request for clearance of a three year

program of collections of information

that would conduct surveys of the

public regarding park visitors and

visitor services. The NPS is publishing

this notice to inform the public of this

proposed three year program and to

request comments on the program and

the proposed approach.

Under provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR Part

1320, Reporting and Record Keeping

Requirements, the National Park Service

is soliciting comments on: (a) Whether

the collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the NPS, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

NPS estimate of the burden of the

collection of information, including the

validity of the methodology and

assumptions used; (c) the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and (d) how to minimize

the burden of the collection of

information on those who are to

respond, including the use of

appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Public comments will be

accepted on or before December 1, 1997.

SEND COMMENTS TO: Dr. John G. Dennis,

NPS Washington Office Social Science

Program Coordinator, Natural Resources

(3223 MIB), National Park Service, 1849

C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

John G. Dennis. Voice: 202–208–5193,

Fax: 202–208–4620, Email:

< johnldennis@nps.gov >.

Proposed Request for Clearance of a

Three Year Program of Collections of

Information: A Proposed Process for

OMB Approval of NPS-Sponsored

Public Surveys.

1.0 Introduction

The National Park System preserves

the nation’s natural and cultural

heritage and provides for its enjoyment

by citizens and visitors from throughout

the world. The management of park

resources is necessarily the management

of people. Visitors, employees,

concessioners, nearby communities,

interest groups, local governments—all

affect and are affected by units of the

National Park System. An accurate

understanding of the relationship

between people and parks is critical to

achieving the dual mission of the

National Park System: protecting

resources unimpaired and providing for

public enjoyment. Such understanding

requires a sound scientific basis. Hence,

social science research is a necessary

and important function of the National

Park Service (NPS).

NPS managers face unprecedented

needs to better understand the public’s

values, attitudes and behaviors with

respect to parks. Park visitation for

recreation and other purposes is

expected to rise 34% by the year 2000.

Indirect use of parks via print, audiovisual, and electronic media also is

expected to increase. Management of

these uses of parks and of services

provided by NPS and park

concessioners will require state-of-theart techniques. Interactions between

park managers and government or

private managers and owners of lands

surrounding the parks will increase in

frequency and intensity as differing

management goals meet at common

boundaries. The people who live and

work in communities near the parks are

affected by the ways park uses grow and

the ways managers of park and adjacent

lands interact. The increased emphasis

on securing public participation in NPS

decision-making requires greater

knowledge about these many different

publics and their needs. New laws and

initiatives, such as the Government

Performance and Results Act (GPRA),

have created additional needs for the

information that NPS social science

research can provide.

The NPS has established a new social

science program and is implementing a

strategic program plan (Usable

Knowledge: A Plan for Furthering Social

Science and the National Parks, 1996).

The plan calls for increased social

science research related to the NPS

mission. This research in turn will

increase the need for efficient and

effective data collection from the many

different publics who may be affected

by NPS efforts to carry out the mission.

This notice describes a proposed 3-

year trial effort to ‘‘reinvent’’ the

Paperwork Reduction Act process by

which NPS secures Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

approval for NPS-sponsored surveys to
51134 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Notices

collect data from one specific segment

of these publics—the park visitors. The

benefits of this experiment in

reinvention will be significant to the

NPS, Department of the Interior (DOI),

OMB, NPS cooperators, and the public.

In addition, such a program, if it proves

fully successful, could be adopted by

other federal agencies that routinely

conduct studies of visitors to the

nation’s public lands.

1.1 Definitions

Collection of Information—obtaining

information or causing information to be

obtained by or for an agency by means

of identical questions posed to ten or

more persons.

Data—material serving as a basis for

discussion, inference, or determination

of policy, for example, individual

numbers or short phrases that provide

bits of information about a subject.

DOI—Department of the Interior.

GPRA—Government Performance and

Results Act, enacted in 1993 to increase

the quality and responsiveness to the

American people of the federal

government.

Information—facts or figures ready for

use, for example, all forms of data,

written analyses, and graphical

presentations that together provide a

body of knowledge about a subject

Information Collection Burden—the

effort that a person must make to

respond to a request for information,

usually measured in minutes or hours.

Information Collection Survey—a

generic, written or orally presented

format for a collection of information

that asks a person to answer a preestablished set of questions.

Metadata—information about

information or about how to access

information, such as information about

the characteristics of a set of data, or a

description of data collection categories,

or coding instructions used to store

information.

OMB—Office of Management and

Budget.

NPS—National Park Service.

National Park System—all 375 units,

totaling approximately 83 million acres,

of federal land that have been assigned

to the National Park Service to manage,

including among other designations,

parks, monuments, recreation areas,

lakeshores, seashores, preserves,

historic sites, and battlefields.

NPS Visiting Chief Social Scientist—

the individual who, on a rotating basis,

heads the National Park Service Social

Science Program.

Paperwork Reduction Act—the 1995

statute that directs the Federal

government to reduce the information

collection burden it imposes on the

public.

Peer Review—quality assurance

review of data, documents, projects, or

programs conducted by reviewers who

have equal or greater levels of technical

training and experience than do the

preparers of the data, documents,

projects, or programs being reviewed

PI (Principal Investigator)—the person

or persons responsible for conducting a

research project.

Survey Topic—a specific type of

information needed for planning,

management, operations, and evaluation

of performance related to the NPS

mission and responsibilities. Any given

survey topic area may include several

variables of interest.

Variables of Interest—characteristics

that can be measured, including the

specific kinds of information within a

survey topic that would be sought

through questions.

Visitor Survey—a structured, written

or oral method for obtaining from park

visitors information that is used to

educate park managers and others about

the views of visitors regarding park

programs and resources

83-I Package—a form and attached

statements that federal agencies must

submit to OMB to request permission to

present a collection of information to

more than 9 members of the public.

2.0 Overview of This Notice

2.1 Summary of Need for Change

NPS needs to sponsor information

collection surveys of the public to

provide to park managers information

for improving the quality and utility to

the public of park programs. NPS finds

the current process by which it secures

OMB approval of proposed collections

of information can be improved with

respect to securing public comment and

can be made more efficient for the

federal government through reducing

current levels of personnel and funding

necessary for preparing and reviewing

the proposed collections of information.

NPS believes it has developed an

alternative approach for processing

proposed collections of information that

will be both more effective and more

efficient. The proposal presented in this

notice is designed to test the alternative

approach using one subset of NPS

information collection surveys for a 3-

year test period.

