82 FR 24732 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0022; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports-Migratory Birds and Eagles
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 102 (May 30, 2017)
Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 102 (May 30, 2017)
| Page Range | 24732-24737 | |
| FR Document | 2017-11063 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 30, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 24732-24737] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-11063] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-MB-2017-N068; FF09M21200-167-FXMB1231099BPP0] Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0022; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports-- Migratory Birds and Eagles AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2017. 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: To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by July 31, 2017. 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 [email protected] (email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include ``1018-0022'' in the subject line of your comments. 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, at [email protected] (email) or (703) 358-2503 (telephone). [[Page 24733]] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Our Regional Migratory Bird Permit Offices use information that we collect on permit applications to determine the eligibility of applicants for permits requested in accordance with the criteria in various Federal wildlife conservation laws and international treaties, including: (1) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). (2) Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.). (3) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668). Service regulations implementing these statutes and treaties are in chapter I, subchapter B of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations stipulate general and specific requirements that, when met, allow us to issue permits to authorize activities that are otherwise prohibited. All Service permit applications are in the 3-200 series of forms, each tailored to a specific activity based on the requirements for specific types of permits. We collect standard identifier information for all permits. The information that we collect on applications and reports is the minimum necessary for us to determine if the applicant meets/continues to meet issuance requirements for the particular activity. Information collection requirements associated with the Federal fish and wildlife permit applications and reports for migratory birds and eagles are currently approved under two different OMB control numbers, 1018-0022, ``Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports--Migratory Birds and Eagles; 50 CFR 10, 13, 21, 22,'' and 1018- 0167, ``Eagle Take Permits and Fees, 50 CFR 22.'' In this revision of 1018-0022, we are including all of the information collection requirements associated with both OMB Control Numbers. If OMB approves this revision, we will discontinue OMB Control Number 1018-0167. II. Data OMB Control Number: 1018-0022. Title: Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports-- Migratory Birds and Eagles; 50 CFR 10, 13, 21, 22. Service Form Number(s): FWS Forms 3-186; 3-186a, 3-2480, 3-200-6 through 3-200-9; 3-200-10a through 3-200-10f; 3-200-12 through 3-200- 14; 3-200-15a, 3-200-15b, 3-200-16, 3-200-18; 3-200-67; 3-200-71; 3- 200-72; 3-200-77 through 3-200-79; 3-200-81, 3-200-82; 3-202-1 through 3-202-17. Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection. Description of Respondents: Individuals; zoological parks; museums; universities; scientists; taxidermists; businesses; utilities; and Federal, State, tribal, and local governments. Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit. Frequency of Collection: On occasion for applications; annually or on occasion for reports. Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 55,673. Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 15 minutes to 700 hours, depending on activity. Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 124,496. Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: $2,085,125 (primarily associated with application processing fees). III. Comments On February 24, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR 11599) a notice of our intent to request that OMB approve this information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for 60 days, ending on April 25, 2017. We received four comments in response to that Notice: Comment 1 A respondent feels the Service should not issue permits to kill eagles or other birds and wildlife. She also expressed the need to preserve and protect birds and wildlife. FWS Response to Comment 1 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibit the killing of birds and eagles without a permit and authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish a permitting program. The regulations implementing these acts (50 CFR parts 21 and 22) and the permitting program established under these regulations define the terms under which a permit to kill birds and eagles can be issued. The Service is obligated by these laws and regulations to issue a permit to anyone who shows a need and meets the requirements to receive one. Permits to kill birds and eagles are limited to specific instances such as for property damage, scientific study or protection of human health and safety. The number of birds and eagles authorized to be killed are strictly controlled based on the specific needs of the applicant, the population status of the birds or eagles applied for, and the direct effects any permit issued would have on these birds or eagles. Only after we establish that the killing of the birds or eagles requested will not affect the population of those birds will we issue a permit. Through this permitting program, we ensure they are protected and preserved for future generations of Americans to enjoy. Comment 2 The Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) provided the following comments: APLIC Comment 2A Re. ``Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility . . . .'' Not only is the collection of information from those applying for the permits is necessary for good governance, it is also vital to the calculation of the burden that each agency uses to inform future regulation implementation. The collection of the information will not have practical utility if the Service does not absorb this information and incorporate it into future