Information Collection: Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Development-Public Attitudes, Values, and Implications for Tourism and Recreation; Submitted for OMB Review; Comment Request, 62567-62569 [2015-25971]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 200 / Friday, October 16, 2015 / Notices
In 1947–1951, human remains
representing, at minimum, one
individual were removed from the
Chewapa site in Lee County, MS, by an
unknown individual who gave the
remains to the WPA survey in the area.
The site is dated to the Miller III/Late
Woodland period (circa A.D. 500–1200).
No known individuals were identified.
No associated funerary objects are
present.
In 1948, human remains representing,
at minimum, one individual were
removed from Headquarters Mound in
Lee County, MS, during excavation and
survey. The site dates to the Late
Woodland period (circa A.D. 500–1000).
No known individuals were identified.
No associated funerary objects are
present.
In 1948, human remains representing,
at minimum, three individuals were
removed from Old Rodgers Place
Number One in Lee County, MS, during
a WPA survey. The site is prehistoric
Native American, but an exact date is
unknown. No known individuals were
identified. No associated funerary
objects are present.
In 1949, human remains representing,
at minimum, one individual, were
removed from the Coonewah Creek site
in Lee County, MS, during a site survey.
The site dates to the Miller III/Late
Woodland Period (circa A.D. 500–1200).
No known individuals were identified.
No associated funerary objects are
present.
In 1965, human remains representing,
at minimum, three individuals were
removed from Bear Creek Temple
Mound in Tishomingo County, MS,
during archeological investigations. The
site dates to the Late Mississippian
period (circa A.D. 1400–1600). No
known individuals were identified. The
three associated funerary objects are one
untyped vessel fragment and two deer
bones.
In 1972, human remains representing,
at minimum, six individuals were
removed from Pharr Mounds in Prentiss
County, MS, during excavations of the
village area and four mounds. The site
dates to the Miller I–II phases of the
Middle Woodland period (circa A.D. 0–
500). No known individuals were
identified. The 14 associated funerary
objects are 7 Saltillo Fabric vessel
fragments, 6 Baldwin Plain vessel
fragments, and 1 untyped vessel
fragment.
In 1978, human remains representing,
at minimum, two individuals were
removed from Pharr Mounds in Prentiss
County, MS. The remains were removed
during excavations to investigate the
impact of construction near the site. No
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Oct 15, 2015
Jkt 238001
known individuals were identified. No
associated funerary objects are present.
Cultural affiliation of the human
remains described above could not be
determined due to uncertain burial
provenience, lack of culturally affiliated
historic artifacts, and/or the antiquity of
the remains.
62567
and the United Keetoowah Band of
Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this
notice has been published.
Dated: August 25, 2015.
Melanie O’Brien,
Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
[FR Doc. 2015–26331 Filed 10–15–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–50–P
Determinations Made by Natchez Trace
Parkway
Officials of Natchez Trace Parkway
have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the
human remains described in this notice
are Native American based on
archeological context.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the
human remains described in this notice
represent the physical remains of 60
individuals of Native American
ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A),
the 365 objects described in this notice
are reasonably believed to have been
placed with or near individual human
remains at the time of death or later as
part of the death rite or ceremony. The
National Park Service intends to convey
the associated funerary objects to the
tribes pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 18f–2.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a
relationship of shared group identity
cannot be reasonably traced between the
Native American human remains and
associated funerary objects and any
present-day Indian tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or
Executive Orders, indicate that the land
from which the Native American human
remains and associated funerary objects
were removed is the aboriginal land of
The Chickasaw Nation.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the
disposition of the human remains and
associated funerary objects may be to
The Chickasaw Nation.
Additional Requestors and Disposition
Representatives of any Indian tribe or
Native Hawaiian organization not
identified in this notice that wish to
request transfer of control of these
human remains and associated funerary
objects should submit a written request
with information in support of the
request to Mary Risser, Superintendent,
Natchez Trace Parkway, 2680 Natchez
Trace Parkway, Tupelo, MS 38804–
9715, telephone (662) 680–4005, email
mary_risser@nps.gov, by November 16,
2015. After that date, if no additional
requestors have come forward, transfer
of control of the human remains and
associated funerary objects to The
Chickasaw Nation may proceed.
Natchez Trace Parkway is responsible
for notifying the Alabama-Coushatta
Tribe of Texas, The Chickasaw Nation,
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
[OMB Number 1010—New; MMAA104000]
Information Collection: Atlantic
Offshore Wind Energy Development—
Public Attitudes, Values, and
Implications for Tourism and
Recreation; Submitted for OMB
Review; Comment Request
ACTION:
30-day notice.
To comply with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) is notifying the
public that we have submitted an
information collection request (ICR) to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. The ICR
concerns a new survey on the potential
impacts of Atlantic offshore wind
energy development on coastal tourism
and recreation. This notice provides the
public a second opportunity to
comment on the paperwork burden of
this collection.
DATES: Submit written comments by
November 16, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments on this
ICR to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior at OMB–
OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or OIRA_
submission@omb.eop.gov (email). Please
provide a copy of your comments to the
BOEM Information Collection Clearance
Officer, Kye Mason, Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, 45600 Woodland
Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166 (mail) or
kye.mason@boem.gov (email). Please
reference ICR 1010–New in your
comment and include your name and
return address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kye
Mason, Office of Policy, Regulations,
and Analysis at kye.mason@boem.gov
(email) or (703) 787–1025 (phone). You
may review the ICR online at https://
www.reginfo.gov. Follow the
instructions to review Department of the
Interior collections under review by
OMB.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 1010—New.
Title: Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy
Development: Public Attitudes, Values,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16OCN1.SGM
16OCN1
62568
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 200 / Friday, October 16, 2015 / Notices
and Implications for Tourism and
Recreation.
Abstract: Under the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331–
1356), BOEM is responsible for
conducting OCS lease sales and for
monitoring and mitigating adverse
impacts that might be associated with
offshore energy development. The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
13201 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary
of the Interior to issue leases, easements,
and rights-of-way for offshore renewable
energy activities in Federal waters, such
as offshore wind power development. In
fulfilling these responsibilities, BOEM
must take into consideration the
impacts of OCS activities on
recreational resources. While we have
seen significant interest in offshore
wind power development in recent
years, the absence of baseline data for
specific areas along the Atlantic coast
and the absence of a broader regional
study on tourism and wind power have
made it difficult to identify and analyze
the potential impacts of offshore wind
development on coastal tourism and
recreation. Additional information on
these potential impacts will contribute
to better planning and decision making
for BOEM and other stakeholders,
including other Federal agencies and
State and local governments.
Under a cooperative agreement
awarded by the Department of the
Interior, the University of Delaware will
conduct a survey to assess the impact of
offshore wind power projects on coastal
recreation and tourism from
Massachusetts to South Carolina. The
survey will gauge public perceptions of
offshore wind energy projects and how
development could impact future
recreation and visitation choices. BOEM
will use this information, along with
other economic and environmental
information, in our offshore wind
decision making process and marine
spatial planning efforts. States and
coastal communities will use the
information for local coastal planning
efforts.
The data collection will be done by an
Internet-based survey. We decided to
use an internet-based approach in part
to improve the images respondents are
shown. The internet also allows us to
easily accommodate different skip
patterns and variation in wind projects
shown to respondents.
Frequency: One time.
Description of Respondents:
Individuals.
TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS
Annual
number of
responses
Activity
Average
completion
time per
person
(minutes)
Total annual
burden hours
General Population Sample
Non-respondents & Dropouts ......................................................................................................
Respondents ................................................................................................................................
88
500
2
15
3
125
Total ......................................................................................................................................
588
17
128
Non-respondents & Dropouts ......................................................................................................
Respondents ................................................................................................................................
3,778
1,600
3
15
189
400
Total ......................................................................................................................................
5,378
18
589
Overall Total ..................................................................................................................
5,966
........................
717
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Beachgoer-Only Sample
Estimated Reporting and
Recordkeeping Non-hour Cost Burden:
We have not identified any non-hour
cost burdens for this collection.
Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA
(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an
agency may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Until OMB approves a
collection of information, you are not
obligated to respond.
Comments: We invite comments
concerning this information collection
on:
• Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our burden
estimates;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Oct 15, 2015
Jkt 238001
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on
respondents.
To comply with the public
consultation process, on July 1, 2014,
BOEM published a Federal Register
notice (79 FR 37348) announcing that
we would submit this ICR to OMB for
approval. This notice provided the
required 60-day comment period. We
received comments from one person.
Comment: The location of residence
(primary or secondary) should be given
as a zip code. The zip code then
determines the city, State, and distance
to beach. There is no need for the
respondent to guess what the distance
is.
Response: The distance question has
been deleted.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comment: Offshore wind farms is a
mature technology. A simple google
image search shows a variety of real
photos of wind farms off Denmark and
the UK. Consider the use of real pictures
in place of simulated offshore wind
turbines.
Response: We are particularly
interested in the impact on beach use
and tourism of wind projects at different
distances offshore. It is not feasible to
find pictures of existing projects at
different distances while keeping other
features constant (e.g., number of
turbines, size of turbines, beach
appearance, production quality for
presentation on the Internet, etc.). The
simulations allow us to ‘‘move wind
projects’’ to different distances holding
all other features constant. We also are
interested in specific turbine sizes
(larger than most of the existing ones)
and turbine numbers (also larger than
E:\FR\FM\16OCN1.SGM
16OCN1
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 200 / Friday, October 16, 2015 / Notices
most existing projects). We also want to
use beaches on the Atlantic coast for our
shots. The coastlines in Europe where
turbines exist are very different from the
coastline in the United States.
Comment: The geology of the Atlantic
OCS indicates it is a natural gas
province. For example in the 1970s,
there was a natural gas discovery off the
coast of Atlantic City, New Jersey.
Natural gas production accidents do not
yield oil and tar balls. A better
hypothetical would be beach closures
from hurricanes and nor’easters. The
respondents should be familiar with
these kinds of events.
Response: These hypothetical beach
closure questions have been dropped
altogether.
Comment: There is a question asking
for personal annual income from
working. There are many who have
considerable income without working.
Is it the intent not to capture this
information? They have the time and
the resources to be frequent ocean beach
users.
Response: The income question has
been changed to read: ‘‘Which category
is closest to your personal annual
income before taxes?’’
Comment: The stratum sample sizes
for the survey gives the appearance of
being arbitrary. Consider that New
Jersey & Delaware has a stratum of
population of 8.8 million with a sample
size of 200 participants. That works out
to 22.73 participants per million.
Compare to Pennsylvania 10.4 million
population with 150 participants which
is 14.42 participants per million. So
citizens of Delaware are about 50%
more likely to be selected as compared
to Pennsylvania citizens. For full
disclosure the University of Delaware is
conducting the survey and I am a
resident of Pennsylvania who is also a
property owner in New Jersey. Further
someone in Memphis, TN, is part of the
survey universe, however someone
living in Vermont is excluded. I have
family members who live in Vermont
and frequently visit the Jersey Shore.
Response: Based on this comment and
comments from others we have
redesigned the sampling strategy to
include two separate samples: A
General Population Sample and an
Oversample Sample. The former is a
random draw from all individuals in the
20 states in our region (now including
Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and
Georgia) and the latter is a random draw
from all beachgoers in the same states.
Since both of these samples are
randomly drawn, the representation is
proportional to state populations.
Comment: A good property of selected
stratum is to have homogeneity within
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Oct 15, 2015
Jkt 238001
the stratum (https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Stratified_sampling). The use of
New York state as a stratum fails this
principal. There is Long Island which is
the beach community. New York City a
major city with near by ocean beaches.
Up state New York has ocean beaches
which are more distant. Does not make
sense to put Hampton’s and Buffalo in
the same stratum!
Response: See comment to previous
question. We no longer stratify by state.
Comment: The total sample size for
the participants of 1,400 is reasonable
for obtaining summary insights. The
data collection includes attributes, such
as distance to the beach, education,
number of children, employment status
and income. If this survey has a goal of
obtaining insights at this kind of
granular level then the sample size will
need to be adjusted to meet these goals.
Response: Our budget limits us to the
sample size we are using.
Comment: The statistical survey
design should follow Dillman’s Tailored
Design Method (https://
www.amazon.com/Internet-Phone-MailMixed-Mode-Surveys/dp/1118456149/
ref=dp_ob_title_bk). This is the
approach that is being used by BOEM in
Alaska in the Arctic Communities
Survey.
Response: Our survey follows
Dillman’s method fairly closely. It may
depart in a few instances based on our
own judgment calls, but it is largely
based on Dillman.
Comment: The commenter made the
following recommendations:
• Establish clear goals for the
information collection, which then
drives the design.
• Use Dillman’s Tailored Design
Method.
• Create stratums that are
approximately homogeneous. Suggested
stratums: Near Ocean Beaches (SC coast,
Outer Banks, Tidewater VA, Delmarva,
Jersey shore, Long Island, Rhode Island,
Cape Cod), Metro Areas (Washington,
Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City,
Boston metro areas), Inland (Other parts
of SC, NC, VA, MD, Central PA, NJ, CT,
MA), Distant Areas (OH, WV, TN, KY,
Western PA, Upstate NY, VT, NH).
• Use zip codes for location of
respondents.
• Publish the raw data so it can be
independently analyzed.
Response: We addressed most of the
recommendations in our responses. As
noted, our survey was designed with a
specific economic model in mind—a
travel cost model; we use Dillman’s
approach fairly closely, but not always;
we no longer stratify by geography; and
we will use zip codes for location of the
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62569
respondents. In addition, we plan to
publish the raw data.
Public Availability of Comments:
Before including your address, phone
number, email 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: October 1, 2015.
Deanna Meyer-Pietruszka,
Chief, Office of Policy, Regulations, and
Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2015–25971 Filed 10–15–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–956]
Certain Recombinant Factor VIII
Products; Commission Determination
Not To Review an Initial Determination
Granting an Unopposed Motion To
Amend the Complaint and Notice of
Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 10) granting an unopposed
motion to add as complainants Baxalta,
Inc. of Deerfield, Illinois; Baxalta US
Inc. of Deerfield, Illinois; and Baxalta
GmbH of Glattpark, Switzerland.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lucy Grace D. Noyola, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–
205–3438. Copies of non-confidential
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 (https://www.usitc.gov).
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16OCN1.SGM
16OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 200 (Friday, October 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62567-62569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25971]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
[OMB Number 1010--New; MMAA104000]
Information Collection: Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy
Development--Public Attitudes, Values, and Implications for Tourism and
Recreation; Submitted for OMB Review; Comment Request
ACTION: 30-day notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is notifying the public that
we have submitted an information collection request (ICR) to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR
concerns a new survey on the potential impacts of Atlantic offshore
wind energy development on coastal tourism and recreation. This notice
provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the paperwork
burden of this collection.
DATES: Submit written comments by November 16, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments on this ICR to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov (email). Please provide a copy of your
comments to the BOEM Information Collection Clearance Officer, Kye
Mason, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 45600 Woodland Road,
Sterling, Virginia 20166 (mail) or kye.mason@boem.gov (email). Please
reference ICR 1010-New in your comment and include your name and return
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kye Mason, Office of Policy,
Regulations, and Analysis at kye.mason@boem.gov (email) or (703) 787-
1025 (phone). You may review the ICR online at https://www.reginfo.gov.
Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior
collections under review by OMB.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 1010--New.
Title: Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Development: Public Attitudes,
Values,
[[Page 62568]]
and Implications for Tourism and Recreation.
Abstract: Under the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1331-1356), BOEM is responsible for conducting OCS lease sales
and for monitoring and mitigating adverse impacts that might be
associated with offshore energy development. The Energy Policy Act of
2005 (42 U.S.C. 13201 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to issue leases, easements, and rights-of-way for offshore renewable
energy activities in Federal waters, such as offshore wind power
development. In fulfilling these responsibilities, BOEM must take into
consideration the impacts of OCS activities on recreational resources.
While we have seen significant interest in offshore wind power
development in recent years, the absence of baseline data for specific
areas along the Atlantic coast and the absence of a broader regional
study on tourism and wind power have made it difficult to identify and
analyze the potential impacts of offshore wind development on coastal
tourism and recreation. Additional information on these potential
impacts will contribute to better planning and decision making for BOEM
and other stakeholders, including other Federal agencies and State and
local governments.
Under a cooperative agreement awarded by the Department of the
Interior, the University of Delaware will conduct a survey to assess
the impact of offshore wind power projects on coastal recreation and
tourism from Massachusetts to South Carolina. The survey will gauge
public perceptions of offshore wind energy projects and how development
could impact future recreation and visitation choices. BOEM will use
this information, along with other economic and environmental
information, in our offshore wind decision making process and marine
spatial planning efforts. States and coastal communities will use the
information for local coastal planning efforts.
The data collection will be done by an Internet-based survey. We
decided to use an internet-based approach in part to improve the images
respondents are shown. The internet also allows us to easily
accommodate different skip patterns and variation in wind projects
shown to respondents.
Frequency: One time.
Description of Respondents: Individuals.
Total Annual Burden Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
completion
Activity Annual number time per Total annual
of responses person burden hours
(minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Population Sample
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-respondents & Dropouts...................................... 88 2 3
Respondents..................................................... 500 15 125
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 588 17 128
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beachgoer-Only Sample
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-respondents & Dropouts...................................... 3,778 3 189
Respondents..................................................... 1,600 15 400
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 5,378 18 589
-----------------------------------------------
Overall Total........................................... 5,966 .............. 717
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Non-hour Cost Burden: We have
not identified any non-hour cost burdens for this collection.
Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)
provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated
to respond.
Comments: We invite comments concerning this information collection
on:
Whether or not the collection of information is necessary,
including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
The accuracy of our burden estimates;
Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Ways to minimize the burden on respondents.
To comply with the public consultation process, on July 1, 2014,
BOEM published a Federal Register notice (79 FR 37348) announcing that
we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. This notice provided the
required 60-day comment period. We received comments from one person.
Comment: The location of residence (primary or secondary) should be
given as a zip code. The zip code then determines the city, State, and
distance to beach. There is no need for the respondent to guess what
the distance is.
Response: The distance question has been deleted.
Comment: Offshore wind farms is a mature technology. A simple
google image search shows a variety of real photos of wind farms off
Denmark and the UK. Consider the use of real pictures in place of
simulated offshore wind turbines.
Response: We are particularly interested in the impact on beach use
and tourism of wind projects at different distances offshore. It is not
feasible to find pictures of existing projects at different distances
while keeping other features constant (e.g., number of turbines, size
of turbines, beach appearance, production quality for presentation on
the Internet, etc.). The simulations allow us to ``move wind projects''
to different distances holding all other features constant. We also are
interested in specific turbine sizes (larger than most of the existing
ones) and turbine numbers (also larger than
[[Page 62569]]
most existing projects). We also want to use beaches on the Atlantic
coast for our shots. The coastlines in Europe where turbines exist are
very different from the coastline in the United States.
Comment: The geology of the Atlantic OCS indicates it is a natural
gas province. For example in the 1970s, there was a natural gas
discovery off the coast of Atlantic City, New Jersey. Natural gas
production accidents do not yield oil and tar balls. A better
hypothetical would be beach closures from hurricanes and nor'easters.
The respondents should be familiar with these kinds of events.
Response: These hypothetical beach closure questions have been
dropped altogether.
Comment: There is a question asking for personal annual income from
working. There are many who have considerable income without working.
Is it the intent not to capture this information? They have the time
and the resources to be frequent ocean beach users.
Response: The income question has been changed to read: ``Which
category is closest to your personal annual income before taxes?''
Comment: The stratum sample sizes for the survey gives the
appearance of being arbitrary. Consider that New Jersey & Delaware has
a stratum of population of 8.8 million with a sample size of 200
participants. That works out to 22.73 participants per million. Compare
to Pennsylvania 10.4 million population with 150 participants which is
14.42 participants per million. So citizens of Delaware are about 50%
more likely to be selected as compared to Pennsylvania citizens. For
full disclosure the University of Delaware is conducting the survey and
I am a resident of Pennsylvania who is also a property owner in New
Jersey. Further someone in Memphis, TN, is part of the survey universe,
however someone living in Vermont is excluded. I have family members
who live in Vermont and frequently visit the Jersey Shore.
Response: Based on this comment and comments from others we have
redesigned the sampling strategy to include two separate samples: A
General Population Sample and an Oversample Sample. The former is a
random draw from all individuals in the 20 states in our region (now
including Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Georgia) and the latter is
a random draw from all beachgoers in the same states. Since both of
these samples are randomly drawn, the representation is proportional to
state populations.
Comment: A good property of selected stratum is to have homogeneity
within the stratum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratified_sampling).
The use of New York state as a stratum fails this principal. There is
Long Island which is the beach community. New York City a major city
with near by ocean beaches. Up state New York has ocean beaches which
are more distant. Does not make sense to put Hampton's and Buffalo in
the same stratum!
Response: See comment to previous question. We no longer stratify
by state.
Comment: The total sample size for the participants of 1,400 is
reasonable for obtaining summary insights. The data collection includes
attributes, such as distance to the beach, education, number of
children, employment status and income. If this survey has a goal of
obtaining insights at this kind of granular level then the sample size
will need to be adjusted to meet these goals.
Response: Our budget limits us to the sample size we are using.
Comment: The statistical survey design should follow Dillman's
Tailored Design Method (https://www.amazon.com/Internet-Phone-Mail-Mixed-Mode-Surveys/dp/1118456149/ref=dp_ob_title_bk). This is the
approach that is being used by BOEM in Alaska in the Arctic Communities
Survey.
Response: Our survey follows Dillman's method fairly closely. It
may depart in a few instances based on our own judgment calls, but it
is largely based on Dillman.
Comment: The commenter made the following recommendations:
Establish clear goals for the information collection,
which then drives the design.
Use Dillman's Tailored Design Method.
Create stratums that are approximately homogeneous.
Suggested stratums: Near Ocean Beaches (SC coast, Outer Banks,
Tidewater VA, Delmarva, Jersey shore, Long Island, Rhode Island, Cape
Cod), Metro Areas (Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City,
Boston metro areas), Inland (Other parts of SC, NC, VA, MD, Central PA,
NJ, CT, MA), Distant Areas (OH, WV, TN, KY, Western PA, Upstate NY, VT,
NH).
Use zip codes for location of respondents.
Publish the raw data so it can be independently analyzed.
Response: We addressed most of the recommendations in our
responses. As noted, our survey was designed with a specific economic
model in mind--a travel cost model; we use Dillman's approach fairly
closely, but not always; we no longer stratify by geography; and we
will use zip codes for location of the respondents. In addition, we
plan to publish the raw data.
Public Availability of Comments: Before including your address,
phone number, email 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: October 1, 2015.
Deanna Meyer-Pietruszka,
Chief, Office of Policy, Regulations, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2015-25971 Filed 10-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
