30-Day Notice

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

14564

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2012 / Notices

that it has been very useful. The tagging
program has benefited horseshoe crab
management and has had impacts on
management of associated shorebird
species whose population levels are of
concern. The commenter had concerns
on the effort of tag recoveries, and
suggested that we provide higher
incentives to commercial fishermen to
report crab tags, increase efforts on
spawning beaches to recover tags,
record time searching for tags to
determine catch-per-unit-effort, that
online reporting can be done in a batch
system, and that we increase efforts to
collect tag data from commercial
fishermen. While we recognize that all
of these suggestions would make a
stronger program with more significant
scientific data, some come with
substantial cost. At this time we do not
have any additional funds to provide
increased incentives to fishermen,
increase tag recovery efforts on beaches
(done by our cooperators at this time),
or increase efforts to solicit tag data
from commercial fishermen. Through
our cooperators in the future, we can
attempt to get an estimate of catch-perunit-effort and we will discuss this issue
with the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission to determine if
those data would be useful. We will also
explore providing a batch-type data
entry program on our Web site to report
recaptured tags. We will explore
collecting catch-per-unit-effort and
online batch reporting in the future.
Commenter 5 was supportive of the
information collection, and commented
that the scientific data provided by the
program has been very useful for
horseshoe crab management.
Information was collected efficiently
and the burden estimates were accurate.
Commenter 6 opposed the use of
horseshoe crabs by biomedical
companies and proposed a ban on the
use of horseshoe crabs for any purpose.
Commenter 7 said that the tagging
program is not necessary and the data
generated by the program is not useful.
The commenter also opposed the
commercial harvest of horseshoe crabs
and the use of horseshoe crabs by
biomedical companies. The commenter
proposed a ban on the use of horseshoe
crabs for any purpose.
Commenter 8 discussed the scientific
merit of the tagging program and said
that it has been very useful for
horseshoe crab management purposes.
The commenter suggested that the Fish
and Wildlife Service increase efforts in
resighting tagged crabs outside the
Delaware Bay area. While we recognize
that increasing effort for resighting
tagged crabs would increase the quality
of the scientific data, there is substantial

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:55 Mar 09, 2012

Jkt 226001

cost associated with increasing that
effort. At this time, we do not have any
additional funds to increase tag recovery
efforts on beaches (done by our
cooperators at this time). We will
encourage our cooperators to increase
efforts in tag recovery outside the
Delaware Bay area. The commenter also
suggested we develop an application for
smart phones in addition to the online
reporting system that we currently offer.
We will explore the development of an
app for smart phones to provide another
method for tag reporting.
Commenter 9 discussed the scientific
merit of the tagging program and said
that it has been very useful to horseshoe
crab and shorebird management (whose
population levels are of concern). The
commenter suggested that we increase
efforts on spawning beaches of
Maryland and Virginia to recover tags,
record time searching for tags to
determine catch-per-unit-effort, and use
formal models to determine survival of
bled crabs from the Lysate industry. As
with previous comments, we will
encourage our cooperators to increase
tag recovery efforts on the Maryland and
Virginia beaches; however, without
increased funding, we will not be able
to increase tag recovery efforts without
the assistance of cooperators. Some
formal studies are being done by our
cooperators using the Service tagging
program to evaluate impacts of both
tagging and of the Lysate bleeding
programs. We will continue to support
the tagging programs that are evaluating
crab survival. The commenter also
suggested that we should facilitate batch
reporting of crabs on the phone and to
encourage tag reporting by commercial
fishermen. At this time we do not have
any additional funds to provide
increased incentives to fishermen,
increase tag recovery efforts on beaches
(done by our cooperators at this time),
or increase efforts to solicit tag data
from commercial fishermen. We will
work with our cooperators to attempt to
get better distribution of tag recovery
efforts.
Commenter 10 provided comments
similar in nature to Commenters 4 and
9.
We did not make any changes to our
information collection requirements
based on the above 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;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

• 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.
Dated: March 6, 2012.
Tina A. Campbell,
Chief, Division of Policy and Directives
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–5879 Filed 3–9–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R9–MB–2012–N0059; FF09M21200–
123–FXMB1231099BPP0L2]

Information Collection Request Sent to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for Approval; Approval
Procedures for Nontoxic Shot and
Shot Coatings
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:

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, 2012.
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 April 11, 2012.
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).
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\12MRN1.SGM

12MRN1

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2012 / Notices
Please provide a copy of your comments
to the Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS 2042–PDM, 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA
22203 (mail), or [email protected]
(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0067’’ in
the subject line of your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Hope Grey at
[email protected] (email) 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: 1018–0067.
Title: Approval Procedures for
Nontoxic Shot and Shot Coatings, 50
CFR 20.134.
Service Form Number(s): None.
Type of Request: Extension of
currently approved collection.
Description of Respondents:
Businesses that produce and/or market
approved nontoxic shot types or
nontoxic shot coatings.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 1.
Completion Time per Response: 3,200
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 3,200 hours.
Estimated Annual Nonhour Cost
Burden: $25,000.
Abstract: The Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.)
prohibits the unauthorized take of
migratory birds and authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to regulate take
of migratory birds in the United States.
Under this authority, we control the
hunting of migratory game birds through
regulations in 50 CFR part 20. On
January 1, 1991, we banned lead shot for
hunting waterfowl and coots in the
United States.
The regulations at 50 CFR 20.134
outline the application and approval
process for new types of nontoxic shot.
When considering approval of a
candidate material as nontoxic, we must
ensure that it is not hazardous in the
environment and that secondary
exposure (ingestion of spent shot or its
components) is not a hazard to
migratory birds. To make that decision,
we require each applicant to provide
information about the solubility and
toxicity of the candidate material.
Additionally, for law enforcement
purposes, a noninvasive field detection
device must be available to distinguish

VerDate Mar<15>2010

14:55 Mar 09, 2012

Jkt 226001

candidate shot from lead shot. This
information constitutes the bulk of an
application for approval of nontoxic
shot. The Director uses the data in the
application to decide whether or not to
approve a material as nontoxic.
Comments: On September 26, 2011,
we published in the Federal Register
(76 FR 59421) a notice of our intent to
request that OMB renew approval for
this information collection. In that
notice, we solicited comments for 60
days, ending on November 25, 2011. We
received one comment. The commenter
opposed expending funds to support the
approval of nontoxic shot, and stated
that a survey is not needed. This
information collection is not a survey. It
consists of risk assessments, toxicity
tests, and background information that
an applicant must submit in order for us
to determine whether or not a proposed
shot is nontoxic. We did not make any
changes to our information collection
requirements.
We again invite comments concerning
this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment, including your personal
identifying information, may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask OMB in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Dated: March 6, 2012.
Tina A. Campbell,
Chief, Division of Policy and Directives
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–5878 Filed 3–9–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

14565

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R7–R–2012–N046;
FXRS126307000004A–FF07R08000]

Information Collection Request Sent to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for Approval; Alaska Guide
Service Evaluation
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:

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 March 31, 2012.
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 April 11, 2012.
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 2042–PDM, 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA
22203 (mail), or [email protected]
(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0141’’ in
the subject line of your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Hope Grey at
[email protected] (email) 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: 1018–0141.
Title: Alaska Guide Service
Evaluation.
Service Form Number(s): 3–2349.
Type of Request: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Description of Respondents: Clients of
permitted commercial guide service
providers.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\12MRN1.SGM

12MRN1