estimates. FWS Response to Comment 2A/Action Taken We collect information from the public for a number of purposes. The information on applications is used to determine the identity of the applicant, the ability of the applicant to successfully conduct the requested activity, and whether the applicant meets all the necessary qualifications to conduct such activities. Reports (annual or other) are used to cumulatively assess the effects of the activities on migratory bird populations to ensure that our management is appropriate and that there are no effects that would significantly impact either the populations' status or jeopardize the continued existence of any particular bird species for use and enjoyment by the American public. Further, not only do we utilize this collected information for management purposes, but we incorporate it into each and every information collection renewal. No action was taken in response to this portion of their comment. APLIC Comment 2B Re. ``The accuracy of the Service's estimate of the burden for this collection of information . . . .'' APLIC has gathered data from its membership to help the information collection adequately represent the power line Utility sector. The information in Table 1 is an averaged representative estimate from all types of power line companies, from rural cooperatives to investor- owned utilities. The data have been gathered across all [[Page 24734]] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Regions and therefore represent many types of avian habitat, multiple flyways, and multiple levels of urban development and rural landscapes. The cost/hour estimate is also averaged across the United States. FWS Response to Comment 2B/Action Taken We gather information from the public on the burden imposed to apply for a permit and report the results of any issued permit. Because of the broad range of applicants, burden estimates vary widely. As such, the estimated reported burden does not represent any particular class of applicant, but is intended to capture an approximation of the burden in a general manner. It is not unusual for a specific type of applicant to report their burden as much higher than that estimated. No action was taken in response to this portion of their comment. Based on our experience administering this collection of information, we believe our estimates of time burden to be accurate for most respondents. APLIC Comment 2C Re. ``Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected . . . .'' The processes through which the Service determines burden hours and cost estimates are not transparent, nor are the costs per hour realistic of the real-world costs for these types of actions. In addition to relying on public comment and aggregating those costs, working with major permit stakeholders (such as the electric utility industry and/or industry groups like APLIC) to solicit data would be helpful. Perhaps a more detailed report out for the multiple permittees would be more representative. FWS Response/Action Taken to Comment 2C/Action Taken Throughout the process of securing renewed approval from the Office of Management and Budget to impose this information collection on the public, we seek input from those affected by the requirement. We use the information provided by the public to calculate and estimate burdens and make every effort to impose only the minimum amount of burden to accomplish the requirements to issue a permit and to assess the permit program's effectiveness in protecting migratory birds while at the same time assisting the public in conducting activities that affect populations of migratory birds. We welcome and appreciate the input from stakeholders to ensure we are not imposing an unrealistic burden to accomplish the goals of the permitting program and are always available to discuss the program with the public on ways to enhance its effectiveness and eliminate unnecessary burden. We will assess the application and reporting forms continually to ensure we only require information from the public that is absolutely necessary to run an efficient permitting program. Further, where necessary, we will continue to reach out to the affected public to enhance our reporting requirements and burden estimates. APLIC Comment 2D Re. ``Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents . . . .'' The associated reports for the permits are the elements to which it takes the longest to respond. These reports are necessary in order for the permit program to accurately collect information on biological impacts and baseline levels. There may not be a way around the information collection, but the in-print acknowledgement and adjustment of burden hour estimates and costs would be helpful. FWS Response/Action Taken to Comment 2D/Action Taken We recognize both the need for the reporting data, as well as the imposition of the burden on the public to report the results of their permit. We have begun an effort to modernize both the issuance of permits as well as the reporting. One such effort has been the change from paper reports for Special Purpose Utility permits to an Excel spreadsheet. The next step in the modernization of this report will be transition to an online Access database type of report. This effort should reduce the level of effort required by a permittee to report to us. As we move forward with this modernization effort, all reports will be updated to allow for online reporting, reducing or eliminating the need for a permittee to generate a paper report. For those permittees that do not have the necessary capabilities to access reports in an online manner, paper reports will remain in place for their convenience. We will continue to modernize the permitting program as resources allow, with the goal of reducing the application and reporting burden on the public as much as possible. Comments 3 and 4 Comments received from the Energy and Wildlife Action Coalition (EWAC) and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) are essentially the same, so a combined response is provided. EAWC/AWEA Comment 3A, re. Monitoring EWAC Comment: EWAC questions the need and efficacy of extensive postconstruction monitoring for eagle take permits (ETPs), particularly with the additional requirement that monitoring must be conducted by an independent third party consultant. AWEA Comment: AWEA believes that, as it stands, the Information Collection in the Eagle Rule provides limited utility for eagle life- of-facility monitoring. FWS Response/Action Taken to EAWC/AWEA Comment 3A, re. Monitoring Monitoring is among the most