30-Day Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices
Section 221(g)(4) of the Act provides
that debentures issued pursuant to that
paragraph (with respect to the
assignment of an insured mortgage to
the Secretary) will bear interest at the
‘‘going Federal rate’’ in effect at the time
the debentures are issued. The term
‘‘going Federal rate’’ is defined to mean
the interest rate that the Secretary of the
Treasury determines, pursuant to a
statutory formula based on the average
yield on all outstanding marketable
Treasury obligations of 8- to 12-year
maturities, for the 6-month periods of
January through June and July through
December of each year. Section 221(g)(4)
is implemented in the HUD regulations
at 24 CFR 221.255 and 24 CFR 221.790.
The Secretary of the Treasury has
determined that the interest rate to be
borne by debentures issued pursuant to
section 221(g)(4) during the 6-month
period beginning July 1, 2009, is 33⁄8
percent.
The subject matter of this notice falls
within the categorical exemption from
HUD’s environmental clearance
procedures set forth in 24 CFR
50.19(c)(6). For that reason, no
environmental finding has been
prepared for this notice.
(Authority: Sections 211, 221, 224, National
Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715l, 1715o;
Section 7(d), Department of HUD Act, 42
U.S.C. 3535(d).)
Dated: July 10, 2009.
Ronald Y. Spraker,
Acting General Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. E9–17325 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R3–MB–2009–N149] [30120–1113–
0000–D3]

Information Collection Sent to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for Approval; Bald Eagle Postdelisting Monitoring

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
SUMMARY: We (Fish and Wildlife
Service, Service) have sent an
Information Collection Request (ICR) to
OMB for review and approval. The ICR,
which is summarized below, describes
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.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:04 Jul 21, 2009

Jkt 217001

DATES: You must send comments on or
before August 21, 2009.
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] (e-mail).
Please provide a copy of your comments
to Hope Grey, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 4401 North
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203
(mail) or [email protected] (e-mail).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Hope Grey by mail or
e-mail (see ADDRESSES) or by telephone
at (703) 358–2482.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: None. This is
a new collection.
Title: Bald Eagle Post-delisting
Monitoring.
Type of Request: New.
Affected Public: States, tribes, and
local governments, Federal land
managers, and nongovernmental
partners.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
Frequency of Collection: Once every 5
years.
Note: For each 5–year survey, we
estimate a total of 48 respondents will
provide 48 responses totaling 1,478
burden hours. The burden estimates
below are annualized over the 3–year
period of OMB approval.
Estimated Annual Number of
Respondents: 16.
Estimated Total Annual Responses:
16.
Estimated Time per Response: 30.8
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 493.
Abstract: This information collection
implements the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.) (ESA). The bald eagle in the
lower 48 States was removed from the
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife on August 8, 2007 (July 9,
2007, 72 FR 37346). Section 4(g) of the
ESA requires that all species that are
recovered and removed from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(delisted) be monitored in cooperation
with the States for a period of not less
than 5 years. The purpose of this
requirement is to detect any failure of a
recovered species to sustain itself
without the protections of the ESA.
The bald eagle has a large geographic
distribution that includes a substantial
amount of non-Federal land. Although
the ESA requires that monitoring of
recovered species be conducted for not

PO 00000

Frm 00085

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

36247

less than 5 years, the life history of bald
eagles is such that it is appropriate to
monitor this species for a longer period
of time in order to meaningfully
evaluate whether or not the recovered
species continues to maintain its
recovered status.
We plan to monitor the status of the
bald eagle by collecting data on
occupied nests over a 20–year period
with sampling events held once every 5
years. The Post-delisting Monitoring
Plan for the Bald Eagle (Plan) describes
monitoring procedures and methods.
When OMB takes action on this ICR,
we will publish a notice in the Federal
Register announcing the availability of
the final Plan. If you would like a copy
of the Plan before the notice of
availability is published, contact Hope
Grey (see ADDRESSES) or you can obtain
a copy online at http://
www.reginfo.gov.
Comments: On July 9, 2007, we
published a notice of availability for the
draft Plan in the Federal Register (72 FR
37373). We solicited comments for a
period of 90 days, ending on October 9,
2007. In addition, in the fall of 2007, we
gave two web presentations for State
biologists. These presentations focused
on the survey and data collection
methods. We considered all comments
from the Federal Register notice and the
web presentations and addressed them
in the Plan.
Comment: Adequate funding for
monitoring has not been identified.
Response: The Service will fund the
area frame surveys for the initial
baseline survey, including the use of
aircraft and pilots to complete the
surveys. We will continue to work with
the States, tribes, and our other partners
to secure funding for future surveys.
Comment: Five-year intervals between
monitoring are insufficient.
Response: In order to assess several
generations of bald eagles after delisting,
this Plan recommends monitoring bald
eagle nesting populations at 5–year
intervals (which would follow the
development cycle to maturity for one
generation) for four generations or a
total of 20 years. This exceeds the
requirements of the ESA. Many States
monitor bald eagle nests on an annual
basis because the surveys provide
valuable resource data. Some States
have indicated that their future bald
eagle monitoring will be greatly reduced
due to its recovery and the need to
allocate funding to other areas. Thus, 5–
year survey intervals will provide more
data for States where surveys are not
otherwise planned. It may also provide
a cost savings for other States if they can
use these data at 5–year intervals to
satisfy their needs.

E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM

22JYN1

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES

36248

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices

Comment: Twenty-five percent
decline is too large of an interval to
serve as a trigger mechanism for review.
Response: The goal of the Plan is to
detect a 25-percent or greater change in
occupied bald eagle nests over any
period, measured at 5–year intervals
based on an 80 percent chance of
detecting such a change. We believe this
is a goal that both ensures continued
recovery under the ESA and is costeffective. If a 25-percent decline is
detected, it means a reduction to a level
still recognized as recovered under the
ESA. If such declines are detected, we,
in conjunction with the States, will
investigate causes of those declines. At
the end of the 20–year monitoring
program, we will coordinate with States
and our other partners to conduct a final
review and provide recommendations to
ensure a properly managed population
of the recovered bald eagle.
Comment: Implementation involves
potential sampling bias due to variable
observer experience and familiarity with
nesting territories.
Response: We have structured
training, pre-survey preparation, and
survey protocols to minimize potential
sampling bias. Though experienced bald
eagle observers may be familiar with
specific nests, pilot studies showed that
the observers were able to change
mindsets from ‘‘searching habitat’’ in
Area plots to ‘‘determining the status of
specific known list nests’’ in List plots,
without issue. Using the dual-observer
method to determine individual
detection probabilities for observers will
help account for differences in observer
experience. In planning Area plots
survey routes, observers will be given
maps that show habitat, but not the
location of nests, allowing survey route
planning to be based on habitat
characteristics.
Comment: Conducting a large-scale
monitoring project every 5 years could
create staffing problems.
Response: Staffing will require open
and clear communication among the
States, tribes, and the Service. If State
staff are not available for surveys, we
will draw upon local Service offices,
tribal biologists, retired Service and
State employees, and experienced
volunteers to fill in as observers.
Comment: There is a lack of a
comprehensive monitoring program for
environmental contaminants.
Response: We worked with the U.S.
Geological Survey to develop a
searchable database/library dedicated to
contaminants investigations of bald
eagle, osprey, and peregrine falcons.
The objective was to create a readily
available source of information to
consider should the bald eagle (or

VerDate Nov<24>2008

16:04 Jul 21, 2009

Jkt 217001

peregrine) population decline. This
database provides biologists an
overview of the most recent findings of
contaminant effects on these species. If
additional studies are needed during
post-delisting monitoring, the database
will clarify what has been studied and
what has not.
Comment: The phrase ‘‘broad
geographic areas’’ in the section on
Habitat implies that the analysis of
survey data may be accomplished on
something less than a rangewide scale.
Response: This is correct. If trends in
nest occupancy significantly decline
over broad geographic areas, whether
rangewide or more regionally, we will
investigate a change in available nesting
habitat as a possible cause and take
appropriate actions, as feasible.
Comment: Customized parameters
may be required in certain local
situations.
Response: We agree and have
modified the Plan accordingly.
Comment: The definition of bald eagle
habitat in the Plan, especially the size
of water bodies required, may not be
appropriate for some geographic
regions, especially the Southwest.
Response: We modified the Plan to
reflect that local conditions may warrant
modifications to the habitat being
considered. Input from local eagle
biologists will be necessary in these
unique or localized conditions.
Comment: Surveys based on Bird
Conservation Regions (BCRs) will not
work in some States (e.g., eagle
distribution is linear and follows major
waterways which cross multiple BCRs).
Response: We recognize some of the
limitations of this approach, but still
maintain it is the most appropriate for
application across broad geographic
areas. We will work with local biologists
to further refine the stratification on a
local level.
Comment: The boundary between the
Northern Pacific Rainforest BCR and the
Great Basin BCR, although correctly
mapped in the Plan, is an incorrect
depiction of the margin between the two
ecoregions. This has resulted in
inappropriate numbers being used in
calculations of nests in the BCR tables
in the Plan.
Response: We have modified this
portion of the Plan to reflect that we
will work with local biologists and
others to further refine the BCR
boundaries to more accurately reflect
habitat groupings and, as appropriate,
modify calculations of nests and nest
densities per BCR.
We again invite comments concerning
this information collection on:
(1) Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including

PO 00000

Frm 00086

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) 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, e-mail address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment, including your personal
identifying information, may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask OMB in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Dated: June 23, 2009
Hope Grey,
Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Fish and Wildlife Service.
FR Doc. E9–17387 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am
BILLING CODE 4310–55–S

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. Geological Survey
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Comment Request
AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of an extension of an
information collection (1028–0082).
SUMMARY: To comply with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), we are notifying the public that
we have submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) an
information collection request (ICR) for
the extension of the currently approved
paperwork requirements for Bird
Banding and Recovery Reports. This
collection consists of two forms
(Application for Federal Bird Banding
or Marking Permit and Reporting
Encounter of Marked Bird with a Metal
Federal Band (Recovery Report) and an
electronic database (Bandit). 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 August 21, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Please submit written
comments on this information
collection directly to the Office of

E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM

22JYN1