[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 
[email protected] (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 [email protected] (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 [email protected] (email) or (703) 787-
1025 (phone). 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.

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 (http://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 (http://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