important and essential elements of the Service's eagle permitting program. The Service has acknowledged in its responses to comments on the 2016 Eagle Rule and elsewhere (e.g., the Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (ECPG), the Proposed Eagle Rule, and the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Eagle Rule) that considerable uncertainty exists in all aspects of the eagle permitting program, particularly with respect to the accuracy of models used to predict the effects of actions like the operation of wind turbines on eagles. The Service has followed DOI policy and designed the eagle permitting program within a formal adaptive management framework, as described in response to other comments, in the preamble to the final rule, and in detail in Appendix A of the ECPG. Monitoring is an essential and fundamental element of adaptive management; it is absolutely necessary to reduce uncertainty and improve confidence in the permitting process; it is also essential to account for and provide credit to permittees who over-mitigate for their eagle take in the initial years of wind project operation. No action was taken in response to this comment. EAWC/AWEA Comment 3B, re. Preconstruction Surveys EWAC Comment: Conducting preconstruction surveys on new electric transmission and distribution systems would be infeasible and highly inefficient; moreover, it has no known relationship between preconstruction data and eagle risk. AWEA Comment: According to the requirements in Appendix C of the Eagle Plan Conservation Guidance, permit applicants and permittees are not required to conduct preconstruction surveys. [[Page 24735]] FWS Response/Action Taken to EAWC/AWEA 3B, re. Pre-Construction Surveys As noted in the response to comments on the final rule, the Service agrees that preconstruction data needed for electric utilities may differ from that for wind facilities. As we stated in the Service's comments on the final rule, we will take these differences into account as we develop guidance for eagle incidental take permits associated with electrical infrastructure. No action was taken in response to this comment. EAWC/AWEA Comment 3C, re. Local Area Population EWAC Comment: The applicant cannot plan for compensatory mitigation costs unless and until the Service conducts the LAP analysis, and can then only rely on the results of that analysis without the ability to verify or question it . . . the output of LAP analysis and the delay in learning the results of the LAP analysis creates uncertainty and potentially additional costs that cannot be planned for in advance. And: The Service should not condition the amount of mitigation and NEPA analyses on the Local Area Population (LAP) results, or it should commit to providing LAP analysis early on in the applicant/Service coordination process and use transparent methods and data when doing so. AWEA Comment: The manner in which the Service conducts the LAP analysis leaves project applicants and permittees with insufficient information regarding the allowable take limits and the extent of unauthorized take occurring within the LAP . . . . FWS Response/Action Taken to EAWC/AWEA 3C, re. Local Area Population The LAP is determined by extrapolating the average density of eagles in the pertinent Eagle Management Unit (EMU) to the LAP area, which is the project area plus an 86-mile (Bald Eagle) or 104-mile (Golden Eagle) buffer; these distances are based on natal dispersal distances of each eagle species. As an example, consider a 1-year Golden Eagle nest disturbance permit application in western Colorado, which is in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 6 under the current 2009 EMUs. The activity being undertaken could lead to the loss of 1 year of productivity, which has an expected value of 0.59 Golden Eagles removed from the population (the average 1-year productivity of an occupied Golden Eagle territory in BCR 16 at the 80th quantile, as described in the Status Report). This EMU has an estimated Golden Eagle population size of 3,585 at the 20th quantile, and the BCR covers 199,523 square miles, yielding an average Golden Eagle density of 0.018 Golden Eagles per square mile. The local area around a single point (the nest to be disturbed in this case) is a circle with a radius of 109 miles, which yields an LAP area of 37,330 square miles; thus, the estimated number of Golden Eagles in this LAP would be 671 individuals. The 5 percent LAP take limit for this permit under the current 2009 EMUs would be 34. The Service has developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) application that queries spatial databases on existing eagle take permit limits and known unpermitted take within the LAP area, as well as for any other permitted projects whose LAP intersects and overlaps the LAP of the permit under consideration. If this query indicates existing cumulative permitted (i.e., over all existing permits) take for the LAP area is less than 34, and the unpermitted take database and other information available to the Service does not suggest that background take in the LAP is higher than average, then a permit for the take of 0.59 Golden Eagles could be issued without further analysis of the effects on eagles by tiering off this PEIS. If either condition were not true, the permit would require additional NEPA analysis. In either case, if the permit is issued, it would require compensatory mitigation to offset the authorized take, because the EMU take limit for Golden Eagles is zero. The Service believes the LAP analysis will likely reduce costs for permits. The Service expedites work with project proponents when they approach Service staff to help them understand the potential impacts of their project and related compensatory mitigation ``burden.'' First, the LAP cumulative effects analysis is a relatively simple exercise that is conducted by the Service, so no additional resources are required from the applicant to conduct the analysis other than what would be required otherwise. Second, in cases where the LAP analysis is conducted as analyzed in the PEIS for the Eagle Rule, further project- specific NEPA analyses of the cumulative effects of the activity on eagles will not be necessary when projected take is within LAP take thresholds, thereby reducing overall costs for prospective permittees. No action was taken in response to this comment. EAWC/AWEA Comment 3D, re. Cost Estimate/Burden EWAC Comment: Considering the increased hourly rates and hour estimates, the cost estimates provided in the Hours and Cost Table should be doubled, at a minimum, if revised to reflect actual costs. In sum, the Eagle Take Permit (ETP) application process has a far greater cost burden on the regulated community than reflected in the Hours and Cost Table. (Including NEPA, Compensatory Mitigation, and ETP Application) AWEA Comment: AWEA is concerned that the [burden] numbers are significantly underestimated. FWS Response/Action Taken to EAWC/AWEA 3D, re. Cost Estimate/Burden The purpose of establishing such a fee structure is to provide capacity to process permits. OMB Circular No. A-25 requires Federal agencies to recoup the costs of ``special services'' that provide benefits to identifiable recipients. Permits are special services that authorize recipients to engage in activities that are otherwise prohibited. Our ability to provide effectively these special services is dependent upon either general appropriations, which are needed for other agency functions, or on user fees. Accordingly, the permit fees associated with eagles permits are intended to cover the costs the Service incurs processing the average permit. As described in the fee section of the 1996 Eagle Rule, the application fee for long-term permits was derived from average costs associated with processing these complex permits. Monitoring and mitigation costs, however, are scaled to the project, and would be expected to be lower for smaller-scale projects. The Service intends to involve the public in developing additional guidance for projects that pose a low risk of eagle take, which may be particularly relevant for small projects. Finally, in response to comments on the proposed Eagle Rule, the final regulation adopted an $8,000 administration fee for long-term permits, rather than the proposed $15,000 fee. Initial permit application processing fees for long-term permits did not change from the current $36,000. If a permittee requests the programmatic permit to exceed 5 years, then there will be an $8,000 review fee every 5 years to recoup the Service's review costs. With a 5-year maximum permit duration, renewal of a permit would require a $36,000 permit application processing fee, so the $8,000 administration fee reduces costs to small businesses engaged in long-term activities. The Service acknowledges that some service sectors may have costs and hour estimates that differ from those estimated, and some projects may be inherently complex, but we stand by our original estimates, because the [[Page 24736]] reasonable amount of time and expenditures project proponents and their contractors may likely expend for an average ETP. It is not possible for the Service to survey all applicants for information on hourly rates paid for preparation and provision of the information required to make a decision on issuing an ETP and the authorizations in such a permit. Hourly rates for the burden estimate were selected from the average compensation tables published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and include estimates of benefits. No action was taken in response to this comment. EAWC/AWEA Comment 3E, re. Low Risk Permit EWAC Comment: EWAC strongly believes that a low-risk or general permit program for eagles is essential to resolving many of the issues surrounding ETPs. AWEA Comment: AWEA strongly believes the Service should develop a low-risk permitting option. FWS Response/Action Taken to EAWC/AWEA Comment 3E, re. Low Risk Permit In the Eagle Rule PEIS, the Service programmatically analyzes eagle take within certain levels and the effects of complying with compensatory mitigation requirements to allow the Service to tier from the PEIS when conducting project-level NEPA analyses. The PEIS will cover the analysis of effects to eagles under NEPA if: (1) The project will not take eagles at a rate that exceeds (individually or cumulatively) the take limit of the EMU (unless take is offset); (2) the project does not result in Service authorized take (individually or cumulatively) in excess of 5 percent of the LAP; and (3) the applicant will mitigate using an approach the Service has already analyzed (e.g., power pole retrofitting), or the applicant agrees to use a Service- approved third-party mitigation program such as a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program to accomplish any required offset for the authorized mortality. The PEIS, therefore, should streamline the NEPA process for these projects. We will consider legal mechanisms for streamlining take authorizations to low-risk or lower impact activities in the future. EAWC/AWEA Comment 3F, re. Third-Party Monitoring EWAC Comment: Having a blanket requirement for third-party monitoring for all long-term ETPs is of limited utility and significant cost. AWEA Comment: The practical utility of requiring third-party monitoring of all long-term eagle take permits, as required in the Eagle Rule, is simply not justified in light of the excessive burden such monitoring imposes on permittees. FWS Response/Action Taken to EAWC/AWEA Comment 3F, re. Third-Party Monitoring The Service received a large number of comments on the proposed Eagle Rule urging us to require third-party monitoring on long-term permits, and we agreed with these commenters. The final regulations require that for all permits with durations longer than 5 years, monitoring must be conducted by qualified independent entities that report directly to the Service. In the case of permits of 5-year duration or shorter, such third-party monitoring may be required on a case-by-case basis. We do not agree that there will be significant additional costs imposed by the requirement for third-party monitoring. Most companies already rely on and pay for consultants to conduct project monitoring, presumably because it is more cost-effective than supporting those activities in-house. No action was taken in response to this comment. EAWC/AWEA Comment 3G, re. Waivers EWAC Comment: Some EWAC members have encountered reluctance from the Service to issue waivers under the Eagle Rule, even where projects have fallen under the listed circumstances when a waiver would be granted. If the Service is unwilling to issue waivers, then as a result many facilities may face delays of several years, the prospect of no permits, additional costs, and/or legal risk. AWEA Comment: AWEA believes there is value in the waivers of Information Collection pursuant to the Eagle Rule. Waivers should be made for operating facilities where the new requirements for preconstruction surveys are no longer attainable. FWS Response/Action Taken to EAWC/AWEA Comment 3G, re. Waivers The final Eagle Rule regulations contain provisions that allow applicants to obtain coverage under all of the provisions of the prior regulations if they submit complete applications satisfying all of the requirements of those regulations within 6 months of the effective date of the final rule. However, we note that the Service guidance since 2011 has recommended 2 or more years of preconstruction eagle surveys, so planners of any prospective wind projects or other industry project conceived since then should have been aware of this. The regulations are not retroactive, and we are incorporating a 6-month ``grandfathering'' period after the effective date of the rule, wherein applicants (persons and entities who have already submitted applications) and project proponents who are in the process of developing permit applications) can choose whether to apply (or re- apply) to be permitted under all the provisions of the 2009 regulations or all the provisions of the final regulations. The Service is developing policy on when waivers may be appropriate, and we will consider these comments along with the many others received on the proposed rule as part of that process. In the meantime, we recommend that project proponents work closely with Service staff to ascertain when waivers may be applicable. When eagle take has already occurred, projects will need to seek a civil settlement with the Service before a waiver, or a permit may be granted. EAWC/AWEA Comment 3H, re. Module for Electric Transmission and Distribution EWAC Comment: The Eagle Rule is strongly focused on the wind energy sector, and, as a result, several aspects of the Eagle Rule are unclear in their application to electric transmission and distribution. The result of this lack of clarity means potential delays, costs, and litigation risks that a non-wind energy applicant must bear. The Service should prioritize the development of guidance for the electric transmission and distribution industry and work collaboratively with the industry to ensure that the guidance is consistent with the practical realities of industry operations. FWS Response/Action Taken to EAWC/AWEA Comment 3H, re. Module for Electric Transmission and Distribution At this point, the only such standards were those included in the final Eagle Rule for estimating eagle take at wind facilities. The Service plans to develop standards for other industries in the immediate future, and will seek industry input in the development of those protocols. IV. Request for and Availability of Public Comments 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; [[Page 24737]] 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 OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done. V. Authorities The authorities for this action are the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703, et seq.), Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371, et seq.), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668), and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Dated: May 24, 2017. Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2017-11063 Filed 5-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
![24732 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Notices
information you provide. Therefore, Type of Information Collection: Dated: May 19, 2017.
submitting this information makes it Revision of a currently approved Richard Mattison,
public. You may wish to read the information collection. Records Management Branch Chief, Mission
Privacy Act notice that is available via OMB Number: 1660–0061. Support, Federal Emergency Management
the link in the footer of Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
www.regulations.gov. Form 010–0–11, Administrative Option [FR Doc. 2017–11089 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am]
Agreement for the Other Needs BILLING CODE 9111–23–P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
provision of Individuals and
Contact for further information.
Households Program, (IHP); FEMA
Elizabeth McDowell, Program DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Form 010–0–12, Request for Continued
Specialist, 540–686–3630. You may
Assistance (Application for Continued
contact the Records Management Fish and Wildlife Service
Temporary Housing Assistance); FEMA
Division for copies of the proposed
Form 010–0–12S (Spanish) Solicitud [FWS–HQ–MB–2017–N068; FF09M21200–
collection of information at email
para Continuar la Asistencia de 167–FXMB1231099BPP0]
address: FEMA-Information-Collections-
Vivienda Temporera.
Management@dhs.gov. Agency Information Collection
Abstract: The Federal Assistance to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Individuals and Households Program Activities: OMB Control Number 1018–
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and (IHP) enhances applicants’ ability to 0022; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. request approval of late applications, Applications and Reports—Migratory
5121–5207 (the Act) is the legal basis for request continued assistance, and Birds and Eagles
FEMA to provide disaster related appeal program decisions. Similarly, it AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
assistance and services to individuals allows States to partner with FEMA for Interior.
who apply for disaster assistance delivery of disaster assistance under the ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
benefits in the event of a federally ‘‘Other Needs’’ provision of the IHP
declared disaster. The Individuals and through Administrative Option SUMMARY: We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Households Program (IHP) (the Act at Agreements and Administration Plans Service) will ask the Office of
5174, Federal Assistance to Individuals addressing the level of managerial and Management and Budget (OMB) to
and Households) provides financial resource support necessary. approve the information collection (IC)
assistance to eligible individuals and Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal described below. As required by the
households who, as a direct result of a Government. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and
major disaster or emergency have Number of Respondents: 59,073. as part of our continuing efforts to
necessary expenses and serious needs. Number of Responses: 78,399. reduce paperwork and respondent
The ‘‘Other Needs Assistance’’ (ONA) burden, we invite the general public and
Estimated Total Annual Burden
provision of IHP provides disaster other Federal agencies to take this
Hours: 65,267 hours.
assistance to address needs other than opportunity to comment on this IC. This
housing, such as personal property, Estimated Cost: The estimated annual IC is scheduled to expire on May 31,
transportation, etc. cost to respondents for the hour burden 2017. We may not conduct or sponsor
is $2,043,275.28. There are no annual and a person is not required to respond
The delivery of the ONA provision of costs to respondents operations and
IHP is contingent upon the State/Tribe to a collection of information unless it
maintenance costs for technical displays a currently valid OMB control
choosing an administrator for the services. There is no annual start-up or
assistance. States/Tribes satisfy the number.
capital costs. The cost to the Federal
selection of an administrator of ONA by DATES: To ensure that we are able to
Government is $213,556.60.
completing the Administrative Option consider your comments on this IC, we
Agreement (FEMA Form 010–0–11), Comments must receive them by July 31, 2017.
which establishes a plan for the delivery Comments may be submitted as ADDRESSES: Send your comments and
of ONA. This agreement establishes a indicated in the ADDRESSES caption suggestions on this information
partnership with FEMA and inscribes above. Comments are solicited to (a) collection to the Desk Officer for the
the plan for the delivery of disaster evaluate whether the proposed data Department of the Interior at OMB–
assistance. The agreement is used to collection is necessary for the proper OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or OIRA_
identify the State/Tribe’s proposed level performance of the agency, including Submission@omb.eop.gov (email).
of support and participation during whether the information shall have Please provide a copy of your comments
disaster recovery. In response to Super practical utility; (b) evaluate the to the Service Information Collection
Storm Sandy (October 2012), Congress accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
added ‘‘child care’’ expenses as a burden of the proposed collection of Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275
category of ONA through the Sandy information, including the validity of Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 the methodology and assumptions used; 3803 (mail); or info_coll@fws.gov
(SRIA), Pub. L. 113–2. Section 1108 of (c) enhance the quality, utility, and (email). Please include ‘‘1018–0022’’ in
the SRIA amends section 408(e)(1) of clarity of the information to be the subject line of your comments. You
the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(e)(1)), collected; and (d) minimize the burden may review the ICR online at http://
giving FEMA the specific authority to of the collection of information on those www.reginfo.gov. Follow the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
pay for ‘‘child care’’ expenses as disaster who are to respond, including through instructions to review Department of the
assistance under ONA. the use of appropriate automated, Interior collections under review by
electronic, mechanical, or other OMB.
Collection of Information
technological collection techniques or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Title: Federal Assistance to other forms of information technology, Service Information Collection
Individuals and Households Program, e.g., permitting electronic submission of Clearance Officer, at info_coll@fws.gov
(IHP). responses. (email) or (703) 358–2503 (telephone).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 May 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM 30MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_24834/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Notices 24735
FWS Response/Action Taken to EAWC/ estimated Golden Eagle population size estimates, the cost estimates provided in
AWEA 3B, re. Pre-Construction Surveys of 3,585 at the 20th quantile, and the the Hours and Cost Table should be
As noted in the response to comments BCR covers 199,523 square miles, doubled, at a minimum, if revised to
on the final rule, the Service agrees that yielding an average Golden Eagle reflect actual costs. In sum, the Eagle
preconstruction data needed for electric density of 0.018 Golden Eagles per Take Permit (ETP) application process
square mile. The local area around a has a far greater cost burden on the
utilities may differ from that for wind
single point (the nest to be disturbed in regulated community than reflected in
facilities. As we stated in the Service’s
this case) is a circle with a radius of 109 the Hours and Cost Table. (Including
comments on the final rule, we will take
miles, which yields an LAP area of NEPA, Compensatory Mitigation, and
these differences into account as we
37,330 square miles; thus, the estimated ETP Application)
develop guidance for eagle incidental AWEA Comment: AWEA is concerned
number of Golden Eagles in this LAP
take permits associated with electrical that the [burden] numbers are
would be 671 individuals. The 5 percent
infrastructure. No action was taken in significantly underestimated.
LAP take limit for this permit under the
response to this comment.
current 2009 EMUs would be 34. The FWS Response/Action Taken to EAWC/
EAWC/AWEA Comment 3C, re. Local Service has developed a Geographic AWEA 3D, re. Cost Estimate/Burden
Area Population Information System (GIS) application
that queries spatial databases on The purpose of establishing such a fee
EWAC Comment: The applicant structure is to provide capacity to
existing eagle take permit limits and
cannot plan for compensatory process permits. OMB Circular No. A–
known unpermitted take within the LAP
mitigation costs unless and until the 25 requires Federal agencies to recoup
area, as well as for any other permitted
Service conducts the LAP analysis, and the costs of ‘‘special services’’ that
projects whose LAP intersects and
can then only rely on the results of that provide benefits to identifiable
overlaps the LAP of the permit under
analysis without the ability to verify or recipients. Permits are special services
consideration. If this query indicates
question it . . . the output of LAP that authorize recipients to engage in
existing cumulative permitted (i.e., over
analysis and the delay in learning the activities that are otherwise prohibited.
all existing permits) take for the LAP
results of the LAP analysis creates area is less than 34, and the unpermitted Our ability to provide effectively these
uncertainty and potentially additional take database and other information special services is dependent upon
costs that cannot be planned for in available to the Service does not suggest either general appropriations, which are
advance. that background take in the LAP is needed for other agency functions, or on
And: The Service should not higher than average, then a permit for user fees. Accordingly, the permit fees
condition the amount of mitigation and the take of 0.59 Golden Eagles could be associated with eagles permits are
NEPA analyses on the Local Area issued without further analysis of the intended to cover the costs the Service
Population (LAP) results, or it should effects on eagles by tiering off this PEIS. incurs processing the average permit.
commit to providing LAP analysis early If either condition were not true, the As described in the fee section of the
on in the applicant/Service coordination permit would require additional NEPA 1996 Eagle Rule, the application fee for
process and use transparent methods analysis. In either case, if the permit is long-term permits was derived from
and data when doing so. issued, it would require compensatory average costs associated with processing
AWEA Comment: The manner in mitigation to offset the authorized take, these complex permits. Monitoring and
which the Service conducts the LAP because the EMU take limit for Golden mitigation costs, however, are scaled to
analysis leaves project applicants and Eagles is zero. the project, and would be expected to be
permittees with insufficient information The Service believes the LAP analysis lower for smaller-scale projects. The
regarding the allowable take limits and will likely reduce costs for permits. The Service intends to involve the public in
the extent of unauthorized take Service expedites work with project developing additional guidance for
occurring within the LAP . . . . proponents when they approach Service projects that pose a low risk of eagle
staff to help them understand the take, which may be particularly relevant
FWS Response/Action Taken to EAWC/ for small projects. Finally, in response
AWEA 3C, re. Local Area Population potential impacts of their project and
related compensatory mitigation to comments on the proposed Eagle
The LAP is determined by ‘‘burden.’’ First, the LAP cumulative Rule, the final regulation adopted an
extrapolating the average density of effects analysis is a relatively simple $8,000 administration fee for long-term
eagles in the pertinent Eagle exercise that is conducted by the permits, rather than the proposed
Management Unit (EMU) to the LAP Service, so no additional resources are $15,000 fee. Initial permit application
area, which is the project area plus an required from the applicant to conduct processing fees for long-term permits
86-mile (Bald Eagle) or 104-mile the analysis other than what would be did not change from the current
(Golden Eagle) buffer; these distances required otherwise. Second, in cases $36,000. If a permittee requests the
are based on natal dispersal distances of where the LAP analysis is conducted as programmatic permit to exceed 5 years,
each eagle species. As an example, analyzed in the PEIS for the Eagle Rule, then there will be an $8,000 review fee
consider a 1-year Golden Eagle nest further project-specific NEPA analyses every 5 years to recoup the Service’s
disturbance permit application in of the cumulative effects of the activity review costs. With a 5-year maximum
western Colorado, which is in Bird on eagles will not be necessary when permit duration, renewal of a permit
Conservation Region (BCR) 6 under the projected take is within LAP take would require a $36,000 permit
current 2009 EMUs. The activity being thresholds, thereby reducing overall application processing fee, so the $8,000
undertaken could lead to the loss of 1 administration fee reduces costs to
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
costs for prospective permittees. No
year of productivity, which has an action was taken in response to this small businesses engaged in long-term
expected value of 0.59 Golden Eagles comment. activities. The Service acknowledges
removed from the population (the that some service sectors may have costs
average 1-year productivity of an EAWC/AWEA Comment 3D, re. Cost and hour estimates that differ from
occupied Golden Eagle territory in BCR Estimate/Burden those estimated, and some projects may
16 at the 80th quantile, as described in EWAC Comment: Considering the be inherently complex, but we stand by
the Status Report). This EMU has an increased hourly rates and hour our original estimates, because the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 May 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM 30MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_24834/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Notices 24737
• The accuracy of our estimate of the are currently scheduled to be Order resolves these allegations by
burden for this collection of complete and filed on June 12, requiring the Defendants to lay a new
information; 2017. cable from South Boston to Deer Island
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, 5. Vote in Inv. No. 731–TA–287 (Second and then remove, or partly remove and
and clarity of the information to be Review) (Raw-in-Shell Pistachios partly abandon, the existing cable.
collected; and from Iran). The Commission is The Department of Justice will accept
• Ways to minimize the burden of the currently scheduled to complete written comments relating to this
collection of information on and file its determination and views proposed Stipulation and Order for
respondents. of the Commission by June 26, thirty (30) days from the date of
Comments that you submit in 2017. publication of this Notice. Please
response to this notice are a matter of 6. Outstanding action jackets: None address comments to Christine Wichers,
public record. Before including your In accordance with Commission Assistant United States Attorney,
address, phone number, email address, policy, subject matter listed above, not United States Attorney’s Office, One
or other personal identifying disposed of at the scheduled meeting, Courthouse Way, Suite 9200, Boston,
information in your comment, you may be carried over to the agenda of the MA 02210, and refer to United States, et
should be aware that your entire following meeting. al. v. NSTAR Electric Co. d/b/a
comment, including your personal By order of the Commission. Eversource Energy, Harbor Electric
identifying information, may be made Issued: May 25, 2017.
Energy Co., and Massachusetts Water
publicly available at any time. While Resources Authority, DJ # 90–5–1–1–
Lisa R. Barton,
you can ask OMB in your comment to 20730.
withhold your personal identifying Secretary to the Commission. The proposed Stipulation and Order
information from public review, we [FR Doc. 2017–11172 Filed 5–25–17; 11:15 am] may be examined at the Clerk’s Office,
cannot guarantee that it will be done. BILLING CODE 7020–02–P United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, One
V. Authorities
Courthouse Way, Suite 2300, Boston,
The authorities for this action are the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MA 02210. In addition, the proposed
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Stipulation and Order may be examined
703, et seq.), Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371, Notice of Lodging Proposed electronically at http://www.justice.gov/
et seq.), Bald and Golden Eagle Stipulation and Order enrd/consent-decrees.
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668), and the In accordance with Departmental
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Cherie L. Rogers,
Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). given that a proposed Stipulation and Defense Section, Environment and Natural
Dated: May 24, 2017. Order in United States, et al. v. NSTAR Resources Division.
Madonna L. Baucum, Electric Co. d/b/a Eversource Energy, [FR Doc. 2017–11032 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am]
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Harbor Electric Energy Co., and BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
Fish and Wildlife Service. Massachusetts Water Resources
[FR Doc. 2017–11063 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am] Authority, Civil Action No. 16–11470–
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P RGS, was lodged with the United States NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
District Court for the District of ADMINISTRATION
Massachusetts on May 23, 2017.
This proposed Stipulation and Order [NARA–2017–044]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION concerns a complaint filed by the
United States against Defendants Records Schedules; Availability and
[USITC SE–17–024] NSTAR Electric Co. d/b/a Eversource Request for Comments
Energy, Harbor Electric Energy Co., and AGENCY: National Archives and Records
Sunshine Act Meeting
the Massachusetts Water Resources Administration (NARA).
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United Authority, for violations of Section 10 of ACTION: Notice of availability of
States International Trade Commission. the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 proposed records schedules; request for
TIME AND DATE: June 2, 2017 at 11:00
U.S.C. 403, and Section 404(s) of the comments.
a.m. Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344(s). The
complaint seeks injunctive relief from, SUMMARY: The National Archives and
PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,
and civil penalties against, the Records Administration (NARA)
Washington, DC 20436. Defendants for violating a permit issued publishes notice at least once monthly
TELEPHONE: (202) 205–2000. in 1989 by the United States Army of certain Federal agency requests for
STATUS: Open to the public. Corps of Engineers pursuant to the records disposition authority (records
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: above statutes. The permit allowed a schedules). Once approved by NARA,
1. Agendas for future meetings: none submarine cable to be installed across records schedules provide mandatory
2. Minutes Boston Harbor, from an electrical instructions on what happens to records
3. Ratification List substation in South Boston to Deer when agencies no longer need them for
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701–TA–576–577 Island. The complaint alleges that the current Government business. The
and 731–TA–1362–1367 Defendants are the permittees or records schedules authorize agencies to
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
(Preliminary) (Cold-Drawn successors-in-interest to the permittees. preserve records of continuing value in
Mechanical Tubing from China, Also, the complaint alleges that, within the National Archives of the United
Germany, India, Italy, Korea, and two federal channels, the Reserved States and to destroy, after a specified
Switzerland). The Commission is Channel and the Main Ship Channel, period, records lacking administrative,
currently scheduled to complete the Defendants laid the cable at legal, research, or other value. NARA
and file its determinations on June shallower depths than what the permit publishes notice in the Federal Register
5, 2017; views of the Commission required. The proposed Stipulation and for records schedules in which agencies
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:59 May 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM 30MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_24834/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-08 08:54:38
Document Modified: 2018-11-08 08:54:38
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice; request for comments. | |
| Dates | To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by July 31, 2017. | |
| Contact | Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, at [email protected].gov (email) or (703) 358-2503 (telephone). | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 24732 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR