30-day FRN Published 05/30/2017

24732

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Notices

information you provide. Therefore,
submitting this information makes it
public. You may wish to read the
Privacy Act notice that is available via
the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact for further information.
Elizabeth McDowell, Program
Specialist, 540–686–3630. You may
contact the Records Management
Division for copies of the proposed
collection of information at email
address: [email protected].
The
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121–5207 (the Act) is the legal basis for
FEMA to provide disaster related
assistance and services to individuals
who apply for disaster assistance
benefits in the event of a federally
declared disaster. The Individuals and
Households Program (IHP) (the Act at
5174, Federal Assistance to Individuals
and Households) provides financial
assistance to eligible individuals and
households who, as a direct result of a
major disaster or emergency have
necessary expenses and serious needs.
The ‘‘Other Needs Assistance’’ (ONA)
provision of IHP provides disaster
assistance to address needs other than
housing, such as personal property,
transportation, etc.
The delivery of the ONA provision of
IHP is contingent upon the State/Tribe
choosing an administrator for the
assistance. States/Tribes satisfy the
selection of an administrator of ONA by
completing the Administrative Option
Agreement (FEMA Form 010–0–11),
which establishes a plan for the delivery
of ONA. This agreement establishes a
partnership with FEMA and inscribes
the plan for the delivery of disaster
assistance. The agreement is used to
identify the State/Tribe’s proposed level
of support and participation during
disaster recovery. In response to Super
Storm Sandy (October 2012), Congress
added ‘‘child care’’ expenses as a
category of ONA through the Sandy
Recovery Improvement Act of 2013
(SRIA), Pub. L. 113–2. Section 1108 of
the SRIA amends section 408(e)(1) of
the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(e)(1)),
giving FEMA the specific authority to
pay for ‘‘child care’’ expenses as disaster
assistance under ONA.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information
Title: Federal Assistance to
Individuals and Households Program,
(IHP).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:59 May 26, 2017

Jkt 241001

Type of Information Collection:
Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
OMB Number: 1660–0061.
Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA
Form 010–0–11, Administrative Option
Agreement for the Other Needs
provision of Individuals and
Households Program, (IHP); FEMA
Form 010–0–12, Request for Continued
Assistance (Application for Continued
Temporary Housing Assistance); FEMA
Form 010–0–12S (Spanish) Solicitud
para Continuar la Asistencia de
Vivienda Temporera.
Abstract: The Federal Assistance to
Individuals and Households Program
(IHP) enhances applicants’ ability to
request approval of late applications,
request continued assistance, and
appeal program decisions. Similarly, it
allows States to partner with FEMA for
delivery of disaster assistance under the
‘‘Other Needs’’ provision of the IHP
through Administrative Option
Agreements and Administration Plans
addressing the level of managerial and
resource support necessary.
Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal
Government.
Number of Respondents: 59,073.
Number of Responses: 78,399.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 65,267 hours.
Estimated Cost: The estimated annual
cost to respondents for the hour burden
is $2,043,275.28. There are no annual
costs to respondents operations and
maintenance costs for technical
services. There is no annual start-up or
capital costs. The cost to the Federal
Government is $213,556.60.
Comments
Comments may be submitted as
indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a)
evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper
performance of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through
the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Dated: May 19, 2017.
Richard Mattison,
Records Management Branch Chief, Mission
Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2017–11089 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–23–P

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
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:

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 OIRA_
[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.
SUMMARY:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, at [email protected]
(email) or (703) 358–2503 (telephone).

E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM

30MYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Notices
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:59 May 26, 2017

Jkt 241001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

24733

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

E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM

30MYN1

24734

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Notices

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.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:59 May 26, 2017

Jkt 241001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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 overmitigate 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.

E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM

30MYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Notices
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 . . . .

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:59 May 26, 2017

Jkt 241001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00077

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

24735

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

E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM

30MYN1

24736

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Notices

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.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

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 lowrisk or lower impact activities in the
future.
EAWC/AWEA Comment 3F, re. ThirdParty Monitoring
EWAC Comment: Having a blanket
requirement for third-party monitoring
for all long-term ETPs is of limited
utility and significant cost.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:59 May 26, 2017

Jkt 241001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00078

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

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;

E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM

30MYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Notices
• 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.

are currently scheduled to be
complete and filed on June 12,
2017.
5. Vote in Inv. No. 731–TA–287 (Second
Review) (Raw-in-Shell Pistachios
from Iran). The Commission is
currently scheduled to complete
and file its determination and views
of the Commission by June 26,
2017.
6. Outstanding action jackets: None
In accordance with Commission
policy, subject matter listed above, not
disposed of at the scheduled meeting,
may be carried over to the agenda of the
following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: May 25, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017–11172 Filed 5–25–17; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[USITC SE–17–024]

Sunshine Act Meeting
United
States International Trade Commission.
TIME AND DATE: June 2, 2017 at 11:00
a.m.
PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436.
TELEPHONE: (202) 205–2000.
STATUS:
Open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Agendas for future meetings: none
2. Minutes
3. Ratification List
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701–TA–576–577
and 731–TA–1362–1367
(Preliminary) (Cold-Drawn
Mechanical Tubing from China,
Germany, India, Italy, Korea, and
Switzerland). The Commission is
currently scheduled to complete
and file its determinations on June
5, 2017; views of the Commission

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:59 May 26, 2017

Jkt 241001

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Lodging Proposed
Stipulation and Order
In accordance with Departmental
Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby
given that a proposed Stipulation and
Order in United States, et al. v. NSTAR
Electric Co. d/b/a Eversource Energy,
Harbor Electric Energy Co., and
Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Civil Action No. 16–11470–
RGS, was lodged with the United States
District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on May 23, 2017.
This proposed Stipulation and Order
concerns a complaint filed by the
United States against Defendants
NSTAR Electric Co. d/b/a Eversource
Energy, Harbor Electric Energy Co., and
the Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, for violations of Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33
U.S.C. 403, and Section 404(s) of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344(s). The
complaint seeks injunctive relief from,
and civil penalties against, the
Defendants for violating a permit issued
in 1989 by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers pursuant to the
above statutes. The permit allowed a
submarine cable to be installed across
Boston Harbor, from an electrical
substation in South Boston to Deer
Island. The complaint alleges that the
Defendants are the permittees or
successors-in-interest to the permittees.
Also, the complaint alleges that, within
two federal channels, the Reserved
Channel and the Main Ship Channel,
the Defendants laid the cable at
shallower depths than what the permit
required. The proposed Stipulation and

PO 00000

Frm 00079

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

24737

Order resolves these allegations by
requiring the Defendants to lay a new
cable from South Boston to Deer Island
and then remove, or partly remove and
partly abandon, the existing cable.
The Department of Justice will accept
written comments relating to this
proposed Stipulation and Order for
thirty (30) days from the date of
publication of this Notice. Please
address comments to Christine Wichers,
Assistant United States Attorney,
United States Attorney’s Office, One
Courthouse Way, Suite 9200, Boston,
MA 02210, and refer to United States, et
al. v. NSTAR Electric Co. d/b/a
Eversource Energy, Harbor Electric
Energy Co., and Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority, DJ # 90–5–1–1–
20730.
The proposed Stipulation and Order
may be examined at the Clerk’s Office,
United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, One
Courthouse Way, Suite 2300, Boston,
MA 02210. In addition, the proposed
Stipulation and Order may be examined
electronically at http://www.justice.gov/
enrd/consent-decrees.
Cherie L. Rogers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Defense Section, Environment and Natural
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2017–11032 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION
[NARA–2017–044]

Records Schedules; Availability and
Request for Comments
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA).
ACTION: Notice of availability of
proposed records schedules; request for
comments.
AGENCY:

The National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA)
publishes notice at least once monthly
of certain Federal agency requests for
records disposition authority (records
schedules). Once approved by NARA,
records schedules provide mandatory
instructions on what happens to records
when agencies no longer need them for
current Government business. The
records schedules authorize agencies to
preserve records of continuing value in
the National Archives of the United
States and to destroy, after a specified
period, records lacking administrative,
legal, research, or other value. NARA
publishes notice in the Federal Register
for records schedules in which agencies

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\30MYN1.SGM

30MYN1