30 day FRN

rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

57016

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 182 / Monday, September 21, 2015 / Notices

8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m., at the Burns
District BLM Office, 28910 Highway 20
West, in Hines, Oregon. Daily sessions
may end early if all business items are
accomplished ahead of schedule, or go
longer if discussions warrant more time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara
Thissell, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM
Burns District Office, 28910 Highway 20
West, Hines, Oregon 97738, (541) 573–
4519, or email [email protected].
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 1 (800) 877–8339 to contact the
above individual during normal
business hours. The FIRS is available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a
message or question with the above
individual. You will receive a reply
during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
SMAC was initiated August 14, 2001,
pursuant to the Steens Mountain
Cooperative Management and Protection
Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–399). The
SMAC provides representative counsel
and advice to the BLM regarding new
and unique approaches to management
of the land within the bounds of the
Steens Mountain Cooperative
Management and Protection Area,
recommends cooperative programs and
incentives for landscape management
that meet human needs, and advises the
BLM on maintenance and improvement
of the ecological and economic integrity
of the area. Agenda items for the
October 22–23 session include: Updates
from the Designated Federal Official and
the Andrews/Steens Resource Area
Field Manager; discussions regarding
projects for the Steens Mountain
Comprehensive Recreation Plan,
inholder access, and fencing in the No
Livestock Grazing Area; and regular
business items such as approving the
previous meeting’s minutes, member
round-table, and planning the next
meeting’s agenda. Any other matters
that may reasonably come before the
SMAC may also be addressed. A public
comment period is available both days.
Unless otherwise approved by the
SMAC Chair, the public comment
period will last no longer than 30
minutes, and each speaker may address
the SMAC for a maximum of five
minutes. The public is welcome to
attend all sessions, including the field
tour, but must provide personal
transportation.
Rhonda Karges,
Andrews/Steens Resource Area Field
Manager.
[FR Doc. 2015–23704 Filed 9–18–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–33–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:14 Sep 18, 2015

Jkt 235001

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–WASO–NRSS–SSB–19329;
PPWONRADE2, PMP00EI05.YP0000]

Information Collection Request Sent to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for Approval; Glen Canyon
Survey
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

We (National Park Service,
NPS) have sent an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for
review and approval. We summarize the
ICR below and describe the nature of the
collection and the estimated burden and
cost. We may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB Control
Number.
DATES: You must submit comments on
or before October 21, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments and
suggestions on this information
collection to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior at OMB–
OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or OIRA_
[email protected] (email) and
identify your submission as 1024–0270.
Please also send a copy of your
comments to Bret Meldrum, Chief,
Social Science Program, National Park
Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort
Collins, CO 80525–5596 (mail); Bret_
[email protected] (email); or 970–267–
7295 (phone) and Phadrea Ponds,
Information Collection Coordinator,
National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge
Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (mail); or
[email protected] (email). Please
reference Information Collection 1024–
0270 in the subject line.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
John Duffield, University of Montana,
Department of Mathematical Sciences,
Missoula, MT 5981; bioecon@
montana.com (email); or: 406–721–
2265. You may review the ICR online at
http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the
instructions to review Department of the
Interior collections under review by
OMB.
SUMMARY:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract
On September 23, 2013 we published
a 60-day Federal Register Notice (78 FR
58344) asking OMB to approve a pilot
and final survey for a collection of
information to study the economic value
of National Park System resources along
the Colorado River Corridor (which
includes the Glen Canyon Dam and

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Grand Canyon National Park). On
September 18, 2014, we received a
Notice of Action (NOA) from the Office
of Management and Budget approving
the pilot version of the survey. The
survey was pretested using a small
sample to determine the respondents’
reaction to key choice attributes (cost).
The focus of the pretest was on the
understandability and effectiveness of
the conjoint questions in conveying
information, and eliciting consistent,
meaningful responses. The results of the
pretest suggested that the survey and
sampling methods provided the
replication of the Welsh et al. (1995)
study we expected. We were also
satisfied that the pretest results could
provide current information about the
passive use value held by the American
public for resources in Glen and Grand
Canyon along the Colorado River.
The purpose of this ICR is to request
the use of the final version of the survey
instrument that the NPS will use to
collect information from the general
public about their understanding of
National Park System resources along
the Colorado River Corridor. In addition
to providing information to the
Secretary of the Interior, we anticipate
that the data will also update the Welsh
et al. (1995) study that was used in the
1996 Record of Decision which the
Department of the Interior used to
inform its decision on Glen Canyon
Dam operations. We acknowledge that
planning processes related to Glen
Canyon Dam operations will rely on
many sources and providers of
information to evaluate economic
impacts and affected resources. The
primary purpose of this ICR is to obtain
information contemplated by the
National Park Service Organic Act of
1916, Mission and Policy as follows:
Social science research in support of
park planning and management is
mandated in the NPS Management
Policies 2006 (Section 8.11.1, ‘‘Social
Science Studies’’). The NPS pursues a
policy that facilitates social science
studies in support of the NPS mission
to protect resources and enhance the
enjoyment of present and future
generations (National Park Service Act
of 1916, 38 Stat 535, 16 U.S.C. 1, et
seq.). NPS policy mandates that social
science research will be used to provide
an understanding of park visitors, the
non-visiting public, gateway
communities and regions, and human
interactions with park resources. Such
studies are needed to provide a
scientific basis for park planning and
development.
II. Data
OMB Control Number: 1024–0270.

E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM

21SEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 182 / Monday, September 21, 2015 / Notices

rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Title: Glen Canyon Survey.
Type of Request: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Description of Respondents:
Individual Households and general
public.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
Frequency of Collection: One-time.
Estimated Annual Number of
Responses: Total 1,573 (1,503 mail back
surveys and 70 non-response surveys).
Estimated Completion Time per
Response: 30 minutes per mail back
survey and 5 minutes per non response
survey.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 758 hours.
Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden
Cost: There are no non-hour burden
costs associated with this collection.
III. Comments
On September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58344)
we published a 60-day Federal Register
Notice asking OMB to approve a pilot
and final survey for a collection of
information to study the economic value
of the resources of the Colorado River.
The Notice announced that we were
preparing an information collection to
be submitted to OMB for approval. We
received three requests to review the
survey instruments. In response to the
requests, we provided a summary of the
study purpose and design and informed
the requestors that the final versions of
the survey would be available for review
once the request was submitted to OMB.
On July 9, 2014 we published in the
Federal Register (73 FR 38946) a Notice
of our intent to request that OMB
approve the pilot study for this
information collection. In that Notice,
we solicited comments for 30 days,
ending on August 8, 2014. We received
comments from the following
organizations in response to that Notice:
(1) Colorado River Energy Distributors
Assoc. (CREDA); (2) Southern Nevada
Water Authority; (3) Colorado River
Board of California (CRB); (4) Arizona
Department of Water Resources; (5)
Western Area Power Administration; (6)
Irrigation & Electrical Districts
Association Of Arizona; and (7)
American Public Power Association.
In summary, comments received from
the organizations primarily concerned
their overall objections towards the
study and the overall utility of the
collection. However, none of the letters
addressed any specific changes or
editorial corrections that could be made
to the survey or the methodology. The
NPS gave a presentation and addressed
many questions regarding this survey
and its methodology at the August 28,
2014 Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive
Management Work Group (AMWG)

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:14 Sep 18, 2015

Jkt 235001

meeting. The AMWG is a semi-annual
meeting that is attended and
represented by federal and state
government agencies, including the
National Park Service, and other
stakeholders, tribal governments, and
environmental organizations.
Economists from the NPS also provided
updates and addressed additional
questions during two AMWG
stakeholder conference calls (November
13, 2014 and December 16, 2014). A
summary of the comments received
from the following organizations are
included below:
Colorado River Energy Distributors
Assoc. (CREDA)
Comment: This collection is not
necessary and will not have practical
utility and does not clearly meet the
requirements of 5 CFR 1320. Public will
have the opportunity to comment on
actual alternatives in public draft of the
EIS. Survey alternatives do not
accurately portray LTEMP alternatives
therefore study is unnecessary and
misleading. The purpose and intent of
study needs to be clarified otherwise
CREDA believes it is an unwarranted
and unnecessary burden on
respondents. The requested materials
were not available until recently.
Commitment to ‘‘include or summarize
each comment in our request to OMB to
approve this ICR’’ was not met. There
are inaccurate and misleading
references in the Authorizing Statue(s)
information and in Supporting
Document A.
NPS Response: In order to collect
information from the public, we must be
granted approval by the Office of
Management and Budget to do such. In
accordance with, and as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
which is the purpose of 5 CFR 1320.1,
we have submitted the proper
paperwork to OMB to request approval
for this information collection, and were
granted the approval to collect the
information for the pilot study
associated with this collection. We are
again following the proper guidance
provided by OMB to request approval to
collect the requested information. For
the conjoint analysis methodology,
respondents are provided with
information about the resource
outcomes, not the alternatives. This
methodology values individually the
management outcomes, such as the
conditions of river beaches, native fish
populations, and trout populations. The
outcome levels selected for the survey
are set statistically to maximize
estimation efficiency and are intended
to represent the range of potential
impacts. It is then possible to estimate

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

57017

the values of LTEMP alternatives by
setting individual outcome levels to
match those of the respective
alternatives and adding their indicated
values together. The NPS presented and
addressed these questions regarding the
survey methodology at the August 28,
2014 AMWG meeting. The NPS also
provided updates and addressed
questions during the November 13, 2014
and December 16, 2014 AMWG
stakeholder calls.
Southern Nevada Water Authority
Comment: The survey fails to
adequately represent resource
interactions, dam operations, and
associated management actions. The
survey overemphasizes recreational
values and underemphasizes values of
other stakeholders. Results will
misrepresent the value of important
resources and provide false valuation of
contemplated actions. Request that
AMWG be given opportunity to discuss
the survey’s details at their August 2014
meeting.
NPS Response: For the conjoint
analysis methodology, respondents are
provided with information about the
resource outcomes, not the alternatives.
This methodology values individually
the management outcomes such as the
conditions of river beaches, native fish
populations, and trout populations. The
outcome levels selected for the survey
are set statistically to maximize
estimation efficiency and are intended
to represent the range of potential
impacts. It is then possible to estimate
the values of LTEMP alternatives by
setting individual outcome levels to
match those of the respective
alternatives and adding their indicated
values together. The NPS presented and
addressed these questions regarding the
survey methodology at the August 28,
2014 AMWG meeting. The NPS also
provided updates and addressed
questions during the November 13, 2014
and December 16, 2014 AMWG
stakeholder calls.
Colorado River Board of California
(CRB)
Comment: The FRN lacks specific
information that would aid the public in
more fully understanding the purpose
and need of the study. Unclear how any
data and/or information collected via
the ICR survey instruments would be
used by the NPS. The CRB suggests that
the appropriate venues for those
activities should be through the AMWG
and with the input of the LTEMP EIS
co-lead agencies (i.e., Reclamation and
NPS) and cooperating agencies. It is not
clear that any information collected by
the NPS would contribute to the overall

E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM

21SEN1

57018

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 182 / Monday, September 21, 2015 / Notices

rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

analysis of the six detailed and complex
alternatives being evaluated through the
LTEMP EIS process. The CRB suggests
that both survey instruments
significantly oversimplify and/or
understate the current state of scientific
knowledge and uncertainty. As
presently structured, the survey is
incomplete and potentially misleading.
The CRB suggests that the most
meaningful and appropriate venue in
which to solicit public feedback is
through the LTEMP EIS process.
NPS Response: The current 30-day
FRN attempts to provide the clarity
requested. The title has been changed to
‘‘Glen Canyon Passive Use Survey.’’ For
the conjoint analysis methodology,
respondents are provided with
information about the resource
outcomes, not the alternatives. This
methodology values individually the
management outcomes such as the
conditions of river beaches, native fish
populations, and trout populations. The
outcome levels selected for the survey
are set statistically to maximize
estimation efficiency and are intended
to represent the range of potential
impacts. It is then possible to estimate
the values of LTEMP alternatives by
setting individual outcome levels to
match those of the respective
alternatives and adding their indicated
values together. The NPS presented and
addressed questions regarding the
survey methodology at the August 28,
2014 AMWG meeting. The NPS also
provided updates and addressed
questions during the November 13, 2014
and December 16, 2014 AMWG
stakeholder calls.
Arizona Department of Water Resources
Comment: Alternatives presented in
the survey do not represent the range of
alternatives in the EIS and would result
in little or no practical utility. It would
be more appropriate for the pubic to
comment on actual alternatives in the
public draft of the LTEMP EIS.
NPS Response: For the conjoint
analysis methodology, respondents are
provided with information about the
resource outcomes, not the alternatives.
This methodology values individually
the management outcomes such as the
conditions of river beaches, native fish
populations, and trout populations. The
outcome levels selected for the survey
are set statistically to maximize
estimation efficiency and are intended
to represent the range of potential
impacts. It is then possible to estimate
the values of LTEMP alternatives by
setting individual outcome levels to
match those of the respective
alternatives and adding their indicated
values together. The NPS presented and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:14 Sep 18, 2015

Jkt 235001

addressed questions regarding the
survey methodology at the August 28,
2014 AMWG meeting. The NPS also
provided updates and addressed
questions during the November 13, 2014
and December 16, 2014 AMWG
stakeholder calls.
Western Area Power Administration
Comment: The FRN Notice is
insufficient to discern utility of the
information collection and therefore
recommends that NPS clarify scope and
purpose of information collection to
allow parties to better understand the
utility. The title of information
collection is misleading. WAPA
requested that NPS share the survey
document and proposed that NPS
integrate the collection of information
through the survey, economic analysis,
and any analysis that is being conducted
to inform the Secretary on alternative
management options.
NPS Response: The current 30-day
FRN attempts to provide the clarity
requested. The title has been changed to
‘‘Glen Canyon Passive Use Survey.’’ All
documents associated with this
submission are posted in Reginfo.gov as
required by the Office of Management
and Budget. The request for additional
information in the 60-day Federal
Register Notice provided three separate
addresses—to which this letter was
addressed and received. The Web site
for Reginfo.gov is displayed, as
required, in the 30-day Federal Register
Notice of July 9, 2014 (79 FR 38946) for
this request. A second 60-day Notice
was not required for the final survey
because the request was made in the 60day FRN published on September 23,
2013 (78 FR 58344) and closed on
November 23, 2013. This study is only
one of many studies being conducted to
inform the Secretary on alternative
LTEMP management options.
Irrigation & Electrical Districts
Association of Arizona
Comment: Echoed comments from
others. Concerned about hidden and
obscure documents not easily available
for review by the public and interested
parties so the ICR is fatally flawed as to
be beyond salvage. Improper use of
federal funds for which there is no
credible use in the upcoming EIS
analysis.
NPS Response: All documents
associated with this submission are
posted in Reginfo.gov as required by the
Office of Management and Budget. The
request for additional information in the
60-day Federal Register Notice
provided three separate addresses—to
which this letter was addressed and
received. The Web site for Reginfo.gov

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

is displayed, as required, in the 30-day
Federal Register Notice of July 9, 2014
(79 FR 38946) for this request. A second
60-day Notice was not required for the
final survey because the request was
made in the 60-day FRN published on
September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58344) and
closed on November 23, 2013. The NPS
presented and addressed questions
regarding the survey methodology at the
August 28, 2014 AMWG meeting. The
NPS also provided updates and
addressed questions during the
November 13, 2014 and December 16,
2014 AMWG stakeholder calls.
American Public Power Association
Comment: The collection is not
necessary for proper performance of
NPS functions as required by 5 CFR
1320 and will not have practical utility.
Concerned by methodologies used and
requested further examination of all
aspects of this ICR including survey
methodologies.
NPS Response: In order to collect
information from the public, we must be
granted approval by the Office of
Management and Budget to do such. In
accordance with, and as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
which is the purpose of 5 CFR 1320.1,
we have submitted the proper
paperwork to OMB to request approval
for this information collection and were
granted the approval to collect the
information for the pilot study
associated with this collection. We are
again following the proper guidance
provided by OMB to request approval to
collect the requested information. The
NPS presented and addressed questions
regarding the survey methodology at the
August 28, 2014 AMWG meeting and
provided updates and addressed
questions during the November 13, 2014
and December 16, 2014 AMWG
stakeholder calls.
Each of the organizations above
rejected the notion of the need for this
collection. The NPS participated in a
number of conference calls coordinated
by these groups to answer the concerns
voiced in these correspondences. The
NPS stated the basis for this collection
is predicated on the research needed to
update the Welsh et. al. (1995) because
this was the most recent study
addressing this topic and therefore upto-date information on economic value
of the NPS resources along Colorado
River is overdue and necessary for NPS
management needs.
In addition to the pilot survey, we
solicited feedback from three
professionals with expertise in
economic valuation, natural resource
management and planning as well as
survey design and methodology. The

E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM

21SEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 182 / Monday, September 21, 2015 / Notices
reviewers were asked to provide
comments concerning the structure of
the revised survey instrument and to
provide feedback about the validity of
the questions and the clarity of
instructions. We also asked if the
estimated time to complete the survey
seemed adequate. We received several
editorial and grammatical suggestions to
provide clarity and to correct
punctuation. Those edits were
incorporated into the final versions of
the surveys.
We again 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 estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents.
Comments that you submit in
response to this Notice are a matter of
public record. 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 or OMB in your
comment to withhold your personal
identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that it will
be done.
Dated: September 15, 2015.
Madonna L. Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer,
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–23673 Filed 9–18–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–EH–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–929]

rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules,
Components Thereof, and Products
Containing the Same; Notice of
Request for Statements on the Public
Interest
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

Notice is hereby given that
the presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) has issued an Initial

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:14 Sep 18, 2015

Jkt 235001

Determination and Recommended
Determination on Remedy and Bonding
in the above-captioned investigation.
The ALJ found no violation of section
337. Should the Commission, however,
find a violation of section 337, the ALJ
recommends that the Commission issue
a limited exclusion order against
DongGuan Hai Precision Mould Co.,
Ltd. and issue a limited exclusion order
and a cease and desist order against
Solofill LLC with respect to U.S. Patent
No. 8,720,320. The Commission is
soliciting comments on public interest
issues raised by the recommended
relief. This notice is soliciting public
interest comments from the public only.
Parties are to file public interest
submissions pursuant to 19 CFR
210.50(a)(4).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Needham, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–5468. The public version of the
complaint can be accessed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at http://edis.usitc.gov, and will be
available for inspection during official
business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.)
in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000.
General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its Internet server (http://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for
this investigation may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that
information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal on (202)
205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides
that if the Commission finds a violation
it shall exclude the articles concerned
from the United States:
unless, after considering the effect of such
exclusion upon the public health and
welfare, competitive conditions in the United
States economy, the production of like or
directly competitive articles in the United
States, and United States consumers, it finds
that such articles should not be excluded
from entry.

19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1). A similar
provision applies to cease-and-desist
orders. 19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1).
The Commission is interested in
further development of the record on
the public interest in these
investigations. Accordingly, members of
the public are invited to file

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

57019

submissions of no more than five (5)
pages, inclusive of attachments,
concerning the public interest in light of
the administrative law judge’s Initial
Determination and Recommended
Determination on Remedy and Bonding
issued in this investigation on
September 4, 2015. Comments should
address whether issuance of limited
exclusion orders and a cease and desist
order in this investigation would affect
the public health and welfare in the
United States, competitive conditions in
the United States economy, the
production of like or directly
competitive articles in the United
States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is
interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially
subject to the recommended limited
exclusion orders and cease and
desist order are used in the United
States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or
welfare concerns in the United
States relating to the recommended
limited exclusion orders and cease
and desist order;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive
articles that complainant, its
licensees, or third parties make in
the United States which could
replace the subject articles if they
were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant,
complainant’s licensees, and/or
third party suppliers have the
capacity to replace the volume of
articles potentially subject to the
recommended limited exclusion
orders and cease and desist order
within a commercially reasonable
time; and
(v) explain how the recommended
limited exclusion orders and cease
and desist order would impact
consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no
later than by close of business on
October 5, 2015.
Persons filing written submissions
must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines
stated above and submit 8 true paper
copies to the Office of the Secretary by
noon the next day pursuant to section
210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to
the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No.
929’’) in a prominent place on the cover
page and/or the first page. (See
Handbook for Electronic Filing
Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/
secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/
handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf).
Persons with questions regarding filing

E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM

21SEN1