30-Day Notice of Submission to the Office of Management and Budget; Opportunity for Public Comment, 71157-71158 [07-6051]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 240 / Friday, December 14, 2007 / Notices
wind resources on the leased area and
to establish whether the leased area has
sufficient wind resources for the
commercial production and distribution
of electricity.
Lessee’s rights to conduct the
aforesaid alternative energy activities
are subject to the following stipulations:
Stipulation 1—
Note: Stipulations will be developed on a
case-by-case basis depending upon location,
technology utilized and other relevant
factors, including site-specific findings from
project-specific environmental analyses.
Stipulations will also be developed taking
into account environmental protections
derived from the Alternative Energy
Alternate Use (AEAU) programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
MMS Information Collection
Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202)
208–7744.
Dated: December 7, 2007.
Randall B. Luthi,
Director, Minerals Management Service.
[FR Doc. E7–24252 Filed 12–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
30-Day Notice of Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget;
Opportunity for Public Comment
Department of the Interior,
National Park Service.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Under provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5
CFR part 1320, Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements, the
National Park Service (NPS) invites
public comments on an extension of a
currently approved collection of
information (OMB #1024–0224).
DATES: Public comments on this
Information Collection Request (ICR)
will be accepted on or before January
14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
directly to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior (OMB #1024–
0224), Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, by fax at 202/
395–6566, or by electronic mail at
oira_docket@omb.eop.gov. Please also
send a copy of your comments to Dr.
James Gramann, NPS 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
James Gramann, NPS Social Science
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Dec 13, 2007
Jkt 214001
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.
Comments Received on the 60-Day
Federal Register Notice
The NPS published a 60-Day Notice to
solicit public comments on this ICR in
the Federal Register on March 27, 2007
(Vol. 72, FR 1495). The comment period
closed on May 29, 2007. After
notifications to stakeholders requesting
comments, the NPS received three
public comments as a result of the
publication of this 60-Day Federal
Register Notice. In addition, the NPS
took part in a workshop to discuss the
program.
One commenter thought that enough
information had been collected over the
eight years that the Programmatic
Approval for NPS-Sponsored Public
Surveys has been in existence and that
the program should be discontinued. In
response, it is necessary to point out
that the information collected is unique,
as the needs of parks continue to
change. The NPS conducts a detailed
review of all information collections
submitted under the Programmatic
Approval process to ensure that studies
are not duplicated and that the
information being collected is useful
and relevant to management of NPS
units.
A second comment was received,
which inquired about the nature of the
Programmatic Approval. NPS staff
explained the Programmatic Approval
process, and the commenter had no
further questions.
A final comment was submitted by a
principal investigator who does research
on behalf of the NPS. The researcher
outlined a number of concerns with the
Programmatic Approval process,
including: The length of time a
submission spends in the review
process, the inability of principal
investigators to conduct methodological
work, a lack of acceptance of certain
research approaches, inconsistency in
the review process and a need for
studies to be able to replicate previous
questionnaire designs for comparability,
and a lack of communication between
Social Science Office and the principal
investigators. In response, the Social
Science Program has taken steps to
improve communication with the
research community by sending out email updates, informing investigators of
changes to the OMB process (extended
review times, updated contact
information, etc.). To address the
comments of the researcher further, the
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71157
Social Science Program took part in a
session at the 2007 George Wright
Society Conference to discuss the
Programmatic Approval process with
interested stakeholders, including
principal investigators and park staff.
During this session, representatives of
the Social Science Program explained
the Paperwork Reduction Act and the
history and evolution of the
Programmatic Approval. Stakeholders
were given time to ask questions about
the process and express concerns and
support. Overall, the stakeholders were
appreciative of the program’s ability to
allow research to be done, while they
were concerned with perceived
inconsistencies in reviews and the
timeliness of obtaining approval. Based
on these comments, the Social Science
Program is working to enhance its
capabilities to review and process
submissions and continuing to maintain
good communication with researchers
and NPS field staff.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Programmatic Approval for
NPS-Sponsored Public Survey.
Bureau Form Number(s): None.
OMB Number: 1024–0224.
Expiration Date: 01/31/2008.
Type of Request: Extension for a
currently approved collection.
Description of Need: The NPS needs
information concerning park visitors
and visitor services, potential park
visitors, and residents of communities
near parks to provide park and NPS
managers with usable knowledge for
improving the quality and utility of
agency programs, services, and planning
efforts. Since many of the NPS surveys
are similar in terms of the populations
being surveyed, the types of questions
being asked, and research
methodologies, the NPS proposed and
received clearance from OMB for a
program of review for NPS-sponsored
public surveys (OMB #1024–0224 exp.
8/31/2001; 3-year extension granted,
exp. 9/30/2004).
The program presented an alternative
approach to complying with the
Paperwork Reduction Act. In the eight
years since the NPS received clearance
for the program of expedited review,
371 public surveys have been conducted
in units of the National Park System.
The benefits of this program have been
significant to the NPS, the Department
of the Interior, OMB, NPS cooperators,
and the public. Significant time and cost
savings have been incurred. Expedited
approval was typically granted in 60
days or less from the date the Principal
Investigator first submitted the survey
package for review. This is a significant
reduction over the approximate 6–8
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
71158
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 240 / Friday, December 14, 2007 / Notices
months involved in the standard OMB
review process. From FY 1999 through
FY 2006, the expedited review process
has accounted for a cost savings to the
Federal Government and PIs estimated
at $237,087. The obligation to respond
is voluntary.
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 OMB in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that OMB will be able
to do so.
Automated data collection; At the
present time, there is no automated way
to gather this information, since the
information gathering process involves
asking members of the public for their
opinions on services and facilities that
they used during their park visits,
services and facilities they are likely to
use on future park visits, and opinions
regarding park management. The burden
on individuals is minimized by
rigorously designing public surveys to
maximize the ability of the surveys to
use small samples of individuals to
represent large populations of the
public, and by coordinating the program
of surveys to maximize the ability of
new surveys to build on the findings of
prior surveys.
Frequency of collection: The program
does not identify the frequency of
collection because that number will be
determined by the number of surveys
submitted under the program.
Description of respondents: A sample
of visitors to parks, potential visitors to
parks, and 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
individual survey, depending on the
purpose and design of each information
collection.
Estimated average number of
responses: The program does not
identify the average number of
responses because that number will
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Dec 13, 2007
Jkt 214001
differ in 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 time burden per
respondent: The program 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 information
collection.
Frequency of Response: Most
individual surveys will request only 1
response per respondent.
Estimated total annual reporting
burden: The program identifies the
requested total number of burden hours
annually for all of the surveys to be
conducted under its auspices to be
15,000 burden hours per year.
Dated: December 13, 2007.
Leonard E. Stowe,
NPS, Information Collection Clearance
Officer.
[FR Doc. 07–6051 Filed 12–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–53–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Notice of Meeting
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting for the Denali
National Park and Preserve Aircraft
Overflights Advisory Council within the
Alaska Region.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The National Park Service
(NPS) announces a meeting of the
Denali National Park and Preserve
Aircraft Overflights Advisory Council.
The purpose of this meeting is to
discuss mitigation of impacts from
aircraft overflights at Denali National
Park and Perserve. This meeting is open
to the public and will have time
allocated for public testimony. The
public is welcomed to present written or
oral comments. The meeting will be
recorded and a summary will be
available upon request from the
Superintendent for public inspection
approximately six weeks after each
meeting. The Aircraft Overflights
Advisory Council is authorized to
operate in accordance with the
provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.
DATES: The Denali National Park and
Preserve Aircraft Overflights Advisory
Council meeting will be held on
Thursday, February 7, 2008, from 1 p.m.
to 4 p.m., Alaska Standard Time. The
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
meeting may end early if all business is
completed.
Location: Best Western Lake Lucille
Inn, Frontier Room, 1300 West Lake
Lucille Drive, Wasilla, Alaska 99654.
Telephone: (907) 373–1776.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mike Tranel, Chief of Planning. E-mail:
Mike_Tranel@nps.gov. Telephone: (907)
644–3611 at National Park Service,
Denali Planning, 240 W. 5th Avenue,
Anchorage, AK 99501.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting
location and dates may need to be
changed based on weather or local
circumstances. If the meeting dates and
location are changed, notice of the new
meeting will be announced on local
radio stations and published in local
newspapers.
The agenda for the meeting will
include the following, subject to minor
adjustments:
1. Call to order.
2. Roll Call and Confirmation of
Quorums.
3. Superintendent’s Welcome and
Introductions.
4. Review and Approve Agenda.
5. Status of Membership.
6. Member Reports.
7. Superintendent and NPS Staff
Reports.
8. Setting Priorities for Advisory
Council Work.
9. Discussion of Mitigation Actions
for 2008.
10. Other New Business.
11. Agency and Public Comments.
12. Advisory Council Work Session.
13. Set time and place of next
Advisory Council meeting.
14. Adjournment.
Dated: November 16, 2007.
Marcia Blaszak,
Regional Director, Alaska Region, National
Park Service.
[FR Doc. 07–6052 Filed 12–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–PF–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord,
Yuba County, CA
Bureau of Reclamation,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Availability for the
Final Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement/ (EIR/
EIS).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the Bureau of Reclamation
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71157-71158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6051]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
30-Day Notice of Submission to the Office of Management and
Budget; Opportunity for Public Comment
AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5
CFR part 1320, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, the National
Park Service (NPS) invites public comments on an extension of a
currently approved collection of information (OMB 1024-0224).
DATES: Public comments on this Information Collection Request (ICR)
will be accepted on or before January 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments directly to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior (OMB 1024-0224), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, by fax at 202/395-6566, or by
electronic mail at oira_docket@omb.eop.gov. Please also send a copy of
your comments to Dr. James Gramann, NPS 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. James Gramann, NPS 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.
Comments Received on the 60-Day Federal Register Notice
The NPS published a 60-Day Notice to solicit public comments on
this ICR in the Federal Register on March 27, 2007 (Vol. 72, FR 1495).
The comment period closed on May 29, 2007. After notifications to
stakeholders requesting comments, the NPS received three public
comments as a result of the publication of this 60-Day Federal Register
Notice. In addition, the NPS took part in a workshop to discuss the
program.
One commenter thought that enough information had been collected
over the eight years that the Programmatic Approval for NPS-Sponsored
Public Surveys has been in existence and that the program should be
discontinued. In response, it is necessary to point out that the
information collected is unique, as the needs of parks continue to
change. The NPS conducts a detailed review of all information
collections submitted under the Programmatic Approval process to ensure
that studies are not duplicated and that the information being
collected is useful and relevant to management of NPS units.
A second comment was received, which inquired about the nature of
the Programmatic Approval. NPS staff explained the Programmatic
Approval process, and the commenter had no further questions.
A final comment was submitted by a principal investigator who does
research on behalf of the NPS. The researcher outlined a number of
concerns with the Programmatic Approval process, including: The length
of time a submission spends in the review process, the inability of
principal investigators to conduct methodological work, a lack of
acceptance of certain research approaches, inconsistency in the review
process and a need for studies to be able to replicate previous
questionnaire designs for comparability, and a lack of communication
between Social Science Office and the principal investigators. In
response, the Social Science Program has taken steps to improve
communication with the research community by sending out e-mail
updates, informing investigators of changes to the OMB process
(extended review times, updated contact information, etc.). To address
the comments of the researcher further, the Social Science Program took
part in a session at the 2007 George Wright Society Conference to
discuss the Programmatic Approval process with interested stakeholders,
including principal investigators and park staff. During this session,
representatives of the Social Science Program explained the Paperwork
Reduction Act and the history and evolution of the Programmatic
Approval. Stakeholders were given time to ask questions about the
process and express concerns and support. Overall, the stakeholders
were appreciative of the program's ability to allow research to be
done, while they were concerned with perceived inconsistencies in
reviews and the timeliness of obtaining approval. Based on these
comments, the Social Science Program is working to enhance its
capabilities to review and process submissions and continuing to
maintain good communication with researchers and NPS field staff.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Programmatic Approval for NPS-Sponsored Public Survey.
Bureau Form Number(s): None.
OMB Number: 1024-0224.
Expiration Date: 01/31/2008.
Type of Request: Extension for a currently approved collection.
Description of Need: The NPS needs information concerning park
visitors and visitor services, potential park visitors, and residents
of communities near parks to provide park and NPS managers with usable
knowledge for improving the quality and utility of agency programs,
services, and planning efforts. Since many of the NPS surveys are
similar in terms of the populations being surveyed, the types of
questions being asked, and research methodologies, the NPS proposed and
received clearance from OMB for a program of review for NPS-sponsored
public surveys (OMB 1024-0224 exp. 8/31/2001; 3-year extension
granted, exp. 9/30/2004).
The program presented an alternative approach to complying with the
Paperwork Reduction Act. In the eight years since the NPS received
clearance for the program of expedited review, 371 public surveys have
been conducted in units of the National Park System. The benefits of
this program have been significant to the NPS, the Department of the
Interior, OMB, NPS cooperators, and the public. Significant time and
cost savings have been incurred. Expedited approval was typically
granted in 60 days or less from the date the Principal Investigator
first submitted the survey package for review. This is a significant
reduction over the approximate 6-8
[[Page 71158]]
months involved in the standard OMB review process. From FY 1999
through FY 2006, the expedited review process has accounted for a cost
savings to the Federal Government and PIs estimated at $237,087. The
obligation to respond is voluntary.
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 OMB in your
comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that OMB will be able to do so.
Automated data collection; At the present time, there is no
automated way to gather this information, since the information
gathering process involves asking members of the public for their
opinions on services and facilities that they used during their park
visits, services and facilities they are likely to use on future park
visits, and opinions regarding park management. The burden on
individuals is minimized by rigorously designing public surveys to
maximize the ability of the surveys to use small samples of individuals
to represent large populations of the public, and by coordinating the
program of surveys to maximize the ability of new surveys to build on
the findings of prior surveys.
Frequency of collection: The program does not identify the
frequency of collection because that number will be determined by the
number of surveys submitted under the program.
Description of respondents: A sample of visitors to parks,
potential visitors to parks, and 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 individual survey, depending on the purpose and design of each
information collection.
Estimated average number of responses: The program does not
identify the average number of responses because that number will
differ in 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 time burden per respondent: The program 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 information collection.
Frequency of Response: Most individual surveys will request only 1
response per respondent.
Estimated total annual reporting burden: The program identifies the
requested total number of burden hours annually for all of the surveys
to be conducted under its auspices to be 15,000 burden hours per year.
Dated: December 13, 2007.
Leonard E. Stowe,
NPS, Information Collection Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-6051 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-53-M