49704 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Notices 

are similar in terms of the populations 

contacted, the types of questions asked, 

and the research methods employed. 

Due to these similarities, the NPS is 

proposing to the OMB an alternative 

approach to complying with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act by allowing 

individual VSP information collection 

requests to be submitted to OMB under 

the proposed Programmatic Approval. 

Implementation of this proposal will 

lead to less time involved in creating 

submissions for individual VSP 

collections and decreased review times 

for studies submitted under the 

Programmatic Approval. The obligation 

to respond is voluntary. 

Automated data collection: This 

information will be collected via mailback surveys or standard focus group 

protocols. No automated data collection 

will take place. 

Description of respondents: A sample 

of visitors to parks and/or residents of 

communities near parks. 

Estimated average number of 

respondents: The program does not 

identify the number of respondents 

because that number will differ in each 

information collection, depending on 

the purpose and design of the project. 

Estimated average number of 

responses: The program does not 

identify the number of responses 

because that number will differ in each 

information collection. For most 

projects, respondents will be asked to 

respond only one time. In those cases, 

the number of responses will be the 

same as the number of respondents. 

Estimated average burden hours per 

response: Completion times for 

individual visitor surveys conducted by 

the VSP average around 20 minutes per 

respondent. Average contact times are 

one minute per contact. Focus groups 

average two hours in length. 

Frequency of Response: 1 time per 

respondent. 

Estimated total annual reporting 

burden: The program identifies the 

requested total number of burden hours 

annually for all information collections 

to be 10,000 burden hours per year. The 

total annual burden per project for most 

studies conducted under the auspices of 

this program will be within the range of 

100 to 900 burden hours. 

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 hour to 

respondents, including use of 

automated information techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment—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. 

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Leonard E. Stowe, 

NPS, Information Collection Clearance 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–19427 Filed 8–21–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

60-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: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 

CFR Part 1320, Reporting and Record 

Keeping Requirements, the National 

Park Service (NPS) invites public 

comments on a proposed new collection 

of information (1024–xxxx). 

DATES: Public comments will be 

accepted on the proposed Information 

Collection Request (ICR) on or before 

October 21, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Tatjana 

Rosen, School of Forestry and 

Environmental Studies, Yale University, 

205 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 

06511; or via e-mail at 

Tatjana.Rosen@yale.edu. Also, you may 

send comments to Leonard E. Stowe, 

NPS Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, 1849 C St., NW., (2605), 

Washington, DC 20240; or via e-mail at 

leonard_stowe@nps.gov. All responses 

to this notice will be summarized and 

included in the request for the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval. All comments will become a 

matter of public record. 

To request a draft of proposed 

collection of information contact: 

Tatjana Rosen, School of Forestry and 

Environmental Studies, Yale University, 

205 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 

06511; or via e-mail at 

Tatjana.Rosen@yale.edu. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

James Gramann, National Park Service 

Social Science Program, 1201 ‘‘Eye’’ St., 

Washington, DC 20005; or via phone at 

202/513–7189; or via e-mail at 

James_Gramann@partner.nps.gov. You 

are entitled to a copy of the entire ICR 

package free of charge. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: 

Economic Study of Roadside Bear 

Viewing in Yellowstone National Park. 

Bureau Form Number: None. 

OMB Number: To be requested. 

Expiration Date: To be requested. 

Type of Request: New Collection. 

Description of Need: Yellowstone 

National Park (YNP) now attempts to 

enhance opportunities for roadside bear 

viewing by leaving bears in proximity of 

park roads and devoting resources to 

managing ‘‘bear jams’’ (traffic jams 

created by visitors stopping to view the 

bears) and their associated challenges. 

Three questions arise with respect to 

this policy. First, what economic value 

does the opportunity to view bears near 

roads in YNP have to the visitors 

themselves; second, what are visitors’

perceptions about the current roadside 

bear management policy; and third, 

what impact does the policy to allow 

bears to remain in roadside locations 

have on YNP visitation rates and on 

visitors’ broader views of bears, other 

wildlife, and other natural resources. 

To explore these questions, YNP is 

planning to use a mail-back 

questionnaire designed to systematically 

collect data from visitors in the 

following areas: Visit and individual 

characteristics, importance of different 

natural resources to the trip, 

acceptability of different wildlife 

management practices for roadside bear 

viewing, effects of management policy 

changes on the decision to return to the 

park (including regional economic 

impact) and perspectives on roadside 

bear viewing. The information acquired 

will help determine the effectiveness of 

current bear roadside management 

practices and—if the results so show—

provide a credible basis to seek 

additional funds to manage roadside 

bears. The Bear Management Office in 

YNP has collected data on ‘‘bear jams’’

reported in the park since 2000, 

including the number of personnel 

hours spent by park staff in order to 

keep bear jams safe and visitors 

satisfied. Currently there are more ‘‘bear 

jams’’ than park rangers to manage them 

and several visitors and ‘‘bear 

enthusiasts’’ have expressed some level 

of concern about that situation. 

The results of the survey will help 

define the costs and benefits associated 

with the current roadside bear 

management policy in YNP. In addition, 

it will provide park managers and others 

with important, accurate information 

about the YNP visitor population in 

general, as well as visitor and trip 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 164 / Friday, August 22, 2008 / Notices 49705 

characteristics of those who specifically 

view bears on roadsides in the park. The 

importance of visitation specifically tied 

to roadside bear viewing in the park will 

be examined. The NPS’s goal in 

conducting this survey is to evaluate the 

importance and economic effects of 

roadside bear viewing. The obligation to 

respond is voluntary. 

Automated data collection: This 

information will be collected via mailback surveys no automated data 

collection will take place. 

Description of respondents: Visitors to 

Yellowstone National Park. 

Estimated average number of 

respondents: 1000 (800 respondents and 

200 non-respondents). 

Estimated average number of 

responses: 1000 (800 responses and 200 

non-responses). 

Estimated average burden hours per 

response: 21 minutes per respondent 

and 1 minute per non-respondent. 

Frequency of response: 1 time per 

respondent and non-respondent. 

Estimated annual reporting burden: 

283 hours. 

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. 

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Leonard E. Stowe, 

NPS, Information Collection Clearance 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–19429 Filed 8–21–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–487 (Remand)] 

In the Matter of Certain Agricultural 

Vehicles and Components Thereof; 

Notice of Commission Determination 

To Reverse a Remand Initial 

Determination of the Administrative 

Law Judge That Section 337 Has Been 

Violated; Termination of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to reverse 

the presiding administrative law judge’s 

finding of violation of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act, as amended, on remand and 

has terminated the investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan J. Engler, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3112. The public version of the 

ALJ’s final ID and all other 

nonconfidential documents filed in 

connection with this investigation are or 

will be available for inspection during 

official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 

p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone 202–205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS–ON–LINE) at 

http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on 202–205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on February 13, 2003, based on a 

complaint filed by Deere & Company 

(‘‘Deere’’) of Moline, Illinois. 68 FR 7388 

(February 13, 2003). The complaint, as 

supplemented, alleged violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in 

the importation into the United States, 

sale for importation, and sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain agricultural vehicles and 

components thereof by reason of 

infringement and dilution of U.S. 

Registered Trademarks Nos. 1,254,339; 

1,502,576; 1,503,576, and 91,860. 

Twenty-four respondents were named 

in the Commission’s notice of 

investigation. Most of the respondents 

were terminated from the investigation 

on the basis of consent orders, or found 

in default. The remaining respondents, 

Erntetechnik Franz Becker; Sunova 

Implement Company; Bourdeau Bros., 

Inc. and OK Enterprises (collectively, 

‘‘the Bourdeau respondents’’); 

Fitzpatrick Farms; Stanley Farms; J&T 

Farms; and Co-Ag LLC (collectively, 

‘‘the Fitzpatrick Farms respondents’’); 

and Agrideal participated in the 

investigation. On January 13, 2004, the 

ALJ issued his final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) finding a violation 

of section 337. He also recommended 

the issuance of remedial orders. The 

Bourdeau respondents and Fitzpatrick 

Farms respondents petitioned for review 

of the ID. 

On March 30, 2004, the Commission 

determined not to review the ID. The 

Commission then issued a general 

exclusion order directed to Deere 

European-version self propelled forage 

harvesters, two limited exclusion orders 

directed to Deere European-version 

telehandlers, and various cease and 

desist orders, on May 14, 2004. 

The Bourdeau respondents appealed 

the Commission’s final determination to 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (the ‘‘Federal Circuit’’). 

On March 30, 2006, the Federal Circuit 

vacated and remanded the 

Commission’s final determination as it 

related to Deere European-version selfpropelled forage harvesters 

(‘‘EVSPFHs’’). Bourdeau Bros. v. 

International Trade Commission, 444 

F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

On June 20, 2006, the Commission 

rescinded the general exclusion order 

and certain cease and desist orders, and 

remanded the investigation to the 

presiding ALJ for proceedings consistent 

with the Federal Circuit’s decision in 

Bourdeau. On August 18, 2006, the ALJ 

issued Order No. 55, denying 

complainant’s and respondents’ motions 

for summary determination. The ALJ 

issued his final ID on remand (‘‘Remand 

ID’’) on December 20, 2006. He found 

that Deere did not authorize the sale of 

Deere European-version self-propelled 

forage harvesters in the United States 

and that all or substantially all of the 

Deere self-propelled forage harvesters 

sold in the United States were North 

American versions. In further briefing 

before the Commission, the respondents 

claimed error. 

On February 20, 2007, the 

Commission determined to review in 

part Order No. 55 and the Remand ID. 

The Commission requested briefing by 

the parties (1) On the standard for 

authorization that was applied in Order 

No. 55 and how that standard was 

applied in light of the burden of proof; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES