30-Day Notice

23616

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Notices

burden of the proposed collection of
information; (3) Enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (4) Minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond; including
through the use of appropriate
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.

Number of
respondents

Annual
responses

11,000

80.203

Reporting Burden ..............................................................................

Total Estimated Burden Hours:
146,096.
Status: Extension without change of a
currently approved collection.
Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as
amended.
Dated: April 21, 2011.
Colette Pollard,
Departmental Reports Management Officer,
Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–10181 Filed 4–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R9–R–2011–N082; 93261–1263–0000–
4A]

Information Collection Request Sent to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for Approval; National Wildlife
Refuge Special Use Permit
Applications and Reports
AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION:

Notice; request for comments.

We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) 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. This information collection is
scheduled to expire on April 30, 2011.
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. However, under OMB
regulations, we may continue to
conduct or sponsor this information
collection while it is pending at OMB.
DATES: You must submit comments on
or before May 27, 2011.
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 the Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax
SUMMARY:

Number of
respondents

Activity

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

mortgagees to mortgagors who are at risk
of losing their homes to foreclosure. The
new FHA insured mortgages refinance
the borrowers existing mortgage at a
significant write-down. Under the
program the mortgagors share the newly
created equity (Exit Premium) with
FHA.
Frequency of Submission: On
occasion.

This notice also lists the following
information:
Title of Proposal: Application for
HUD/FHA Insured Mortgage ‘‘Hope for
Homeowners’’.
OMB Approval Number: 2502–0579.
Form Numbers: HUD 92915, HUD
92900, HUD 92917 HFH.
Description of the Need for the
Information and its Proposed Use:
This information is collected on new
mortgages offered by FHA approved

Hours per
response

×

=

0.165

Burden hours
146,096

Drive, M/S 2042–PDM, Arlington, VA
22203 (mail), or [email protected]
(e-mail). Please include 1018–0102 in
the subject line of your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Hope Grey at
[email protected] (e-mail) or 703–358–
2482 (telephone). 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: 1018–0102.
Title: National Wildlife Refuge
Special Use Permit Applications and
Reports, 50 CFR 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31,
32, and 36.
Service Form Numbers: FWS Form 3–
1383–G; FWS Form 3–1383–C, and FWS
Form 3–1383–R.
Description of Respondents:
Individuals and households; businesses
and other for-profit organizations;
nonprofit organizations; farms; and
State, local, or Tribal governments.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Number of
responses

Completion time
per response

Total annual
burden hours

Form 3–1383–G ............................................................................................
Form 3–1383–C ............................................................................................
Form 1383–R ................................................................................................
Activity Reports .............................................................................................

13,500
1,200
300
600

13,500
1,200
300
600

1⁄2 hour
4 hours
4 hours
1⁄2 hour

.............
.............
.............
.............

6,750
4,800
1,200
300

Totals .....................................................................................................

15,600

15,600

...........................

13,050

Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden
Cost: $120,000 for fees associated with
applications for commercial use
activities.
Abstract: The administration and uses
of national wildlife refuges and wetland
management districts are governed by
the:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:36 Apr 26, 2011

Jkt 223001

• National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
668dd–668ee) (Administration Act), as
amended by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997.
• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16
U.S.C. 460k–460k–4) (Recreation Act).

PO 00000

Frm 00081

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

• Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et
seq.) (ANILCA).
The Administration Act consolidated
all of the different refuge areas into a
single National Wildlife Refuge System
(System). It also authorizes us to permit
public accommodations, including

E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM

27APN1

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Notices
commercial visitor services, on lands of
the System when we find that the
activity is compatible and appropriate
with the purpose for which the refuge
was established. The Recreation Act
allows the use of refuges for public
recreation when it is not inconsistent or
does not interfere with the primary
purpose(s) of the refuge.
ANILCA provides specific
authorization and guidance for the
administration and management of
national wildlife refuges within the
State of Alaska. Its provisions provide
for the issuance of permits by the
System under certain circumstances.
We issue special use permits for a
specific period as determined by the
type and location of the use or visitor
service provided. These permits
authorize activities such as:
• Agricultural activities (haying and
grazing, 50 CFR 29.1, 29.2 and 29.3).
• Beneficial management tools that
we use to provide the best habitat
possible on some refuges (50 CFR 30.11,
31.14, 31.16, and 36.41).
• Special events, group visits and
other one-time events (50 CFR 25.41,
26.36, 25.61, and 36.41).
• Recreational visitor service
operations (50 CFR 25.41, 25.61 and
36.41).
• Guiding for fishing, hunting,
wildlife education, and interpretation
(50 CFR 25.41 and 36.41).
• Commercial filming (50 CFR 27.71)
and other commercial activities (50 CFR
29.1 and 36.41).
• Building and using cabins to
support subsistence or commercial
activities (in Alaska) (50 CFR 26.35, and
36.41).
• Research, inventory and
monitoring, and other noncommercial
activities (50 CFR 26.36 and 36.41).
Previously, we used FWS Form 3–
1383 (Special Use Application and
Permit) for all activities. However,
experience has indicated that some
types of activities, such as commercial
use or research, require that we collect
detailed information on the specific
activity so that we can effectively
manage the numerous uses of System
lands. During the renewal process for
this information collection, we realized
that many refuges were collecting
information not approved under the
current collection. We are proposing
three forms to correct this situation:
• FWS Form 3–1383–G (General
Special Use Application and Permit).
• FWS Form 3–1383–C (Commercial
Activities Special Use Application and
Permit).
• FWS Form 3–1383–R (Research and
Monitoring Special Use Application and
Permit).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:36 Apr 26, 2011

Jkt 223001

You may review the above forms and
other documents associated with this
information collection at http//
:www.reginfo.gov.
The forms will serve as both the
application and permit. They will not
change the permitting process or what
activities require a permit. They have
been developed to ensure that:
• Applicants are aware of the types of
information that may be needed for
permit issuance and that the collection
of this information is approved as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995.
• Requested activities are compatible
and appropriate with the purpose(s) for
which the refuge was established.
• Applicant is eligible or is the most
qualified applicant to receive the special
use permit.
We collect the necessary information
in form and nonform format (through
discussions in person or over the phone,
over the Internet, by e-mail, or by letter).
In some instances, respondents will be
able to provide information verbally.
Often, a simple e-mail or letter
describing the activity will suffice. For
activities (e.g., commercial visitor
services, research, etc.) that might have
a large impact on refuge resources, we
may require applicants to provide more
detail on operations, techniques, and
locations. Because of the span of
activities covered by special use permits
and the different management needs
and resources at each refuge,
respondents may not be required to
answer all questions. Depending on the
requested activity, refuge managers will
have the discretion to ask for less
information than appears on the
proposed forms. However, refuge
managers cannot ask for more or
different information.
We issue permits for a specific period
as determined by the type and location
of the use or service provided. We use
these permits to ensure that the
applicant is aware of: (1) The
requirements of the permit, and (2) his/
her legal rights. Refuge-specific special
conditions may be required for the
permit. We identify conditions as an
addendum to the permit. Most of the
special conditions pertain to how a
permitted activity may be conducted
and do not require the collection of
information. However, some special
conditions, such as activity reports,
before and after site photographs, or
data sharing, would qualify as an
information collection, and we have
included the associated burden in the
information collection request.
On November 29, 2010, we published
a notice in the Federal Register (75 FR
73119) announcing our intent to request

PO 00000

Frm 00082

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

23617

renewal of this information collection.
We solicited public comment for 60
days, ending on January 28, 2011. We
received comments from three
individuals.
Comment 1: The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service may require
sufficiently detailed information to
ensure requested activities are
consistent with the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act, and
that specifically tailored permit
applications can theoretically reduce
the burden on the applicant and
expedite the permitting process.
However, the extensive list of
information associated with the
Research Special Use Application and
Permit is significantly greater than the
requirements represented in the current
FWS Form 3–1383. Conversely, there
are no information requirements listed
for the Commercial Special Use
Application and Permit, making it
unclear as to why the Service
determined a separate form is necessary.
Considering the importance of research
and the significant role that commercial
guiding, visitor services and cabins
serve in the public’s ability to access
and experience Alaska’s remote refuges,
there is a need to ensure that
information requests are appropriate
and do not create an undue burden to
applicants. The Service should disclose
information requirements for both new
forms, along with supporting rationale
and an explanation as to why the
current form will not suffice. Draft
forms and accompanying instructions
should be made available for public
review.
Response: The list of information
collection requirements published in
the 60-day notice (75 FR 73119) pertains
to all three proposed forms, not just the
proposed Research and Monitoring
Special Use Application and Permit.
Prior to November 2009, Alaska
refuges used FWS Form 3–2001
(approved under OMB Control No.
1018–0014) as the special use
application. OMB Control No. 1018–
0014 was discontinued in November
2009, and the Alaska refuges began
using FWS Form 3–1383 (approved
under OMB Control No. 1018–0102),
which is the special use application
used by refuges in the contiguous
United States. During the renewal
process, we discovered that the current
FWS Form 3–1383 is inadequate for the
many types of permitted activities,
which has resulted in several situations
where unauthorized information
collections have taken place, both in
Alaska and the rest of the States.

E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM

27APN1

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

23618

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Notices

We have made every effort to
carefully craft the new forms so that
they are targeted to specific uses and
only collect information that is
necessary to manage and protect refuge
resources. We designed the forms for
use by all refuges in the National
Wildlife Refuge System. The proposed
forms ask for information that refuges
need to manage the full span of uses
that the public may need. The forms
also allow refuge manager discretion as
to what specific information is required.
We can ask for less information than
requested on the forms, but cannot ask
for more or different information. This
discretion will lessen the burden on
applicants. The proposed forms
encourage applicants to contact the
appropriate refuge to determine exactly
what information is required.
We sent draft forms to the two
commenters from Alaska and made
extensive changes to the forms based on
their input. In addition, this Federal
Register notice provides the public an
additional opportunity to review and
comment on the forms.
Comment 2: Regarding research
conducted by the State fish and wildlife
agencies, including the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, the
Service should acknowledge that State
fish and wildlife and other
administrative actions are exempt from
this information collection process. The
States, including Alaska under ANILCA
1314 and 43 CFR part 24, need not
apply for special use permits from the
Service when conducting routine
activities covered under a valid
cooperative agreement.
Response: We agree with this
comment. This information collection
request does not change when a special
use permit is required; it only pertains
to what information we can collect
when a permit is necessary.
Comment 3: In designated Wilderness
Areas, a minimum requirement analysis
may be necessary for activities generally
prohibited under the Wilderness Act;
however, this process is distinct from a
special use permit.
Response: We agree with this
comment. We will conduct the
minimum requirement analysis as part
of our permit review process.
Comment 4: The Citizens’ Advisory
Commission on Federal Areas believes
strongly that permits for the use of
public lands and resources should be
required only when and where
absolutely necessary. The Commission
recognizes that permits are appropriate
for certain activities and can be an
important management tool, and
supports any action that reduces the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:36 Apr 26, 2011

Jkt 223001

amount of paperwork necessary to
secure those permits.
Response: We agree and will issue the
permits only when required by statute
or regulation.
Comment 5: Although the current
proposal would increase the number of
forms from one to three, it appears that,
depending on the activity being
permitted, information requirements
can be focused more narrowly than is
possible with the existing application
form. One problem with the Alaska form
was that applicants were required to
provide information that was
unnecessary or irrelevant to the activity
being permitted. Requiring an applicant
to submit only pertinent information
eases the burden on the public. While
there may have been problems with the
Alaska application form, replacing that
form with the more generalized versions
could result in similar unnecessary
information requests and additional
burdens to the public unless those forms
are carefully crafted.
Response: Please see our response to
Comment 1.
Comment 6: ANILCA provides
specific authorization and guidance for
the management of refuges in Alaska.
The statutory provisions in ANILCA are
implemented, in part, by the regulations
at 50 CFR 36.41. The information
requests included in any revised
application form for a special use permit
on an Alaskan refuge must incorporate
the guidance found in these regulations.
The need for any additional information
or reporting requirements must be fully
supported.
Response: The information collected
on the proposed forms is consistent
with the regulations implementing
ANILCA.
Comment 7: The regulations at 50
CFR 36.41(d)(2) allow an applicant for
a noncompetitively issued permit to
present an application verbally. The
application process must continue to
accommodate verbal applications as
provided for in the regulations.
Response: We agree and have added
instructions on the form that an
application may be made verbally. The
new forms will not change the
application process or regulatory
requirements. We are proposing these
forms to ensure that the information we
collect is approved in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comment 8: Other Alaska specific
regulations at 50 CFR 36.31, 36.32,
36.33, 36.37, and 36.39 provide some of
the authorities and procedures for
allowing permits on refuges. Any
information requests associated with the
new forms must be limited to that

PO 00000

Frm 00083

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

necessary to meet the requirements in
these regulations for refuges in Alaska.
Response: We agree and will collect
only the minimum information
necessary to issue the requested permit
in accordance with applicable
regulations.
Comment 9: It is difficult to fully
assess the full benefits from this
proposal without being able to review
the actual application forms and
associated questions. Information in the
Federal Register (75 FR 73119) provides
only a partial list of the types of
information to be collected, and only a
few specific examples of which
application form will be used to permit
a particular activity. For example, the
Commercial Special Use Application
and Permit is proposed to be used for
permitting recreational visitor service
operations and building and using
cabins to support subsistence or
commercial activities in Alaska. The
information that an applicant should be
reasonably expected to provide to
construct or use a cabin for subsistence
activities would be significantly
different than that necessary to
construct a cabin to support a
commercial activity.
Response: We sent draft forms to the
two commenters from Alaska and made
extensive changes to the forms based on
their input. We have developed formspecific instructions that provide
discretion for refuge managers on what
specific information will be required for
each use.
Comment 10: How will an applicant
be advised of what information is
required for their application? Is this left
to the individual refuge manager or will
there be national or regional guidance
provided? Will instructions for
completing the application be provided
to the applicant? There have been
situations in Alaska where applicants
seeking permits for the same activity in
more than one refuge are required to
provide different types of information to
each refuge. While refuge managers may
have different management needs and
requirements, lack of uniformity can
increase the information collection
burden on applicants. Clear guidance
should be provided to Regional Offices
and individual refuge managers to avoid
confusion and prevent arbitrary and
unnecessary information collection.
Response: We urge applicants, both
on our Web sites and on the proposed
forms, to contact the appropriate refuge
to determine what information they
need to submit for their desired permit.
There are instructions and explanations
on each form, but the forms are
designed to cover many activities on all

E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM

27APN1

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Notices
of our refuges. Depending on the
activity requested and the differing
management needs of refuges, there may
be instances where an applicant has to
submit more or less information for the
same activity. These instances should be
minimal, and, in no case, can a refuge
manager ask for information that is not
on the application. Rather than
following a ‘‘one form fits all approach,’’
we believe that allowing refuge
managers the discretion to determine
the level of information necessary to
issue the permit will result in reducing
the burden for applicants. If OMB
approves the three proposed forms, we
will issue guidance to Regional Offices
and refuge managers that: (1) they must
collect only the minimum information
necessary to determine whether or not
to issue a permit, and (2) they cannot
collect any information that is not on
the approved forms.
Comment 11: Grazing is never
beneficial to wildlife, and no
agricultural activity should be allowed
on national wildlife refuges. Guides
should not be allowed on national
wildlife refuges. Taking people out to
kill wildlife should not happen.
Response: The Administration Act
authorizes us to permit public
accommodations, including commercial
visitor services, on lands of the System
when we find that the activity is
compatible and appropriate with the
purpose for which the refuge was
established. While we appreciate the
views of the respondent, the comment
did not address the information
collection requirements. We did not
make any changes to our information
collection request based on this
comment.
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, 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:36 Apr 26, 2011

Jkt 223001

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: April 21, 2011.
Tina A. Campbell,
Chief, Division of Policy and Directives
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–10167 Filed 4–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R2–ES–2010–N282; 20124–1112–
0000–F2]

Intent To Prepare a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and
Associated Documents for
Development in Bexar County and the
City of San Antonio, TX
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent; announcement
of public scoping meetings; request for
comments.
AGENCY:

We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), advise the
public that we intend to prepare a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
to evaluate the impacts of, and
alternatives to, the proposed issuance of
an incidental take permit (ITP)under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), to Bexar County, Texas,
and the City of San Antonio, Texas
(applicants). The ITP would authorize
incidental take of five Federally listed
species resulting from residential,
commercial, and other development
activities associated with the proposed
Southern Edwards Plateau (SEP)
Regional Habitat Conservation Plan
(RHCP), which includes Bexar and
surrounding counties. We also
announce plans for a series of public
scoping meetings throughout the
proposed plan area and the opening of
a public comment period.
DATES: Written comments on
alternatives and issues to be addressed
in the draft EIS must be received by July
26, 2011. Public scoping meetings will
be held at various locations throughout
the proposed seven-county plan area.
Public scoping meetings will be held
between May1, 2011 and June 15, 2011.
Exact meeting locations and times will
be announced in local newspapers and
on the Service’s Austin Ecological
Services Office Web site, http://
www.fws.gov/southwest/es/
AustinTexas/, at least 2 weeks prior to
each meeting.
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00084

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

23619

To request further
information or submit written
comments, use one of the following
methods, and note that your information
request or comment is in reference to
the SEP RHCP/EIS:
• E-mail: Allison [email protected];
• U.S. Mail: Field Supervisor, Austin
Ecological Services Field Office, 10711
Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX
78758–4460;
• Telephone: 512/490–0057; or
• Fax: 512/490–0974.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice is published in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), and its implementing
regulations (40 CFR 1506.6), and section
10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The Service intends to gather the
information necessary to determine
impacts and alternatives to support a
decision regarding the potential
issuance of an ITPto the applicants
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, and
the implementation of the supporting
draft RHCP.
The applicants propose to develop an
RHCP as part of their application for an
ITP. The proposed RHCP will include
measures necessary to minimize and
mitigate the impacts, to the maximum
extent practicable, of potential proposed
taking of Federally listed species and
the habitats upon which they depend,
resulting from residential, commercial,
and other development activities within
the proposed plan area, to include Bexar
and surrounding counties.
ADDRESSES:

Background
Section 9 of the Act prohibits taking
of fish and wildlife species listed as
endangered or threatened under section
4 of the Act. Under the Act, the term
‘‘take’’ means to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. The term ‘‘harm’’ is
defined in the regulations as significant
habitat modification or degradation that
results in death or injury to listed
species by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including
breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR
17.3). The term ‘‘harass’’ is defined in
the regulations as to carry out actions
that create the likelihood of injury to
listed species to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal behavioral
patterns, which include, but are not
limited to, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). However, the
Service may, under specified
circumstances, issue permits that allow
the take of Federally listed species,
provided that the take that occurs is
incidental to, but not as the purpose of,

E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM

27APN1