2.2 Summary of this Proposal

NPS is considering submitting to

OMB this proposal to request that OMB

approve an alternative set of practices

and procedures by which OMB

determines whether or not to approve

proposed NPS information collection

surveys of the public regarding topic

areas relating to visitors and visitor

services. Under this proposal, NPS

would request that OMB review NPS

procedures for these surveys as a

program, rather than reviewing each and

every individual survey of the public

related to visitors and visitor services

that NPS seeks to conduct. Under the

procedures proposed here, NPS and DOI

would conduct the necessary quality

control through requiring peer review of

appropriate program elements,

maintaining an ongoing process for

improving the scientific quality and

efficiency of survey instruments related

to visitors and visitor services, and

proactively soliciting public review of

this proposed alternative set of practices

and procedures. NPS also would

maintain an information base of public

surveys conducted in parks on all topic

areas to be used to increase the

efficiency of future surveys. Under this

proposal, NPS would request that OMB

assign an OMB number, expiration date,

and total number of information

collection burden hours to NPS for the

topic areas relating to visitors and

visitor services. NPS would then

allocate this OMB number, expiration

date, and appropriate number of burden

hours to each survey within these topic

areas that NPS recommends and DOI

approves. NPS would request that

management oversight of its actions be

maintained by having DOI be

responsible for the final decision on all

individual surveys that NPS proposes

within the topic areas and by having

OMB monitor NPS actions through its

review and decision regarding this

proposed NPS request, its review of NPS

annual reports of actions taken under

the OMB number and expiration date

that NPS would request be assigned,

and comments that OMB receives

directly from the public.

2.3 Summary of Benefits of this

Proposal

Adoption of the proposed program

presented in this notice would benefit

NPS management of its public survey

process by increasing the efficiency of

NPS personnel time and funding

allocations, by improving NPS receipt of

effective public and peer comments, and

by improving NPS access to usable

information while minimizing the

burden on the public. DOI and OMB

would benefit through greater

efficiencies of their review and

oversight functions and through the

testing of alternative procedures for

managing the information collection

process. The public would benefit

directly through a more effective and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Notices 51135

less burdensome process for obtaining

its review of NPS proposed information

collection activities, the more efficient

expenditure of NPS federal funds used

to develop and approve surveys and

manage their application, and a more

efficient use of burden hours. The

scientific community would benefit

through a more efficient management

review process, greater focus on use of

peer review to improve the scientific

quality of information collection,

increased attention to methodological

improvements, and better

administration and wider sharing of

data and information obtained from

surveys of the public.

3.0 Details of the Elements of this

Proposed Process

The following paragraphs discuss

each of the elements of this proposal

that NPS is considering presenting to

OMB. The discussion includes: topic

areas to be covered by the proposed

process, techniques for ensuring

appropriate and effective public

involvement in the review of proposed

survey purposes and activities, the

approach for obtaining peer review of

proposed survey methodologies,

procedures for involving parks and the

NPS in the administration of public

surveys, the procedure by which OMB

would assign and NPS would allocate

OMB numbers and related expiration

dates and burden hours, responsibilities

and procedures for reporting results of

surveys and the use of allotted OMB

numbers and related expiration dates

and burden hours, procedures by which

DOI and OMB would maintain effective

program oversight, designation of

responsibilities and responsible

officials, and relationship to other NPS

initiatives.

3.10 Topic Areas

Topic areas are specific types of

information needed for planning,

management, operations, and evaluation

of performance related to the NPS

mission and responsibilities. Each topic

area may include several variables of

interest. This proposal would focus on

topic areas related to visitors and visitor

services. The topic areas and variables

of interest covered in this proposal are

identified in detail in Section 4.0.

3.20 Public Involvement

The OMB regulations regarding

information collections require sponsors

of such collections to seek adequate,

widespread, and useful public review of

proposed information collection

activities. The regulations specifically

require publication in the Federal

Register of a notice of opportunity for

the public to review a proposed survey

at two different stages during

development of the survey instrument.

NPS experience to date suggests that

this process does not achieve the

desired public review and comment for

NPS sponsored surveys.

The Visitor Services Project, for

example, has conducted 100 very

similar studies, has published its survey

methodology in peer-reviewed scientific

papers, has solicited peer review of its

questionnaires and questions as they

have been revised or new questions

added, and has obtained individual

OMB approvals study by study. Despite

its following of established procedures

for securing widespread review, the

Visitor Services Project has received

very few public and a handful of

governmental inquiries, and no

substantive comments, in response to

the opportunities for public review.

Similarly, based on limited reports from

practitioners who recently have

conducted other types of surveys in

parks, of about 15 surveys that went

through the old or new Federal Register

review process, only 3 received any

public inquiry, with the inquiries

leading to no specific feedback to NPS.

Beyond this required process, all of

these surveys received review by the

affected managers and most received

peer review as well.

The individual visitor studies

sponsored by the NPS thus have

received little benefit from individually

conducting the standard review process

established in response to the

Paperwork Reduction Act. They instead

have experienced delays associated with

the additional time periods involved in

the review process. They have

experienced Federal Register

publication costs which, under the

current requirement for two notices per

study, will amount to approximately

$500.00 per study with no return of

comments from the public for this cost

to the taxpayers. They have imposed

potential additional burdens on the

public by requesting that the public

separately review each and every one of

the individual study plans and

questionnaires, despite the similarities

in purpose, topic areas, methodology,

and planned uses of results.

Using the knowledge gained from this

past experience, NPS is initiating a

different approach to achieving public

review of its survey process that it

believes will be both more

comprehensive and more effective. NPS

is publishing this 60 day notice of intent

to submit to OMB for approval a

proposed collection of information to

conduct all surveys prepared under this

proposed process. In publishing this

notice, NPS specifically requests public,

scientific, and management comments

on the appropriateness, suitability, and

effectiveness of each element of the

proposed process. NPS asks that

respondents offer specific comments on

the proposed topic areas. NPS asks for

reactions to the proposal’s discussion of

benefits for program management, for

involving the public with the minimum

amount of burden, and for improving

the methodologies for conducting

surveys in and about parks. After

addressing all public, scientific, and

management comments received in

response to this notice, NPS proposes to

submit a revised version of this proposal

to OMB and to publish a 30 day Federal

Register notice to announce to the

public that it has submitted a formal

collection of information proposal to

OMB to seek approval for all surveys

that would be conducted during the 3

year test of the revised proposal.

NPS thus in this notice is soliciting

public review and comment on a

proposed public survey process that

would deal with a group of selected,

common topic areas related to visitors

and visitor services, not on individual

survey instruments. NPS believes this

proposed approach will reduce the

burden to the public for reviewing

documents and will increase the level of

public participation in development of

useful topics and survey approaches.

As part of this broad public review

process, NPS also will directly inform

public interest organizations that have a

clear interest in parks, park

management, and visitor uses of parks

about the opportunity to comment on

this Federal Register notice. Such

organizations to be contacted directly as

representatives of large segments of the

public will include: National Recreation

and Park Association, National Parks

and Conservation Association,

Conference of National Park

Cooperating Associations, National

Association of State Park Directors,

National Association of Interpreters,

National Inholders Association,

National Association of Counties,

National Association of Conservation

Districts, National Governors

Association, Appalachian Trail

Conference, American Hiking Society,

Partners in Parks, National Tour

Foundation, and National Association of

Park Concessioners. By means of this

notice, NPS requests other interested

organizations to identify their interest

and to provide NPS with comments

regarding this proposed process for NPS

to use in seeking OMB approval of NPSsponsored public surveys.
51136 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Notices

3.30 Peer Involvement

In accordance with standard scientific

practice, peer review occurs throughout

the research process for developing

objectives, methods, sampling design,

questionnaire design, target

populations, and data analysis strategies

for prospective research. This peer

involvement contributes significantly to

improving the quality of research and its

potential to address applied problems of

the national parks. Each Principal

Investigator (PI) or program manager, as

appropriate, would be responsible for

managing the process of obtaining,

documenting, responding to, and

summarizing the results of peer review

on the PI’s or program manager’s

research activities. NPS proposes to

monitor the peer review that is obtained

during four stages in the visitor survey

process: (1) determination of

appropriate topic area variables, (2)

problem identification for each research

project, (3) development and pre-testing

of research instruments, and (4)

preparation of reports for individual

research projects and for this test of a

program of collections of information.

3.31 Program Topic Area Variables

As part of publication of this notice,

NPS will solicit peer review of the

scientific appropriateness of the topic

area variables included in this proposal.

Peer reviewers will be asked to

comment on the appropriateness,

inclusiveness, and description of the

variables proposed for each identified

topic area.

3.32 Research Project Problem

Identification

Under terms of this proposal, for each

proposed, NPS-sponsored public

survey, the principal investigators (PIs)

intending to conduct the survey would

work with park staff to identify and

develop the objectives, scope, and target

audience for research to address the

management problem identified by the

park manager. For new or significantly

modified existing surveys, the PIs also

would be expected to consult with peer

researchers to ensure that the selected

objectives, scope, and target audience

are scientifically valid and have a high

probability of yielding results useful for

addressing the identified management

problem.

3.33 Development and Pre-testing of

Research Instruments

Whenever they are developing

sampling strategies, questions to ask,

layout of questionnaires, or statistical

techniques to be used for analyzing

results for new or significantly modified

surveys, the PIs would consult, as

appropriate, with their research peers.

In these cases, the PIs also may test

drafts of their proposed survey

instruments on small samples of

students or colleagues, as appropriate.

The PIs would use such peer review

comments and test results to provide

insight on probable park visitor

perspectives about the research

instruments. They also would use the

information to identify any troublespots in the proposed questionnaires

regarding syntax, layout, and design to

guide their revising the questionnaires

in ways that will minimize the burden

to the public that will be asked to

respond to the questionnaires. The PIs

also would request comments on the

planned research design and proposed

questionnaires from key individuals in

the park or parks under study.

Following this consultation, testing, and

review by peers and managers, the PIs

would complete their improvements to

the proposed research and questionnaire

designs and prepare final versions of

their research plans and questionnaires.

3.34 Research Project and Program

Report Preparation

As they prepare their project reports,

the PIs would submit a draft of each

proposed report for review by NPS staff

and by research scientists where

appropriate. The PIs would use the

review comments they receive to help

them prepare final reports that are

clearly articulated, scientifically sound,

and have maximum applicability for

addressing the identified management

problem. Similarly, the NPS Social

Science Program would solicit and use

appropriate peer review as part of its

preparation of technical reports about

NPS Social Science Program findings.

3.35 NPS Documentation of Peer

Review

NPS would document peer review in

four ways. First, NPS would provide in

the required 30-day Federal Register

notice that is part of the OMB collection

of information decision process an

analysis of the peer review it received

on the topic area variables in response

to this 60-day Federal Register notice.

Second, NPS would require, at the time

each NPS sponsored PI submits a final

report, that the PI either describe the

nature of the peer review the PI

obtained or explain why the PI did not

obtain peer review. Third, NPS would

encourage PIs to publish their NPS

sponsored surveys in peer reviewed

publications. Fourth, NPS would

provide in each NPS annual report to

DOI and OMB that would be required by

this proposed process a summary of all

the peer review activities conducted

during the year being reported.

3.40 Park or NPS Program Involvement

To ensure that NPS-sponsored public

surveys provide information of use to

management decision-making, NPS park

and central office managers would

maintain appropriate levels of

involvement throughout the survey

process. NPS park or central office

managers would initiate the process

when they identify needs for

information about visitors to parks and

request that a survey be conducted. NPS

social science cooperators would

respond to the request by proposing

specific visitor survey projects. The

requesting NPS manager then would

work with the cooperators to ensure that

the proposed projects can be

accommodated within existing park

management or NPS policy constraints

and that the projected results of the

proposed research will provide the

information and levels of precision the

requesting manager needs for decisionmaking. Park managers would provide

in-park logistic and public relations

support to the research cooperators as

appropriate. The requesting managers

would receive the project reports from

the social scientists who conduct the

surveys and would apply the findings to

their management decision-making as

appropriate. Park and central office

managers also would monitor the

public’s response to the survey process

and report to the NPS Visiting Chief

Social Scientist any concerns or

suggestions about the process that

warrant consideration or follow-up

action.

The NPS Social Science Program

would serve as the program manager for

the proposed process. Its specific

proposed responsibilities are described

later in this proposal.

3.50 Assignment of OMB Number,

Expiration Date, and Allowed

Information Collection Budget

Under terms of this proposed

collection of information that NPS is

considering submitting to OMB, NPS

would propose that OMB assign a single

number and three year expiration date

to NPS for NPS to allocate without

further review from OMB to all surveys

that NPS might sponsor within the topic

variables and limits regarding visitors

and visitor services identified in this

proposal. NPS further would propose

that OMB assign NPS an annual

Information Collection Budget from

which NPS would distribute burden

hours to the approved surveys according

to need. NPS would not allocate the

assigned number, an expiration date,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Notices 51137

and a specific number of burden hours

to any proposed questionnaire until

NPS had secured approval of the

questionnaire from DOI. Once it had

received that approval, NPS would

allocate to the approved survey the

number, a date that does not exceed

three years, and an appropriate number

of burden hours, and would notify the

applicant that the survey is approved.

NPS also would assign a unique NPS

identification number to each survey

NPS approves to ensure that each

survey receiving the common OMB

number is identifiable. Once NPS had

distributed the total number of OMB

authorized annual burden hours for any

given year, NPS would stop using this

pilot process for approving requests for

surveys in these topical areas and would

process all additional such requests in

that year through the existing review

system. Alternatively, NPS might

request OMB to approve additional

burden hours under terms of this

proposed process.

3.60 Annual Information Collection

Budget

NPS in recent years has used a total

of between 4,000 and 7,000 burden

hours per year for conducting public

surveys related to visitors and visitor

surveys. Under the terms of this

proposal, and given that NPS expects to

add some new public surveys to meet its

GPRA responsibilities, NPS would

propose to request that OMB approve a

total annual information collection

budget for the surveys that NPS would

process under the terms of this proposal

of 8,000 burden hours. This annual

burden would be approximately 2.7% of

the total burden hours NPS reported for

Fiscal Year 1997 and 0.2% of the total

that DOI reported for the same year.

3.70 NPS Reporting Responsibilities

NPS would submit annually to DOI

and OMB a report that would describe

for the past year: (a) NPS survey

activities undertaken, (b) improvements

achieved in data collection activities

(including savings in NPS full time

equivalent personnel (FTE) and funds),

(c) results of peer evaluation of NPS

planned surveys and reports of

completed surveys, (d) public comments

about NPS surveys and public responses

to the opportunity to review this

proposal provided through the two

Federal Register Notice publications,

and (e) plans for the next year. Toward

the end of the three year period

identified in this proposal, NPS would

submit a triennial report that would

summarize the entire experience of the

authorized activities and make

recommendations for futher action.

3.80 DOI and OMB Oversight

Under this proposed process, DOI

would meet its statutory responsibilities

by reviewing and approving or rejecting

each individual NPS proposal to

allocate the OMB number to an NPS

sponsored survey instrument that is

elligible within the terms of this

proposal. DOI would review the NPS

annual and triennial reports and, based

on its review, forward the reports to

OMB or return them to NPS for further

work. DOI would review all individual

survey instruments that NPS submits

separately from this proposed process

and would act on them in accordance

with existing procedures.

OMB would review this NPS request

for a 3 year pilot test to conduct public

surveys and approve or reject the

proposal. Should OMB approve this

proposal, OMB would use the NPS

annual reports to monitor NPS decisions

and actions regarding the allocation of

the OMB number to NPS-sponsored

survey instruments. OMB would review

all NPS survey instruments that do not

qualify for this proposed process and act

on them in accordance with existing

procedures.

3.90 Program Responsibilities and

Responsible Officials

3.91 National Park Service

The NPS Visiting Chief Social

Scientist, working through the NPS

Social Science Program, will secure

public review of this program proposal

through the two step Federal Register

notification process, will obtain other

forms of public review of this proposal,

and will solicit peer review of the

proposal prior to preparing the final

proposal package that would be

submitted for OMB decision.

The NPS Visiting Chief Social

Scientist, working through the NPS

Social Science Program, would provide

guidance for and, as requested, assist

the preparation, public review, and

technical review as appropriate of all

NPS-sponsored individual survey

instruments. For those survey

instruments submitted under this

proposed program and for which,

therefore, individual public review

would not be conducted, the Visiting

Chief Social Scientist would review the

instruments for compliance with

technical standards and programmatic

guidelines. The Visiting Chief Social

Scientist would reject survey

instruments that do not comply with the

minimum requirements, would

determine appropriate burden hours

and expiration dates for those that do

comply, and would recommend to DOI

for approval those instruments that meet

the requirements. Once the Visiting

Chief Social Scientist had received

approval from DOI, the Visiting Chief

Social Scientist would allocate the OMB

number and an expiration date and

number of burden hours to, and

authorize the PI to use, the approved

instrument. Should a PI question a

decision by the Visiting Chief Social

Scientist, the PI would submit an appeal

to the Associate Director, Natural

Resource Stewardship and Science, for

a decision.

For those information collection

activities that would fall outside the

OMB-approved topic areas included in

this proposal, the responsible park or

other NPS manager would prepare and

submit through the NPS Visiting Chief

Social Scientist to DOI and through DOI

to OMB individual standard Paperwork

Reduction Act submissions. This

process would include the associated

two-fold opportunities for individual

public review in keeping with the

existing public notification and timing

requirements.

3.92 Department of the Interior

The DOI Office responsible for

oversight of DOI information collection

activities, currently the Office of Policy

Analysis, would provide oversight of

NPS within-approved-limits activities.

The DOI Office of Policy Analysis also

would review, accept, and forward to

OMB the NPS annual reports of

information collection activities. In

addition, the DOI Office of Policy

Analysis would review and submit to

OMB those NPS applications for

proposed survey activities that would

fall outside whatever topic areas would

be approved by OMB should OMB

approve this proposal.

3.93 Office of Management and Budget

The OMB Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs would review and act

on DOI recommended NPS requests for

approvals of information collection

topic areas, requests for approvals of

information collection activities that are

outside existing approved limits, and

NPS annual reports.

3.100 Additional, Related NPS

Initiatives

The NPS would engage in three

initiatives related to this proposed

request to OMB. One is preparing a

strategic plan for visitor surveys. The

second is sponsoring research on survey

methods. The third is developing an

archive of NPS survey results. Each is

briefly described below.
51138 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Notices

3.101 A Strategic Plan for Visitor

Surveys

Currently, NPS surveys respond to

park-specific requests for data to meet

individual park management needs.

While this approach successfully

supports those parks that are able to

provide funds and attract researchers, it

does not necessarily also contribute to

needs of other parks or of the NPS as a

whole. The exception is the Visitor

Services Project, which uses a common

survey format for all parks surveyed and

relies on an Advisory Committee that

meets annually to recommend to the

NPS Associate Director, Natural

Resource Stewardship and Science, for

final decision the approximately 10

parks that will receive visitor studies

during the year. The Advisory

Committee develops its decisions using

an established set of criteria and a

formal nomination process.

Within 12 months following approval

of this proposal, NPS would develop a

strategic plan for determining where,

why, and when to conduct visitor

surveys in units of the National Park

System. The plan would be developed

in consultation with park managers,

social scientists, NPS and DOI officials,

and OMB. While focusing on ensuring

that visitor surveys meet the needs of

the specific parks requesting them, the

plan also would develop an approach

for strategically aggregating the results

from the parks selected for study. It also

would explore how to identify a set of

possible ‘‘indicator parks’’ and how best

to use those parks to represent the

National Park System. In addition, it

would determine other actions that

would make NPS data collection at

individual parks more cost-effective,

more representative of large classes of

visitors, and thus more useful for both

park and national levels of analysis and

decision-making. The experience gained

from this strategic analysis of visitor

surveys would form the basis of future

strategic analyses of other classes of

information collection activities.

3.102 Research on Survey Methods

Studies conducted by NPS within the

topics of visitors and visitor services

offer opportunities to conduct

methodological research useful to both

the NPS and other agencies with similar

user populations and data collection

needs. Research on improving response

rates, reducing non-response bias,

improving survey and interview design,

reducing sampling error, increasing

validity of measures, and improving

public review of survey instruments are

all important and possible. As an

integral part of this proposal, NPS

would initiate a modest program of

research on these and other questions

regarding survey methods. At least one

project would be completed in the fiscal

year following OMB approval of this

proposal, submitted to a scientific

journal for publication, and shared with

OMB and other agencies.

3.103 Archive of NPS Survey Results

To support its research on survey

methods and to increase the efficiency

and effectiveness of its use of past

information surveys, NPS would build a

social science data and information

archival system that would incorporate

the existing Visitor Services Project

(VSP) data base, which currently

includes all visitor surveys conducted

by the VSP. This archive ultimately

would include survey metadata, survey

data, and written reports for all NPS

sponsored surveys. This archive would

be available to the public under existing

guidelines.

4.0 Topic Areas

This proposal focuses on the general

subject of visitors and visitor services. It

covers the specific kinds of information

needed by NPS for planning,

management, operations, and evaluation

of performance related to meeting needs

of visitors. The specific topic areas

included in this proposal are: visitor

characteristics, trip/visit characteristics,

visitor activities and uses of park

resources, visitor expenditures, visitor

evaluations of park services, visitor

perceptions of their park experiences,

and visitor opinions on park

management. For each topic area, this

proposal provides definition, scope,

justification for data collection, and a

few examples of typical questions that

could be asked and variables that could

be expected as answers. The specific

questions to be prepared for any

individual survey would have to relate

to one or more of the approved topic

areas and would have to be approved by

NPS and DOI as part of the review and

approval process requested in this

proposal.

4.10 Topic Area on Visitor

Characteristics

4.11 Definition

Visitor characteristics are attributes of

individual park visitors or visitor

groups. Some examples include: age, zip

code or country of residence, group

type, ethnicity, disabilities/

impairments, language abilities, socioeconomic status, and visit frequency.

4.12 Scope

Visitor characteristics relevant to the

mission, management, and/or

operations of National Park System

units are included.

4.13 Justification for Data Collection

The diverse units of the National Park

System cater to the total diversity of the

U.S. population and a cross section of

international visitors. Qualitative and

quantitative data about the nature and

breadth of this diversity of park users

provide NPS managers with information

they need to ensure that park visitor

services, education programs, facilities,

and management operations respond

appropriately to the capabilities, needs,

and concerns of park visitors.

4.14 Examples of Typical Questions

and Variables Expected as Answers

A. For you and your group on this

visit, please indicate:

Current

age

U.S.

Zip

Code

or

name

of foreign

country

Number of

visits

made

to this

park

(including this

visit)

Yourself ...........

Member #2 ......

Member #3 ......

Member #4 ......

Member #5 ......

Member #6 ......

Member #7 ......

B. On this visit, what kind of group

were you with? Please check only one.

Alone

Family

Friends

Family and Friends

Other (Please describe: ll)

C. What languages do you or members

of your group regularly speak at home?

Please check all that apply.

(Answer choices should reflect the

languages most frequently spoken by

visitors to the park)

D. Does anyone in your group have

any physical disabilities which limited

their ability to visit (park)? yes/no

If yes, what kind of disability? Please

check all that apply.

Hearing

Visual

Mobility

Learning

Mental

4.20 Topic Area on Trip/Visit

Characteristics

4.21 Definition

Trip/visit characteristics include

travel factors which affect a trip or

decisions which visitors make prior to,

during, or following their trip to a park.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Notices 51139

Examples include use of overnight

accommodations, transportation, trip

route, trip origin, trip destination(s),

entrance/user fees, ability to obtain

tickets, and length of trip.

4.22 Scope

Trip characteristics relevant to the

mission, management, and/or

operations of National Park System

units are included.

4.23 Justification for Data Collection

Information about how visitors plan

their trips, about features of their trips,

and about their visits in the parks

support park managers’ efforts to

provide park-access and park-specific

information to visitors before they arrive

at the parks; to work with local and

regional planners dealing with

transportation alternatives, facilities,

and services that support visitors

traveling to and from parks; to assist

park concession managers in providing

appropriate trip planning information to

prospective visitors; and to more

effectively handle visitors’ trip-related

needs (such as fees, tickets, permits,

facilities, and services) once the visitors

have arrived in the parks.

4.24 Examples of Typical Questions

and Variables Expected as Answers

A. On this trip, how much time did

you and your group spend in (park)?

If less than 24 hours:

Number of Hours: ll

If 24 hours or more:

Number of Days: ll (Please list partial

days as 1⁄4, 1⁄2, etc.)

B. On this visit, what forms of

transportation did you and your group

use to get to (park)? Please check all that

apply.

(Choices of answer should be

appropriate for the park situation.)

C. On this visit, what were your

reasons for visiting (park)? Please check

all that apply.

(Choices of answer should be

appropriate for the park situation.)

D. Prior to this visit, how did you and

your group get information about (park)?

Please check all that apply.

Received No Information Prior to Visit

ll

Go on to Question ll

Friends/Relatives ll

Travel Agency ll

(Answer choices should be

appropriate for the park situation.)

4.30 Topic Area on Visitor Activities

and Uses of Park Resources

4.31 Definition

Visitors participate in a variety of

activities during their visits to parks or

related areas. While there are hundreds

of activities in which visitors can

engage, some important examples

include: sightseeing, visiting visitor

centers, day hiking, backpacking,

picnicking, camping, shopping,

observing wildife, attending ranger-led

programs, taking photographs, boating,

fishing, and many others.

Visitors also use a variety of park or

related area resources including natural

and cultural resources as well as

infrastructure when they visit these

areas. Some examples include roads,

trails, restrooms, parking lots, drinking

water, viewpoints/overlooks, visitor

centers, gift shops, stores, lodges/

motels, etc. Depending on the site,

visitors may harvest berries, fish, game

animals, fire wood, or sea shells; travel

cross-country in roadless and trailless

parts of the park; travel through historic

structures or landscapes; or handle

historic objects.

4.32 Scope

Visitor activities or uses of resources

which are relevant to the mission,

management, and/or operations of

National Park System units are

included.

4.33 Justification for Data Collection

Park and related area managers and

planners use knowledge about visitor

activities to design and operate

interpretation, resource management

and preservation, law enforcement,

safety, and facility management

activities to meet the needs of the

visitors. They also use this information

to support all aspects of planning, from

buildings, roads, and trails, to exhibits.

In addition, they must have the

collected data available to track visitor

use trends and project future demands

for visitor uses. In conducting their

management, planning, and monitoring

activities, managers also use the

information to effectively allocate their

limited personnel and financial

resources to the highest priority

elements of their visitor services

programs.

4.34 Examples of Typical Questions

and Variables Expected as Answers

A. On the list below, please check all

of the activities that you and your group

participated in during this visit to

(park).

(Answer choices should include all

appropriate activities and ‘‘other’’ for

write-in answers)

To gain additional information, the

above question can be asked in different

ways:

(a) On the list below, please check the

activities that you and your group did

at (park) on this visit. Please check all

that apply.

(b) For your past visits to (park),

please check the activities that you and

your group have done. Please check all

that apply.

B. Please check the services which

you or your group used at (park) during

this visit.

(Answer choices should include all

appropriate services.)

4.40 Topic Area on Visitor

Expenditures

4.41 Definition

The visitor expenditures topic area

deals with the time and dollar costs that

vistors experience in association with

visiting parks and surrounding areas.

4.42 Scope

Visitor expenditures data include

information related to direct visitor

expenditure patterns in the park or

surrounding area (direct expenditures)

and to visitor expenditures associated

with their travels to access the park or

surrounding area (indirect

expenditures).

4.43 Justification for Data Collection

Park and related area managers and

business managers, planners, and other

members of communities around the

parks use visitor expenditure

information to identify relationships

between parks and local/regional

economic development. Visitor

expenditure data also provide insight to

government and business managers

regarding pricing issues related to

entrance and user fees, costs of services

in parks and related areas, concession

fees, and to estimate the value of parks

and park-related attributes for visitor

uses.

4.44 Examples of Typical Questions

and Variables Expected as Answers

A. We are interested in the

expenditures your group made within

(name of state). Please indicate the

amount of dollars spent by your group

in each of the following categories

regarding your trip to (name of park).

a. transportation to (name of park) $ll

b. equipment and supplies $ll

c. lodging $ll

d. raft outfitters $ll

e. food and beverage $ll

f. other, please specify $ll

4.50 Topic Area on Visitor Evaluation

of Park Services

4.51 Definition

Visitor evaluation data include

quality and importance ratings of

services which visitors used or
51140 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Notices

potentially could have used during their

park or nearby area visit.

4.52 Scope

Services or facilities provided in

parks by NPS, concessioners, or other

cooperators that are used by visitors,

available to visitors but not used, or

potentially available to visitors are

included.

4.53 Justification for Data Collection

Planners and managers of parks and

related areas use data from visitor

evaluations of services and facilities to

improve customer service directly

onsite; improve the efficiency of other

park or related area operations that

results in improved customer service;

improve agency operations at the local,

regional, and national levels to remove

institutional barriers that prevent the

providing of better services to visitors;

develop a long-term data base to permit

monitoring any changes in the provision

of visitor services over time; and

compile information that can satisfy

reporting requirements of the

Government Performance and Results

Act of 1993.

4.54 Examples of Typical Questions

and Variables Expected as Answers

Typically an evaluation asks visitors

to rate services and facilities such as the

courtesy of employees, the cleanliness

of facilities, and quality of brochures

and maps. Visitors rate these services

and facilities on a scale from excellent

to poor. For example:

A. Overall, how would you rate the

quality of the visitor services provided

to you and your group at (park) during

this visit?

(a) Please check the visitor facilities or

services in (park) which you or your

group used during this trip.

(b) Next, for only those facilities or

services which you or your group used,

please rate their importance to you on

a scale from 1–5, with 5 being of great

importance and 1 being of no

importance.

(c) Finally, for only those facilities or

services which you or your group used,

please rate their quality from 1–5, with

5 being of high quality and 1 being of

low quality.

(a) Use facility/service in (park)

(b) If used, how important

(c) If used, what quality?

[Check If Used]

Not

important

Extremely

important

Very

poor

Very

good

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Restrooms ..............................................................................

Trails ......................................................................................

Etc. .........................................................................................

(Answer choices should be

appropriate to the park)

4.60 Topic Area on Visitor Perceptions

of Their Park Experiences

4.61 Definition

Visitor perception data deal with the

visitors’ awareness of elements of the

natural and social environments in the

parks they visit, their observations about

those elements, and how their

awareness and observations influence

their overall park experiences.

4.62 Scope

Involves visitor experiences regarding

park natural and cultural resources,

other visitors to the park, park and other

employees, and park infrastructure and

services. Also includes visitors’

perceptions of their experiences while

in the park and surrounding areas.

4.63 Justification for Data Collection

Park managers use visitor perception

information to guide decision-making

about resource and visitor activity

management to ensure that park

programs both provide visitors with

high quality experiences that meet the

visitors’ expectations and also protect

the integrity of the resources and visitor

activities that the visitors come to

experience. Managers use visitor

perception information to develop

specific, measurable indicators and

standards of quality for both the visitor

experiences and resource conditions.

Managers also may use the information

to identify what personal and social

norms to use for developing these

indicators and standards of quality. The

indicators of quality show what levels of

quality of experience result from the

various different levels of management

effort. The standards of quality show the

levels of quality that visitor experiences

must equal or exceed to be considered

acceptable outcomes. NPS will need

visitor perception data and associated

indicators and standards of quality to be

able to benchmark the GPRA standards

for acceptable outcomes that NPS

established in 1996. Meeting these

outcomes will ensure that NPS achieves

its mission of providing high quality

visitor experiences while protecting

park natural and cultural resources.

4.64 Examples of Typical Questions

and Variables Expected as Answers

Visitor perception questions seek to

identify indicators of quality and

standards of quality. For example:

A. What have you enjoyed most about

your visit to (park) today?

B. Has anything detracted from the

quality of your visit to (park) today? If

so, what?

C. How much of a problem do you

feel the following issues are at (park)?

(Visitors are presented a list of potential

indicators of quality and asked to

judge—using a standardized response

scale—the degree to which each issue is

a problem.)

D. We are interested in how many

people you feel could visit this place at

any one time without your feeling too

crowded. To help judge this, we have

developed a series of photographs that

show different numbers of people at this

place. Please rate each of the

photographs by indicating how

acceptable you feel each one is based on

the number of people shown. (Visitors

are presented a series of photographs

and asked to judge—using a

standardized response scale—the

acceptability of each photograph.)

4.70 Topic Area on Visitor Opinions

on Park Management

4.71 Definition

Visitor opinions about park

management include the ideas, beliefs,

attitudes, preferences, and values that

visitors express regarding all aspects of

NPS park management.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Notices 51141

4.72 Scope

Includes visitor opinions about how

the park manages its natural and

cultural resources, maintains its

physical structures, guides human uses

of park resources and facilities, and

provides educational and other services

to the visitor.

4.73 Justification for Data Collection

NPS manages park resources

according to general and specific park

plans that interpret general legislation,

specific park enabling legislation, and

NPS policy. Surveys that include visitor

opinions on park management provide

an important avenue for securing the

public involvement that permits the

NPS to understand what visitors know

and think about park resource and other

management actions. Such surveys will

be necessary to evaluate fee and any

other demonstration projects directed by

the Congress. These surveys also help

NPS to determine whether or not park

educational efforts about park

management actions are addressing the

proper avenues of thought, are being

presented effectively and in the most

productive venues, are being

understood by the recipients, and are

useful to the recipients. Park managers

use this knowledge to improve park

planning, resource management, visitor

education, maintenance, and visitor

services.

4.74 Examples of Typical Questions

and Variables Expected as Answers

A. The park’s lake naturally contained

no fish and the fish that are there now

resulted from humans planting fish in

the lake. How would your use of the

lake area be affected if all the fish were

removed from the lake? (Circle a

number to indicate your response)

1 Would come to the area more often

2 No change in use of the area

3 Would come to the area less often

4 Would stop coming to the area

5 Would stop visiting the park

5.0 Benefits

NPS expects the procedure proposed

in this notice for processing proposed

collections of information related to the

topic areas involving visitors and visitor

services will provide substantial

benefits to NPS, DOI, and OMB

management of the information

collection program, to public review of

proposed collections of information, to

the public burden related to reviewing

proposed collections of information and

responding to approved surveys, and to

the science of conducting surveys of

those members of the public who use

parks.

5.10 Benefit to Program Management

5.11 NPS

By managing surveys related to

visitors and visitor services as a

coherent, single information collection

program, NPS would increase the

efficiency of its use of personnel and

fiscal resources, improve the timing and

focus of the public and peer review it

obtains about its activities, reduce

duplication of survey effort, develop

improvements in procedures used to

estimate the burden imposed by surveys

of visitors to parks, improve the delivery

of usable knowledge to park managers,

and improve the archiving, use, and

availability to the public of the results

of past surveys.

5.12 DOI

In overseeing NPS management of the

topic areas relating to visitors and

visitor services as a coherent, single

program, DOI would benefit by

receiving more systematic and

technically current survey instruments

to review, having available to it the

information contained in the NPS

archive, and having available the NPS

annual reports as tools for monitoring

the responsiveness of the NPS program.

The more efficient, effective, and

independent position provided to DOI

for overviewing NPS conduct of a

program of surveys related to topic areas

dealing with visitors and visitor services

also would reduce financial costs and

administrative burdens experienced by

DOI.

5.13 OMB

OMB would benefit by having better

public and peer review of a program of

surveys, by having the NPS annual

report available for efficient program

monitoring and oversight, by testing a

process for improving agency

management of the review of proposed

collections of information, by testing

alternative procedures for conducting

information collections in ways that

minimize the burden to the public, and

by receiving information from several

NPS initiatives, including elements of

research methodology and

administration (see Section 5.3), related

to the topic areas of visitors and visitor

services. In addition, OMB would

experience a reduction in its

administrative burden with respect to

reviewing proposed collections of

information.

5.20 Benefit to the Public

The OMB approval process proposed

in this notice would result in substantial

benefits to the public. The public’s

opportunity and ability to assess the

entire program of NPS surveys of

visitors would benefit because of the

general streamlining of the review

process, enhanced coordination of

survey research efforts, and more

efficient and effective communication

with the public. The public also would

benefit because better coordination of

the information derived from visitor

surveys will contribute to more

productive use of social science

information in the management of the

national parks, resulting in better

customer service and resource

protection. Additionally, both of these

sets of benefits would result in more

efficient use of public funds, including

through reducing expenditures and

government personnel time spent on

preparing and publishing individual

Federal Register notices.

5.21 Involvement of the Public

The public would be engaged in

meaningful dialogue about the social

science survey process through its

opportunity to review the program

proposal at two stages of proposal

development and through the reports

that would be provided by the

proposed, coordinated annual and

triennial reporting process.

This notice in itself benefits the

public by providing information in a

concise and comprehendable way about

the purposes for which NPS conducts

surveys of the public, the types of

questions NPS asks of the public, and

how NPS uses the responses to those

questions to meet management needs for

information. By focusing public review

on the development and administration

of a collection of information program

rather than on individual, apparently

unrelated survey instruments, NPS is

encouraging greater public involvement

in assessing the program and is making

that involvement easier, more

encompassing, more intelligible, and

more productive.

The annual reports to be prepared as

part of the proposed program would

summarize the research activities

conducted within the topical areas

identified in this proposal. The triennial

report would provide a synthesis of

what has been learned during the three

year cycle and, should the program

perform as envisioned, describe topical

study areas that NPS would propose for

a subsequent three year planning cycle.

These reports together would inform the

public of the underlying purposes of

proposed survey research and of the

results of already conducted research.

5.22 Burden Efficiency

By shifting the timing and focus of

public review of NPS sponsored public
51142 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Notices

surveys from individual surveys to a

program of surveys, the process initiated

with this notice is reducing the

potential number of public burden

hours expended on reviewing proposed

public survey questionnaires and is

increasing the efficiency and

effectiveness of those burden hours that

the public does expend. By building

methodological research into its overall

strategy, the proposed process would

stimulate development of improved and

more efficient survey questions, survey

designs, and sampling approaches, thus

reducing the public burden in

responding to surveys while at the same

time making the application of that

burden have broader utility.

5.30 Benefit to Science

5.31 Peer Review

Currently, individual scientists are

responsible by DOI policy to obtain peer

review for social science work plans and

reports associated with in-house survey

research. The extent of this review

varies widely by individual scientist

and the type of project.

The proposed OMB approval process

identified in this notice would result in

a comprehensive series of survey and

program reports and records that are

reflective of the overall NPS program of

social science research and its

methodologies. Consequently, NPS

would be able more easily to solicit peer

review that focuses on Servicewide

efforts and methodologies. This type of

review would represent a significant

benefit beyond that received from

current individual peer review

contributions. In addition, the NPS

Social Science Program Office under the

proposed plan would monitor

individual requests for information

collection and would require that

requestors document the peer review

they already have obtained and explain

the absence of peer review where such

review is lacking.

Within 12 months following approval

by OMB of a proposal of the type

contained in this notice, NPS would

develop an expanded peer review

process to ensure that all social science

activities receive appropriate levels of

peer review at appropriate stages in the

development of the activities. NPS

would involve both scientists and

managers in this development and

would ensure that the resulting process

reflects academic, NPS, DOI, and OMB

guidance regarding peer review.

5.32 Methodological Development

One of the significant advantages of

this proposal is that it clearly

establishes an incentive for

methodological development and

improvement. This would work in two

ways. First, there would be stronger

incentives for constructive peer review.

Second, the proposed process would

remove an unintended consequence of

any reliance on a question catalog. In

the past, NPS projects to conduct public

surveys experienced a strong incentive

to use an NPS question catalog because

its use offered a somewhat reduced time

for achieving OMB review. However, an

unintended consequence of the use of

the question catalog was the emergence

of a disincentive to develop more valid

and reliable measures for more complex

items because of the burden of securing

OMB review and approval. Because the

application of survey research and

social science concepts to park

management is still developing, this

disincentive is actually counterproductive to stimulating the

methodological improvement needed in

many research areas.

Under the proposed process,

individual projects would receive peer

review requested by individual

researchers. All survey proposals would

be reviewed by the Visiting Chief Social

Scientist. Many projects would receive

and benefit from additional peer review

requested by the NPS social science

program. Within this umbrella of

increased professional dialogue and

oversight, individual researchers would

be encouraged to scientifically develop

questions and other items that provide

better data for NPS managers.

Improvements in methodology, because

they would be closely monitored by the

NPS social science program, would be

more quickly transmitted to all parks

and researchers who could benefit.

The proposed process would lead to

more competent planning and

administration of survey research in the

National Park System. Research would

be more focused on topics which have

high research and management priority.

Researchers, themselves, would be more

efficient because of reduced waiting

time for questionnaire approvals. The

more centralized research focus and

repository of survey research findings

would encourage a greater degree of

synergy in survey research in the

National Park System.

5.33 Data Management

The activities envisioned in this

proposal would include an effort to

develop and implement protocols for

data management, data set

documentation, and sampling

methodology documentation that would

benefit the exchange of data among

scientists and the consolidation and

assessment of data across individual

research projects. The development of a

data archive system and a clearly stated

requirement that all publicly funded

research projects must deposit a

complete data set in the archive would

increase the availability of data to the

broad research community.

5.34 Efficiency of the Proposed Process

for Scientists and Science

The proposed review process would

increase the focus of scientists on

dealing with the scientific effectiveness

of their planned surveys. The proposed

changes would foster the evolution of

methods and questions that must occur

for the survey process to become more

efficient and effective. The growing

availability over time of park data from

the proposed archive would support

comparative, longitudinal, multi-park,

and National Park Systemwide analyses

that would increase scientific

understanding about visitors in parks.

The data archive would provide

baseline analyses that can make future

scientific surveys and assessments more

efficient at a lower overall burden cost

to the public.

6.0 Conclusion: An Important

Experiment

The approach for review and

decision-making proposed in this notice

regarding collections of information

provides NPS, DOI, and OMB with a

voluntary test of an alternative method

for improving the productivity,

efficiency, and effectiveness of a Federal

information collection program. This

test may affirm a method by which NPS

can reduce the potential future

information burden on the public,

increase useful public review and

comment, reduce duplication and

increase collaboration in the

information collection and analysis

effort, meet shared data needs with

shared resources, enhance access to

information through use of electronic

formats for both researchers and the

public, and contribute to meeting NPS

information collection and technology

needs. It is an important experiment in

reinventing government.

7.0 Contributing Authors

John Dennis, Jean Haley, Darryll

Johnson, Dave Lime, Margaret

Littlejohn, Gary Machlis, Bob Manning,

John Peine, and Bill Stewart contributed

to preparation of this proposal.

8.0 Selected Literature

Barber, B. 1987. Effective social

science: eight cases in economics,

political science, and sociology. New

York. Russell Sage Foundation.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Notices 51143

Guston, D.H. and K. Keniston. 1994.

The fragile contract: university science

and the federal government. Cambridge,

MA and London, England. The MIT

Press.

Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1987.

Wildland recreation and ecology. New

York. John Wiley and Sons.

Harmon, D. (ed.). 1994. Coordinating

research and management to enhance

protected areas. Cambridge, UK.

International Union for the

Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources.

Leopold, A.S. and D.L. Allen. 1977. A

review and recommendations relative to

the National Park Service science

program. Memorandum to the Director

of the National Park Service.

Washington, DC. National Park Service.

Lewis, M.S., D.W. Lime, and D.

Anderson. 1996. Paddle canoeists’

encounter norms in Minnesota’s

Boundary Waters Canoe Area

Wilderness. Leisure Sciences 18(2):143–

160.

Lime, D.W. 1993. Analysis of

emerging issues in national parks: a

1992 employee study in the midwest

region. Univ. of Minnesota, Cooperative

Park Studies Unit. National Park

Service.

Lindblom, C.E. and D.K. Cohen. 1979.

Usable knowledge: social science and

social problem solving. New Haven, CT

and London. Yale Univ. Press.

Machlis, G.E. 1992. Social science and

protected area management: the

principles of partnership. Paper to

Fourth World Congress on National

Parks and Protected Areas. Caracas,

Venezuela. February.

Machlis, G.E. 1996. Usable

knowledge: a plan for furthering social

science and the national parks.

Washington, DC. National Park Service.

Manning, R.E. 1986. Studies in

outdoor recreation. Corvallis: Oregon

State University Press.

Manning, R.E., D.W. Lime, M. Hof,

and W. Freimund. 1995. The visitor

experience and resource protection

(VERP) process: the application of

carrying capacity to Arches National

Park. The George Wright Forum

12(3):41–56.

Manning, R.E., D.W. Lime, and M.

Hof. 1996a. Social carrying capacity of

natural areas: theory and application in

the U.S. national parks. Natural Areas

Journal 16(2):118–127.

Manning, R.E., D.W. Lime, W.A.

Freimund, and D.G. Pitt. 1996b.

Crowding norms at frontcountry sites: a

visual approach to setting standards of

quality. Leisure Sciences 18(2):39–59.

Manning, R.E., D. Johnson, and M.

VandeKamp. 1996c. Norm congruence

among tour boat passengers to Glacier

Bay National Park. Leisure Sciences

18(2):125–142.

Marion, J.L. 1993. A social science

plan for the mid-Atlantic region.

Virginia Tech. Inst. Cooperative Park

Studies Unit. Blacksburg, VA. National

Park Service.

National Academy of Sciences. 1992.

Science and the national parks.

Washington, DC. National Academy

Press.

National Park Service. 1988.

Management policies. Washington, DC.

National Park Service.

National Park Service. 1992. National

parks for the 21st century: the Vail

agenda. Post Mills, VT. Chelsea Green

Publishing Company.

National Park Service. 1993. Visitor

experience and resource protection

process. Denver: Denver Service Center,

National Park Service.

National Park Service. 1995. Visitor

experience and resource protection

implementation plan for Arches

National Park. Denver: Denver Service

Center, National Park Service.

Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1992.

Reinventing government: how the

entrepreneurial spirit is transforming

the public sector. New York. Penguin

Books USA Inc.

Shelby, B. and T. Heberlein. 1986.

Carrying capacity in recreation settings.

Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

Vaske, J.J., A.R. Graefe, B. Shelby, and

T. Heberlein. 1986. Backcountry

encounter norms: theory, method, and

empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure

Research 18(3):137–153.

Williams, D., J.W. Roggenbuck, and

S.P. Bange. 1991. The effect of norm

encounter compatibility on crowding

perceptions, experience, and behavior

in river recreation settings. Journal of

Leisure Research 23:154–172.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: A Proposed Process for OMB

Approval of NPS-Sponsored Public

Surveys.

Bureau Form Number: None.

OMB Number: To be requested.

Expiration date: To be requested.

Type of request: Request for new

clearance.

Description of need: The National

Park Service needs information

concerning park visitors and visitor

services to provide to park managers

information for improving the quality

and utility to the public of park

programs.

Automated data collection: At the

present time, there is no automated way

to gather this information, since the

information gathering process involves

asking visitors to evaluate services and

facilities that they used during their

park visits. The intrusion on individual

visitors is minimized by rigorously

designing visitor surveys to maximize

the ability of the surveys to use small

samples of visitors to represent large

populations of visitors and by

coordinating a program of surveys to

maximize the ability of new surveys to

build on the findings of prior surveys.

Description of Respondents: A sample

of visitors to parks or of people who

have relationships to parks.

Estimated average number of

respondents: The proposal does not

identify the number of respondents

because that number will differ from

individual survey to individual survey,

depending on the purpose and design of

each individual survey.

Estimated average number of

responses: The proposal does not

identify the average number of

responses because that number will

differ from individual survey to

individual survey, depending on the

purpose and design of each individual

survey. For most surveys, each

respondent will be asked to respond

only one time, so in those cases the

number of responses will be the same as

the number of respondents.

Estimated average burden hours per

response: The proposal does not

identify the average burden hours per

response because that number will

differ from individual survey to

individual survey, depending on the

purpose and design of each individual

survey.

Frequency of response: Most

individual surveys will request only 1

response per respondent.

Estimated annual reporting burden:

The proposal identifies the requested

total number of burden hours annually

for all of the surveys to be conducted

under its auspices to be 8000 burden

hours per year. The total annual burden

per survey for most surveys conducted

under the auspices of this proposal

would be within the range of 100 to 300

hours.

Diane M. Cooke,

Information Collection Clearance Officer,

WASO Administrative Program Center,

National Park Service.

[FR Doc. 97–25850 Filed 9–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Notice of Boundary Revision, Gulf

Islands National Seashore, FL

AGENCY: Department of the Interior,

National Park Service.