Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Notices 71377 

the Commission’s Web site, 

www.usccr.gov, or to contact the 

Western Regional Office at the above 

email or street address. 

The meeting will be conducted 

pursuant to the provisions of the rules 

and regulations of the Commission and 

FACA. 

Dated in November 25, 2014. 

David Mussatt, 

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28276 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Census Bureau 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; 2015 National 

Content Test 

AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)). 

DATES: To ensure consideration, written 

comments must be submitted on or 

before February 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 

14th and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at jjessup@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument(s) and instructions should 

be directed to Erin Love, Census Bureau, 

HQ–3H154E, Washington, DC 20233; 

(301) 763–2034 (or via email at 

erin.s.love@census.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The 2015 National Content Test (NCT) 

is part of the research and development 

cycle leading up to the re-engineered 

2020 Census. The 2015 NCT will help 

the Census Bureau achieve one of its 

Strategic Goals—developing a census 

that is cost-effective, improves coverage, 

and reduces operational risk. 

The first objective of this test is to 

evaluate and compare different census 

content, including race and Hispanic 

origin, relationship, and withinhousehold coverage. This will be the 

primary mid-decade opportunity to 

compare different content strategies 

prior to making final decisions about the 

content in the 2020 Census. The test 

will include a reinterview to further 

assess the accuracy and reliability of the 

question alternatives for race, origin, 

and within-household coverage. 

The second objective is to test 

different contact strategies for 

optimizing self-response. This includes 

nine different approaches to 

encouraging households to respond and, 

specifically, to respond using the less 

costly and more efficient Internet 

response option. These approaches 

include altering the timing of the first 

reminder, use of email as a reminder, 

altering the timing for sending the mail 

questionnaire, use of a third reminder, 

and sending a letter in place of a paper 

questionnaire to non-respondents. 

The third objective is to test different 

options for offering non-English 

materials. The goal is to provide 

language support for respondents with 

limited English proficiency. Options 

being explored include online Spanish 

questionnaires, dual-language English 

and Spanish paper questionnaires and 

letters, and additional questionnaire 

options and support in non-English 

languages. 

Regarding the first objective, the 

classification of racial and ethnic 

responses to the decennial census by the 

Census Bureau adheres to the U.S. 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) October 30, 1997 ‘‘Revisions to 

the Standards for the Classification of 

Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity’’ 

(see www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_

1997standards). There are five 

minimum categories for data on race: 

‘‘White,’’ ‘‘Black or African American,’’ 

‘‘American Indian or Alaska Native,’’ 

‘‘Asian,’’ and ‘‘Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander.’’ There are two 

minimum categories for data on 

ethnicity: ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ and 

‘‘Not Hispanic or Latino.’’ The OMB 

standards advise that respondents shall 

be offered the option of selecting one or 

more racial designations. The OMB 

standards also advise that race and 

ethnicity are two distinct concepts; 

therefore, Hispanics or Latinos may be 

any race. 

The minimum categories for data on 

race and ethnicity for Federal statistics, 

program administrative reporting, and 

civil rights compliance reporting are 

defined by OMB as follows: 

• American Indian or Alaska Native— 

A person having origins in any of the 

original peoples of North and South 

America (including Central America), 

and who maintains tribal affiliation or 

community attachment. 

• Asian—A person having origins in 

any of the original peoples of the Far 

East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian 

subcontinent including, for example, 

Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, 

Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine 

Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. 

• Black or African American—A 

person having origins in any of the 

black racial groups of Africa. Terms 

such as ‘‘Haitian’’ or ‘‘Negro’’ can be 

used in addition to ‘‘Black or African 

American.’’ 

• Hispanic or Latino—A person of 

Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or 

Central American, or other Spanish 

culture or origin, regardless of race. The 

term, ‘‘Spanish origin,’’ can be used in 

addition to ‘‘Hispanic or Latino.’’ 

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander—A person having origins in 

any of the original peoples of Hawaii, 

Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. 

• White—A person having origins in 

any of the original peoples of Europe, 

the Middle East, or North Africa. 

The 1997 OMB standards state the 

minimum categories that must be used 

to collect and present federal data on 

race and ethnicity. Additionally, the 

1997 OMB standards permit the 

collection of more detailed information 

on population groups, provided that any 

additional groups can be aggregated into 

the minimum standard set of categories. 

Currently, the Census Bureau collects 

additional detailed information on 

Hispanic or Latino groups, American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribes, Asian 

groups, and Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander groups. 

For example, responses to the race 

question such as ‘‘Navajo Nation,’’ 

‘‘Doyon,’’ and ‘‘Mayan’’ are collected 

and tabulated in Census Bureau 

censuses and surveys, and can be 

aggregated into the total American 

Indian or Alaska Native population. 

Detailed responses to the race question 

such as ‘‘Chinese,’’ ‘‘Asian Indian,’’ and 

‘‘Vietnamese’’ are collected and 

tabulated, and can be aggregated into 

the total Asian population. Responses to 

the ethnicity question such as 

‘‘Mexican,’’ ‘‘Puerto Rican,’’ and 

‘‘Cuban’’ are collected and tabulated in 

Census Bureau censuses and surveys, 

and can be aggregated into the total 

Hispanic or Latino population. 

Responses to the race question such as 

‘‘Native Hawaiian,’’ ‘‘Chamorro,’’ or 

‘‘Fijian’’ are collected and tabulated, 

and can be aggregated into the total 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
71378 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Notices 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander population. 

The 2015 NCT will test ways to 

collect and tabulate detailed 

information for all groups, including 

data for White groups, such as German, 

Irish, and Lebanese, and data for Black 

groups, such as African American, 

Jamaican, and Nigerian, which have not 

been tabulated previously from the 

question on race. Responses to the race 

question such as ‘‘African American,’’ 

‘‘Jamaican,’’ or ‘‘Nigerian’’ will be 

collected and tabulated, and can be 

aggregated to the total Black or African 

American population. Responses to the 

race question such as ‘‘German,’’ 

‘‘Irish,’’ or ‘‘Lebanese’’ will be collected 

and tabulated, and can be aggregated 

into the total White population. 

The 2015 NCT will also test a separate 

‘‘Middle Eastern or North African’’ 

category and the collection of detailed 

groups such as ‘‘Lebanese,’’ ‘‘Egyptian,’’ 

and ‘‘Iranian.’’ Following the current 

OMB standards, Middle Eastern and 

North African responses are classified as 

‘‘White.’’ 

The results of the 2015 NCT will 

guide future collection and tabulation of 

detailed information for all race and 

ethnicity groups. 

Plans for the 2020 Census call for the 

use of less costly and more efficient 

web-based response options to collect 

information, as opposed to a previous 

predominant reliance on paper-based 

questionnaires. One benefit of the 

online response mode is that it allows 

for more functionality and greater 

flexibility in designing questions 

compared to paper, which is 

constrained by space availability. With 

the advantage of new technology, the 

2015 National Content Test will utilize 

web-based technology, such as internet, 

smart phone, tablet, and telephone to 

improve question designs and optimize 

reporting of detailed racial and ethnic 

groups (e.g., Samoan, Iranian, Blackfeet 

Tribe, Filipino, Jamaican, Puerto Rican, 

Irish, etc.). 

The web-based designs provide much 

more utility and flexibility for using 

detailed checkboxes and write-in spaces 

to elicit and collect data for detailed 

groups than traditional paper 

questionnaires, and will help collect 

data for both the broader OMB 

categories, as well as detailed responses 

across all groups. 

Components of the Test 

A. Race and Origin Content 

The Census Bureau conducted an 

extensive research undertaking as part 

of the 2010 Census—the 2010 Census 

Race and Hispanic Origin Alternative 

Questionnaire Experiment (AQE) (for 

details, see www.census.gov/

2010census/news/press-kits/aqe/

aqe.html). The 2010 AQE examined 

alternative strategies for improving the 

collection of data on a race and 

Hispanic origin, with four goals in 

mind: 

1. Increasing reporting in the standard 

race and ethnic categories as defined by 

the U.S. Office of Management and 

Budget; 

2. Decreasing item non-response for 

these questions; 

3. Increasing the accuracy and 

reliability of the results for this 

question; and 

4. Eliciting detailed responses for all 

racial and ethnic communities (e.g., 

Chinese, Mexican, Jamaican, etc.). 

The results of the AQE supported all 

of these objectives. Additionally, many 

individuals across communities liked 

the combined question approach. They 

believed it presented equity to the 

different categories. Some of the 

findings from this research include: 

• Combining race and ethnicity into 

one question did not change the 

proportion of people who reported as 

Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, American 

Indians and Alaska Natives, or Native 

Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders. 

• The combined question yielded 

higher response rates. 

• The combined question increased 

reporting of detailed responses for most 

groups, but decreased reporting for 

others. 

• The combined question better 

reflected self-identity. 

The successful strategies from the 

AQE research have been employed in 

the design of the Census Bureau’s middecade research. Four key dimensions 

of the questions on race and Hispanic 

origin are being tested in the 2015 NCT. 

These include question format, response 

categories, wording of the instructions, 

and question terminology. 

Question Format 

The 2015 NCT will evaluate the use 

of two alternative question format 

approaches for collecting data on race 

and ethnicity. One approach uses two 

separate questions: the first about 

Hispanic origin and the second about 

race (‘‘separate questions’’). The other 

approach combines the two items into 

one question about race and origin 

(‘‘combined question’’). The 2015 middecade research will test the approaches 

with new data collection methods, 

including internet, telephone, and inperson response. 

1. Separate race and origin questions: 

This is a modified version of the race 

and Hispanic origin format used in the 

2010 Census. Updates since the 2010 

Census include added write-in spaces 

and examples for the ‘‘White’’ and 

‘‘Black or African Am.’’ response 

categories, removal of the term ‘‘Negro,’’ 

and an instruction to select one or more 

boxes in the Hispanic origin question. 

2. Combined question with 

checkboxes and write-ins on same 

screen: This is a modified version of the 

combined question approaches found to 

be successful in the 2010 AQE. 

Checkboxes are provided for the U.S. 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) standard categories (per the 1997 

Standards for the Classification of 

Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity) 

with a corresponding write-in space for 

each checkbox category. In this version, 

all write-in spaces are visible at all 

times. Each response category contains 

six example origins, which represent the 

diversity of the geographic definitions of 

the OMB category. For instance, the 

‘‘Asian’’ category examples of Chinese, 

Filipino, Asian Indian, Vietnamese, 

Korean, and Japanese represent the six 

largest detailed Asian groups in the 

United States, reflecting OMB’s 

definition of Asian (‘‘A person having 

origins in any of the original peoples of 

the Far East, Southeast Asia, and the 

Indian subcontinent.’’). Respondents do 

not have to select an OMB checkbox, 

but may enter a detailed response in the 

write-in space without checking a 

category. 

a. Combined question with 

checkboxes and write-ins on separate 

screens (Internet-only): In this version, 

the detailed origin groups are solicited 

on subsequent screens after the OMB 

response categories have been selected. 

On the first screen, the OMB checkbox 

categories are shown along with their 

six representative example groups. Once 

the OMB categories have been selected, 

one at a time, subsequent screens solicit 

further detail for each category that was 

chosen (e.g., Asian), using a write-in 

space to collect the detailed groups (e.g., 

Korean and Japanese). The intent is to 

separate mouse click tasks (checkbox 

categories) and typing tasks (write-ins) 

in an attempt to elicit responses that are 

more detailed. The same version was 

used as one of three race and origin 

Internet panels in the 2014 Census Test. 

3. Combined question branching with 

detailed checkbox screens (Internetonly): This version is an alternative 

method of soliciting detailed origin 

groups using separate screens, detailed 

checkboxes, and write-in spaces. On the 

first screen, the OMB checkbox 

categories are shown along with their 

six representative example groups. Once 

the OMB categories have been selected, 

one at a time, subsequent screens solicit 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Notices 71379 

further detail for each category, this 

time using a series of additional 

checkboxes for the six largest detailed 

groups (e.g., Chinese, Filipino, Asian, 

Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, and 

Japanese) with a write-in space also 

provided to collect additional groups. 

Race Response Categories 

The 2015 National Content Test will 

evaluate the use of the Middle Eastern 

or North African (MENA) category in 

the race question. There will be two 

treatments for testing this dimension: 

1. Use of MENA category: This 

treatment tests the addition of a MENA 

checkbox category to the race question. 

The MENA category is placed within 

the current category lineup, based on 

estimates of population size, between 

the categories for Native Hawaiians and 

Other Pacific Islanders and ‘‘Some other 

race.’’ With the addition of this new 

category, the ‘‘White’’ example groups 

are revised. The Middle Eastern and 

North African examples of ‘‘Lebanese’’ 

and ‘‘Egyptian’’ are replaced with the 

European examples of ‘‘Polish’’ and of 

‘‘French.’’ The MENA checkbox 

category will have the examples of 

‘‘Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Syrian, 

Moroccan, Algerian, etc.’’ All other 

checkbox categories and write-in spaces 

remain the same. 

2. No separate MENA category: This 

treatment tests approaches without a 

separate MENA checkbox category, and 

represents the current OMB definition 

of White (‘‘A person having origins in 

any of the original peoples of Europe, 

the Middle East, or North Africa.’’). Here 

we will provide examples of Middle 

Eastern and North African origins 

(‘‘Lebanese’’ and ‘‘Egyptian’’) with 

European origin groups as part of the 

‘‘White’’ racial category. 

Wording of the Instructions 

1. ‘‘Mark [X] one or more boxes’’: The 

current paper version of the instructions 

on paper states, ‘‘Mark [X] one or more 

boxes AND print your specific 

origin(s).’’ 

2. ‘‘Mark all that apply/You may mark 

multiple groups’’: In this version, the 

instruction is modified to ‘‘Mark all 

boxes that apply AND print the specific 

[origin(s)/ethnicities] in the spaces 

below. Note, you may report more than 

one group.’’ Recent qualitative focus 

groups and cognitive research (e.g., 2010 

AQE research; 2013 Census Test 

research) found that respondents 

frequently overlook the instruction to 

‘‘Mark’’ [X] one or more boxes. The 

research found that some respondents 

may have stopped reading the 

instruction after noticing the visual cue 

[X] and proceeded directly to do just 

that—mark a box—overlooking the 

remainder of the instruction. The new 

instruction (‘‘Mark all boxes that 

apply’’) is an attempt to improve the 

clarity of the question and make it more 

apparent that more than one group may 

be selected. 

Question Terms 

1. ‘‘Origin’’ term: The current version 

of the race and Hispanic origin 

questions use the terms ‘‘race’’ and/or 

‘‘origin’’ to describe the concepts and 

groups in the question stem, 

instructions, and examples. For 

instance, in the combined race and 

Hispanic origin approach, the question 

stem is ‘‘What is your race or origin?’’ 

In addition, prior to each write-in field, 

respondents are instructed to ‘‘Print 

specific origin(s), for example . . .’’ 

2–3. Alternative terms: Recent 

qualitative focus groups and qualitative 

research (e.g., 2010 AQE research; 2013 

Census Test research; cognitive pretesting for 2016 American Community 

Survey Content Test) found that the 

term ‘‘origin’’ is confusing or misleading 

to many respondents, who may think it 

is asking about where they immigrated 

from or where they were born. Two 

alternative options are being explored in 

cognitive testing and usability research. 

One approach tests the use of the term 

‘‘ethnicities’’ along with ‘‘race’’ (e.g., 

‘‘Print the specific races(s) and/or 

ethnicities . . .’’). The other approach 

tests the removal of the terms altogether 

from the question stem, instructions, 

and examples. Instead, a general 

approach asks, ‘‘Which categories 

describe this person?’’ The exact 

terminology to be used for the 

alternative version is pending cognitive 

testing and usability results later this 

year, which will inform the wording to 

be used in the 2015 NCT. 

B. Relationship Content 

Two versions of the relationship 

question will be tested. Both versions 

are the same as those used in a splitsample in the 2014 Census Test, with no 

changes. The new relationship 

categories have also been tested in other 

Census Bureau surveys including the 

American Housing Survey, American 

Community Survey, and the Survey of 

Income and Program Participation 

(currently used in production). 

Although research to date has been 

informative, leading to the development 

of the revised relationship question, 

additional quantitative testing is 

needed. Since the incidence of some 

household relationships—such as samesex couples—is relatively low in the 

general population, the revised question 

needs to be tested with large, 

representative samples prior to 

routinely including them in the 2020 

Census questionnaire. 

The first version uses the 2010 Census 

relationship question response options, 

but in a new order, starting with 

‘‘husband or wife’’ and then the 

‘‘unmarried partner’’ category. This 

version also re-introduces the foster 

child category, which was removed 

from the 2010 Census form due to space 

issues. 

The second version includes the same 

basic response options as the 2010 

Census version, but modifies/expands 

the ‘‘husband or wife’’ and ‘‘unmarried 

partner’’ categories to distinguish 

between same-sex and opposite-sex 

relationships. 

C. Coverage Content (Internet Only) 

The 2012 National Census Test 

experimented with several methods to 

improve accurate within-household 

coverage for Internet respondents. One 

benefit of the online response mode is 

that it allows for more functionality and 

greater flexibility in designing questions 

compared to paper, which is 

constrained by space availability. The 

2012 test included a coverage follow-up 

reinterview to evaluate the different 

Internet design options, but some results 

were inconclusive. In the 2015 NCT, 

two designs will be tested to compare 

different approaches for helping 

respondents provide a more accurate 

roster of household residents. 

The first approach is the ‘‘RulesBased’’ approach, and will allow us to 

see whether the presence of a question 

asking the number of people in the 

household along with the residence rule 

instructions helps respondents create an 

accurate roster. This is similar to the 

approach used across all modes in 

Census 2000 and the 2010 Census, 

where the respondent was expected to 

understand our residence rules and 

apply them to their household. This is 

followed by a household-level question 

that probes to determine if any 

additional people not listed originally 

should be included for consideration as 

residents of the household (several 

types of people and living situations are 

shown in a bulleted list). 

The ‘‘Question-Based’’ approach 

allows us to ask guided questions to 

help improve resident information. 

Respondents are not shown the 

residence rule instructions and are only 

asked to create an initial roster of people 

they consider to be living or staying at 

their address on Census Day. This is 

followed by several short householdlevel questions about types of people 

and living situations that might apply to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
71380 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Notices 

someone in the household that was not 

listed originally. 

D. Optimizing Self Response 

The nine proposed contact strategies 

for optimizing self response (OSR) are 

summarized as follows: 

Internet Push (Control): This is the 

standard Internet Push strategy used in 

the most recent series of self response 

tests, including the 2014 Census Test. 

This panel will serve as a control panel 

against which to compare the 

experimental strategies. There will be 

nine treatments as part of the OSR test. 

Internet Push With Early Postcard: 

The motivation for this panel is to study 

the timing of reminders. The hypothesis 

is that sending the first reminder sooner 

(closer to the initial Internet push) 

would provide for a better connection 

between the two mailings, and could 

increase response. A side benefit is that 

this could also reduce the volume of 

later targeted mailings since responses 

may be quicker overall. 

The motivation for the following 

sequence of three panels is based on 

recent American Community Survey 

(ACS) research, which has found 

depressed self response rates among 

certain respondents/areas with lower 

Internet usage. Testing the delivery of 

the paper questionnaires at various 

points in the response process will 

allow us to have complete response 

measures under several scenarios for the 

cost/benefit analysis needed to inform 

2020 Census planning. Although these 

strategies may not make sense for 

everyone in 2020, using a responsive 

design and tailoring the contact strategy 

for certain geographic areas or 

populations may be beneficial. 

• Internet Push With Early 

Questionnaire: questionnaire sent at 

third mailing, one week sooner 

• Internet Push With Even Earlier 

Questionnaire: questionnaire sent at 

second mailing, two weeks sooner 

• Internet Choice: questionnaire sent 

at first mailing, providing a choice of 

Internet or paper from the beginning 

Internet Push With Postcard as Third 

Reminder: The motivation for this panel 

is to further encourage self response, 

after the questionnaire mailing, prior to 

nonresponse follow-up. Numerous 

survey research studies have concluded 

that, while there is a point of 

diminishing returns, further reminders 

will inevitably increase self response 

rates. 

Internet Push Postcard: The 

motivation for this panel is to study the 

impact of sending a postcard at the first 

mailing instead of a letter. There are two 

potential benefits. First is the possible 

cost savings of printing and mailing a 

postcard compared to the envelope 

package (with letter and instruction 

card). Second is the potential for 

increased self response because reading 

a postcard requires less effort by a 

respondent. In this panel, we send a 

letter at the third contact (sent to nonrespondents only), in place of a 

postcard, to vary the types of contacts 

received. 

Internet Push With Early Postcard and 

Second Letter Instead of Mail 

Questionnaire: The motivation for 

testing an approach in which we do not 

send a mail questionnaire is to address 

the high-level goal of greatly reducing 

paper responses in the 2020 Census. By 

testing an approach in which we send 

an Internet push letter in place of a 

paper questionnaire at the fourth 

mailing, we will have a more robust set 

of response measures for informing cost/ 

benefit analyses. 

Internet Push With Postcard and 

Email as 1st Reminder (same time): The 

motivation for this panel is to determine 

if we can take advantage of the email 

addresses in the supplemental contact 

frame maintained by the Center for 

Administrative Records Research and 

Applications. The hypothesis is that by 

sending a postcard and email at the 

same time, we may be able to elicit 

increased response. 

E. Language 

In the two mailings that contain a 

letter for each Optimizing Self response 

strategy, three different methods will be 

used to encourage response. In 

particular, by altering the language 

support provided in the letter, the goal 

is to increase response for respondents 

with limited English proficiency. 

The control panel is similar to the 

2014 Census Test design, in which the 

mailing materials are in English with a 

single Spanish sentence directing 

respondents to the Web site or the 

telephone assistance line. 

One of the goals of language research 

is to maximize the number of nonEnglish speakers that receive the same 

message as English speakers prior to 

going online to respond. Two panels 

provide equality between the English 

and Spanish content in the letter and 

test whether one method is better at 

eliciting Spanish responses. The swimlane design has been used in the past, 

such as with the bilingual questionnaire 

in the 2010 Census. The dual-sided 

letter provides English content on one 

side and Spanish content on the other 

side. In addition, because research has 

shown that Spanish-speaking 

respondents do not always open the 

mailings because they may not know 

that language resource information is 

provided inside, the outgoing envelope 

for both panels will include the census 

test Web site URL and a brief message 

in both languages. 

This test will also explore additional 

options for non-English speakers to 

complete the questionnaires. 

F. Content Reinterview 

A sub-sample of respondents from the 

2015 NCT will be selected for a content 

reinterview, focused on race and origin 

and within-household coverage, with a 

goal of assessing accuracy and reliability 

of the different designs. Reinterviews 

are conducted with a sub-sample of 

respondents, by asking more detailed 

questions on question topics, in order to 

assess the accuracy of the responses. 

II. Method of Collection 

The initial mail-out is planned for late 

August 2015. This contact will explain 

why we are conducting the mandatory 

2015 NCT, assure respondents that their 

answers are confidential, and inform 

them of the measures we take to keep 

their personal information secure. The 

second mail-out is considered a 

reminder and is sent to all housing 

units. All contacts after the second 

mailing are sent to non-respondents 

only. 

Respondents are encouraged to 

respond to the 2015 NCT by Internet but 

may also be able to provide information 

by phone. Many will also receive a 

paper questionnaire at some point in the 

mail-out strategy. The test will be 

conducted nationally in all 50 U.S. 

states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: None. 

Form Number: TBD. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

1.3 million households. (1.2 million 

initial response + 100,000 reinterview). 

Estimated Time per Response: 10 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 216,667. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: There is 

no cost to respondents except for their 

time to respond. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. 141 

and 193. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Notices 71381 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: November 25, 2014. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28247 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[B–85–2014] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 116—Port Arthur, 

Texas; Expansion of Subzone 116B; 

Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA, 

Inc.; Port Arthur and Jefferson County, 

Texas 

An application has been submitted to 

the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by 

the Foreign-Trade Zone of Southeast 

Texas, Inc., grantee of FTZ 116, 

requesting an expansion of Subzone 

116B on behalf of Total Petrochemicals 

& Refining USA, Inc. The application 

was submitted pursuant to the 

provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones 

Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), 

and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 

CFR part 400). It was formally docketed 

on November 25, 2014. 

Subzone 116B was approved on 

September 18, 1995 (Board Order 772, 

60 FR 49564, 9/26/95). The subzone 

(1,457 acres) currently consists of four 

sites located in Port Arthur and 

Jefferson County: Site 1 (1,244 acres)— 

main refinery complex located along the 

Neches River at State Farm to Market 

Highway 366 and 32nd St., Port Arthur; 

Site 2 (19 acres)—West Port Arthur 

Tank Farm located at Roosevelt and 

53rd Streets, Port Arthur; Site 3 (194 

acres)—refinery expansion site, located 

adjacent to the refinery at State Farm to 

Market Hwy 366, Port Arthur; and, Site 

4—Sun Marine Terminal-Nederland 

tank storage facility (leased storage) 

located along the Neches River in 

Nederland. 

The current request would add a 

pipeline that originates from the 

subzone’s leased storage facility at Site 

4 to the main refinery located at Site 1, 

as described in the application. No 

additional authorization for production 

activity has been requested at this time. 

In accordance with the FTZ Board’s 

regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ 

Staff is designated examiner to review 

the application and make 

recommendations to the FTZ Board. 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions shall be 

addressed to the FTZ Board’s Executive 

Secretary at the address below. The 

closing period for their receipt is 

January 12, 2015. Rebuttal comments in 

response to material submitted during 

the foregoing period may be submitted 

during the subsequent 15-day period to 

January 26, 2015. 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 

21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the 

‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the FTZ 

Board’s Web site, which is accessible 

via www.trade.gov/ftz. 

For further information, contact 

Camille Evans at Camille.Evans@

trade.gov or (202) 482–2350. 

Dated: November 25, 2014. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28416 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Domestic and 

International Clients Export Services 

and Customized Forms 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before February 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 

14th and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at JJessup@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Joe Carter, Office of Strategic 

Planning, 1999 Broadway, Suite 2205 

Denver, CO 80220, (303) 844–5656, 

joe.carter@trade.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The International Trade 

Administration’s Global Markets (GM) is 

seeking approval to renew the currently 

approved OMB control number: 0625– 

0143. These collections include all 

client intake, events/activities and 

export success forms. This 

comprehensive information collection 

will cover all aspects of a U.S. 

organization’s life-cycle with GM. 

GM is mandated by Congress to help 

U.S. organizations, particularly small 

and medium-sized organizations, export 

their products and services to global 

markets. As part of its mission, GM 

provides market entry/expansion 

services and trade events to U.S. 

organizations. 

The Domestic and International 

Clients Export Services and Customized 

Forms are needed to collect information 

to enable, but not limited to small and 

medium sized, U.S. organizations to 

efficiently and effectively enhance their 

ability to determine which international 

organizations are most suited for their 

exporting expansion efforts. 

The key to effectively and efficiently 

assist U.S. organizations export is 

identifying and verifying potential 

international buyers of U.S. goods and 

services. The categories of questions are: 

Contact information, organization 

information, organization type, 

agreements and confirmations, 

objectives, products and services, 

exporting experience, marketing, events 

and activities, trade fair/show, certified 

trade missions, trade missions, 

advocacy, environment, and education. 

GM asks only those questions that 

provide the required information to 

assist GM in fulfilling a client’s 

objective for a requested service and/or 

event/activity. 

As GM moves forward, we understand 

the importance and need for strategic 

planning and integration of future 

technology and initiatives that relate to 

GM programs and metrics with the 

types of information collected from 

clients to conduct those programs. 

Additionally, the most important, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES