Published 30-day FRN

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 97 / Tuesday, May 19, 2020 / Notices
collections. We appreciate these
comments and will work with our
regional permit offices to resolve the
inconsistent approach to setting permit
durations and requiring annual reports.
As part of our continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burdens, we are again soliciting
comments from the public and other
Federal agencies on the proposed ICR
that is described below. We are
especially interested in public comment
addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether or not the
information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) How might the agency 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 response.
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 us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Abstract: Information collection
requirements associated with the
Federal fish and wildlife permit
applications and reports for both
migratory birds and eagles are currently
approved under a single OMB control
number, 1018–0022, ‘‘Federal Fish and
Wildlife Permit Applications and
Reports—Migratory Birds and Eagles; 50
CFR 10, 13, 21, 22.’’ With this
submission to OMB, we are proposing to
reinstate OMB Control Number 1018–
0167, ‘‘Eagle Take Permits and Fees, 50
CFR 22,’’ in order to transfer the eagle
requirements back in to a separate
information collection to facilitate easier
management of the information
collection requirements associated with
eagles.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:57 May 18, 2020

Jkt 250001

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act (Eagle Act; 16 U.S.C. 668–668d)
prohibits take of bald eagles and golden
eagles except pursuant to Federal
regulations. The Eagle Act regulations at
title 50, part 22 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) define the ‘‘take’’ of
an eagle to include the following broad
range of actions: To ‘‘pursue, shoot,
shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture,
trap, collect, destroy, molest, or
disturb.’’ The Eagle Act allows the
Secretary of the Interior to authorize
certain otherwise prohibited activities
through regulations.
All Service permit applications
associated with eagles are in the 3–200
and 3–202 series of forms, each tailored
to a specific activity based on the
requirements for specific types of
permits. For this reinstatement, we
combined Forms 3–200–10c and 3–200–
10d into one form (3–200–10c) to reduce
the number of application forms and
help streamline the application process.
Since both forms dealt with possession
for education purposes, and asked
virtually the same questions of the
applicant, there was no need to have
separate forms. 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.
In addition to reinstating this
information collection, the Service will
request OMB approval to automate
certain eagle permit forms. The
Service’s new ‘‘ePermits’’ initiative is an
automated permit application system
that will allow the agency to move
towards a streamlined permitting
process to reduce public burden. Public
burden reduction is a priority for the
Service; the Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks; and senior
leadership at the Department of the
Interior. The intent of the ePermits
initiative is to fully automate the
permitting process to improve the
customer experience and to reduce time
burden on respondents. This new
system will enhance the user experience
by allowing users to enter data from any
device that has internet access,
including personal computers, tablets,
and smartphones. It will also link the
permit applicant to the Pay.gov system
for payment of the associated permit
application fee.
We anticipate including the following
Service forms in the ePermits initiative:
FWS Forms 3–200–14, 3–200–15a,
3–200–16, 3–200–18, 3–200–69, 3–200–
72, 3–200–77, 3–200–78, 3–200–82, 3–

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

29963

202–11 through 3–202–16, 3–1552, and
3–1591.
Title of Collection: Eagle Take Permits
and Fees, 50 CFR 22.
OMB Control Number: 1018–0167.
Form Numbers: FWS Forms 3–200–
14, 3–200–15a, 3–200–16, 3–200–18,
3–200–71, 3–200–72, 3–200–77, 3–200–
78, 3–200–82, 3–202–11 through 3–202–
16, 3–1552, 3–1591, and 3–2480.
Type of Review: Reinstatement of a
previously approved information
collection with revisions.
Respondents/Affected Public:
Individuals and businesses. We expect
the majority of applicants seeking longterm permits will be in the energy
production and electrical distribution
business.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Respondents: 4,068.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 4,318.
Estimated Completion Time per
Response: Varies from 15 minutes to
228 hours, depending on activity.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 25,894.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion
for applications; annually or on
occasion for reports.
Total Estimated Annual Nonhour
Burden Cost: $1,369,200 (primarily
associated with application processing
fees).
An agency 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.
The authority for this action is the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Dated: May 14, 2020.
Madonna Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–10708 Filed 5–18–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–HQ–MB–2020–N052; FF09M21200–
190–FXMB1231099BPP0; OMB Control
Number 1018–0022]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission to the Office of
Management and Budget for Review
and Approval; Federal Fish and
Wildlife Permit Applications and
Reports—Migratory Birds
AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM

19MYN1

29964

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 97 / Tuesday, May 19, 2020 / Notices

Notice of information collection;
request for comment.

ACTION:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, we, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, are proposing
to renew an existing information
collection with revisions.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before June 18,
2020.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments on
this information collection request to
the Office of Management and Budget’s
Desk Officer for the Department of the
Interior by email at OIRA_Submission@
omb.eop.gov; or via facsimile to (202)
395–5806. Please provide a copy of your
comments to the Service Information
Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/PERMA
(JAO), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041–3803 (mail); or by
email to [email protected]. Please
reference OMB Control Number ‘‘1018–
0022’’ in the subject line of your
comments.
SUMMARY:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madonna L. Baucum, Service
Information Collection Clearance
Officer, by email at [email protected],
or by telephone at (703) 358–2503.
Individuals who are hearing or speech
impaired may call the Federal Relay
Service at 1–800–877–8339 for TTY
assistance. You may also view the ICR
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain.
In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), we, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service, we), are
proposing to renew an existing
information collection with revisions.
In accordance with the PRA, we
provide the general public and other
Federal agencies with an opportunity to
comment on new, proposed, revised,
and continuing collections of
information. This helps us assess the
impact of our information collection
requirements and minimize the public’s
reporting burden. It also helps the
public understand our information
collection requirements and provide the
requested data in the desired format.
On October 28, 2019, we published in
the Federal Register (84 FR 57746) a
notice of our intent to request that OMB
approve this information collection. In
that notice, we solicited comments for
60 days, ending on December 27, 2019.
We received the following comments in
response to that notice:
Comment 1: Comment received via
email on October 31, 2019:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:57 May 18, 2020

Jkt 250001

The commenter states that the current
application process is quite
cumbersome and archaic, and that
annual reporting is difficult. The
commenter indicated they are reporting
two different ways, using both the
online system and the Excel spreadsheet
form. They asked if they could capture
all the reporting information through
the online (IMR) system only.
Agency Response to Comment 1: We
talked with the company about the
duplicate reporting they appeared to be
doing. We clarified that they should not
be required to submit the information
twice in two different forms, and made
sure they would only be using the
online system in the future. We also
corrected an issue in the online system
that was showing them an extended
version of the form with additional
fields they weren’t required to fill out.
Comment 2: Comment received via
mail on December 30, 2019:
The commenter indicated that it is
sometimes difficult for someone to
know if a permit is needed, and that
finding, reading, and understanding the
application of the regulations requires a
degree of expertise. They suggest a
decision key, or a similar tool within an
online system to help determine the
type of permit needed. They also
mentioned some confusion concerning
the words ‘‘scientific collecting’’ and
what exactly that means. They
suggested some revisions to the
Migratory Bird and Eagle Scientific
Collecting (3–200–7) and Eagle
Exhibition (3–200–14) application forms
to help clarify some potential perceived
overlap between and to help avoid
confusion in the future. With respect to
3–200–7, they pointed out that one
region is requiring a museum to obtain
a scientific collecting permit in order to
receive a bald eagle carcass from the
Service, rather than obtaining it under
the museum’s ‘‘Federal Eagle
Exhibition’’ permit. They indicate this
should not be the case, and suggest
clarifications to the application form are
needed so it’s clear what permits should
be issued and for what permit.
Agency Response to Comment 2: In
response to the comment about
information being difficult to find and
confusion about what permit to get, we
are continuously working to improve
our websites and forms to make it easier
for the public to find information. For
instance, we’ve recently co-located all of
our forms on our Migratory Bird web
page at: https://www.fws.gov/birds/
policies-and-regulations/permits/needa-permit.php and provided links to
instructions and FAQs directly in the
application and report forms. As we
continue to work to modernize the way

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

we collect and deliver information, this
should alleviate some, if not all the
current difficulties in locating
documents and information.
Responses to comments with regard to
Form 3–200–14 are addressed in the
information collection package for OMB
Control Number 1018–0167.
With regard to the comment
concerning overlap between the
authority of Forms 3–200–14 and 3–
200–7, there is no overlap between the
types of activities that are authorized
under these two permits. A scientific
collecting permit is required to collect/
salvage migratory birds and eagles from
the wild. Acquisitions and transfers of
eagle remains already in the possession
of the Service or a permittee do not
require a scientific collecting permit. An
eagle exhibition permit (which is
applied for using form 3–200–14),
would be required to display eagle
remains for educational use; and the
specimen can be acquired and
transferred from the Service to the
museum once the specimen has been
added to the list of specimens covered
under that permit (which can be done
via an amendment if that specimen was
not on the original application). We
believe the application forms and
associated FAQs are pretty clear on the
purpose of these two permits, but have
made some minor clarifications to the
Scientific Collecting application form
and FAQ that may help clarify some of
the concerns and confusion that have
been raised by this comment. If a
regional permit office is requiring a
Scientific Collection permit to obtain a
Bald Eagle from the Service, then the
region may be in error, and you should
contact your Regional Migratory Bird
Permit Office to discuss this further and
correct the error, if appropriate.
Falconry Database Comments—
Additionally, on August 13, 2019, we
published in the Federal Register (84
FR 40086) a notice of our intent to
request that OMB approve the
information collection requirements
associated with the falconry database. In
that notice, we solicited comments for
60 days, ending on October 15, 2019.
Subsequently, the Service decided to
incorporate those requirements into this
collection as a revision, rather than
request OMB approval of a new
collection, because falconry activities
are permitted under regulations
implementing the MBTA. We reviewed
and considered all comments received
in response to that notice as part of this
revision to OMB Control No. 1018–
0022. We fully considered all
substantive comments we received.
Below, we have grouped our responses
to comments by issue rather than by

E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM

19MYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 97 / Tuesday, May 19, 2020 / Notices
individual commenter. This avoids
repetition in our responses, and benefits
commenters, who will be interested in
seeing other commenters’ views on
topics of interest, along with our
responses.
We received the following comments
in response to the falconry database
notice:
Comment 1: Comment received via
email on August 13, 2019: The
commenter is not in favor of the
information collecting being used for
law enforcement purposes. They believe
that if a falconer has a falconry license
and the raptor is reported into the
appropriate database, law enforcement
authority ends at that point, and the
authority of FWS to gather raptor
harvest information ends once a WILD
raptor has been legally taken and
reported. They believe that if falconers
wish to transfer a wild taken raptor to
other properly licensed individuals, this
is beyond the scope of MBTA authority.
In addition, they believe the progeny of
domestic bred raptors—whether pure
species/subspecies or hybrids—is
beyond the scope of the MBTA
especially since the 2004 MBTA
Revision excluded non-naturally
occurring birds.
Agency Response to Comment 1:
Wildlife law enforcement actions
related to falconry remains important to
maintain compliance with state rules
and regulations regarding species of
take, bird transfers and humane
treatment of Falconry birds.
Comment 2: Comment received via
email on August 28, 2019: In California
the state bears the burden of collecting
falconry data and reporting it to the
USFWS.
Comment 3: Comment received via
email on August 22, 2019: The state
agencies could execute an annual bulk
upload of all take reports to the federal
system.
Agency Response to Comments 2 and
3: California has authority to collect
falconry information on their own
database. This collection system was
approved by the Service, as it mirrors
the federal 3–186 A database used by all
other States. Falconry data from
California have been regularly
transferred to the Service to aid in
review of take of falconry species and
subsequent impact to wild raptor
populations across State lines. All other
States have decided to use the Federal
3–186A database for collection of
falconry information.
Comment 4: Comment received via
email on August 28, 2019: The
commenter indicates that since
domestically bred raptors are not wild,
some of them not having seen the wild

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:57 May 18, 2020

Jkt 250001

for generations, the information about
them should be outside the scope of the
USFWS. They believe this reporting
requirement is redundant, burdensome
and does not improve management of
wild raptors.
Comment 5: Comment received via
email on October 14, 2019: The
commenter states the Service should
only track raptors taken from the wild.
They state that captive-bred raptors and
hybrids of exotic crosses are no longer
migratory birds due to their origin, that
the Services classification of them is in
error, and creates unnecessary burden.
Comment 6: Comment received via
email on August 28, 2019: Collecting
information about domestically bred
and kept raptors should not be in the
scope of the system.
Agency Response to Comments 4, 5
and 6: Federal and State regulations
governing falconry and raptors removed
from the wild consider all falconry birds
‘‘wild’’ regardless of the length of time
in captivity or if it has been transferred
to another permittee or permit type.
Domestically bred raptors were from
wild lineage at some point, and are for
the most part, similar in appearance and
behavior to wild-caught birds.
Information collected on these birds
assists State and Federal agencies with
compliance of rules and regulations, as
codified by the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, which prohibits any person from
taking, possessing, purchasing,
bartering, selling or offering to purchase,
barter, or sell, among other things,
raptors (birds of prey) protected by the
Act, unless the activities are allowed by
Federal permit.
Comment 7: Comment received via
email on October 14, 2019: The
commenter asked why, since the Service
did away with the Federal Falconry
Permit in 2014, it is still requiring the
States to administer/maintain databases
of Falconers. They comment that the
new database does not enhance the user
experience due to its complexity and
the fact you must have internet to access
it.
Agency Response to Comment 7: The
latest revision of the 3–186A database
has been used by State and Federal
agencies to compile information
regarding wild and captive bred raptors
for the sport of falconry. State agencies
provide falconers guidance to comply
with their regulations; a part of this is
to maintain current information on
falconry take and disposition of falconry
birds. While the new 3–186A database
is internet based, some States have
allowed paper forms to be submitted to
falconry administrators when the
internet is unavailable to the falconer.
The decision to use paper forms, or

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

29965

other forms of data entry has been left
to the States. However, due to staffing
issues, some States that currently allow
paper forms are transitioning to an
online data entry system. If a State
choses to allow the use of paper forms,
the State assumes the responsibility for
entering the required information into
the 3–186A database system.
Comment 8: Comment received via
email on October 14, 2019: The
commenter suggests that the Service’s
overregulation of Falconry is
discriminatory towards a tiny minority
of sportsmen and sportswomen and they
should expend their resources and
efforts in data collection instead toward
things like identification and regulation/
registration of the owners of military
assault weapons.
Agency Response to Comment 8:
Thank you for your comment. Your
response is helpful and will be part of
the public record.
Comment 9: Comment received via
email on August 16, 2019: The
commenter states that there are less than
200 falconers in the United States and
asked why tax payers are paying to
support such a small group. They state
it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars, and
think the program should be shut down.
Agency Response to Comment 9:
Thank you for your comment. Your
response is helpful and will be part of
the public record.
Comment 10: Comment received via
email on August 21, 2019: The
commenter is a user of the online
system. The commenter says the system
is not user friendly. Specific complaints
are missing dispositions and the random
ability to view other Permittee’s
dispositions.
Comment 11: Comment received via
email on October 15, 2019: The
commenter has used both the original
and new database, and finds the newer
much more confusing and time
consuming. They think the new system
should look and work more like the old
system. They also state they’ve lost
records because the state has edited or
removed them. They state there’s no
reason for a state to go in and edit a
falconer’s form. They said it’s become a
nightmare to use and maintain and get
original records back in place within the
system. They suggest what the system
generates needs to be a standard looking
3–186 that a state cannot remove or edit
once a registered falconer records the
info in the system.
Comment 12: Comment received via
postal mail on October 15, 2019: The
commenter finds the online system
unnecessarily cumbersome, tedious and
error prone. They suggest form-based,
rather than field-based data entry

E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM

19MYN1

29966

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 97 / Tuesday, May 19, 2020 / Notices

validation, which they feel would
greatly simplify the data-entry process.
Also, they comment that the burden
estimates state that 2.5 hours to
complete the form. In their experience
it takes approximately 30 minutes to
complete a 3–186A online. However,
they believe this time could be and
should be reduced to approximately 10
minutes with proper website design
including the use of form-based rather
than field-based data entry validation.
Comment 13: Comment received via
postal mail on September 17, 2019: The
commenter states that the Service could
enhance the utility of the information
and minimize the burden of the
collection of information upon the
respondents if the application was made
more user friendly.
Agency Response to Comments 10–13:
In the quest to get the database
functioning again quickly, we had to
adhere to recent changes in Federal
computer standards. We agree the
accurate data entry for most acquisition
and transfers should take 10 to 30
minutes, depending on the situation and
details related to the falconry bird. At
this time due to federal database
standards and platform specific code, as
well as resources available to us, we
cannot change the 3–186A database
online appearance to mimic the paper
format.
Comment 14: Comment received via
postal mail on August 22, 2019: The
commenter asks if the database is
necessary. The commenter suggests that
in collaboration with the States, the
Service should be monitoring falconry
take to ensure that take does not exceed
5% as recommended by the USFWS in
Millsap and Allen 2006.
Agency Response to Comment 14: The
3–186A database is the mechanism that
the Service established to accomplish
that exact task, to track the number of
raptors removed from the wild annually
by falconers to ensure compliance with
the take limits established in the 2008
environmental assessment. The current
framework, where permitting authority
is delegated to the States, hinges on the
ability for take to be tracked nationally
via the 3–186A database. In addition,
the 3–186A database provides
information within and across State
boundaries to allow State and Federal
wildlife officials for periodic review of
take of raptors used for falconry, and to
be cognizant of potential impacts to
wild raptors where species issues have
been suggested or documented by
credible data, and/or independent, peer
reviewed research.
Comment 15: Comment received via
postal mail on August 22, 2019: The
commenter asks if the information in

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:57 May 18, 2020

Jkt 250001

the database will be processed and used
in a timely manner. After talking with
some agency biologists, it sounds to
them that there is essentially zero
capacity at the state level to monitoring
these databases for accuracy,
compliance, or take levels among other
reasons. So, they feel that the existence
of the system itself is possibly
unjustified. They state that since
falconers are already submitting annual
reports to their state F&W agency every
year, they are, in effect, submitting
duplicate records for no reason.
Comment 16: Comment received via
postal mail on August 22, 2019: The
commenter suggests that to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected, the system
should replace annual reporting at the
state level and should be highly userfriendly. They state that due to the
dysfunction of the last system, a lot of
people were just submitting paper
copies anyway to their state falconry
staff person. They suggest the Service
improve the system to provide the state
agency with the necessary information
while maintaining a safe and accurate
database of record submissions for each
permittee.
Comment 17: Comment received via
postal mail on August 22, 2019: The
commenter states that the Service can
minimize the burden of this collection
on the respondents by advising states
that annual report requirements are
being met by the database reporting
system and are thus unnecessary.
Comment 18: Comment received via
postal mail on August 22, 2019: The
commenter states that the process can
be streamlined by elimination of
reporting by falconers because it is
redundant for both falconers and state
wildlife agencies to report the same
information.
Agency Response to Comment 15–18:
State biologists, in concert with
biologists and computer specialists from
the Service’s Division of Migratory
Birds, regularly look at data provided by
falconers. When questions of accuracy,
compliance or take levels are derived
from information supplied by falconers,
state falconry administrators reach out
to falconers to maintain quality
assurance. In response to questionable
information, state administrators may
reach out to their Wildlife Law
Enforcement branch for potential
follow-up with the falconer. Data
submission on the 3–186A database, as
well as via additional annual reporting
has been considered standard practice
by some states. If falconers perceive an
issue with the system recognizing other
permit types, they should interact with
their state falconry administrator, as

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

states vary in their insistence of other
permit types being reported via the 3–
186A database. Reporting requirements
may vary, as each state may do what
they deem appropriate for record
keeping as long as those standards are
within the sideboards of Federal
Falconry regulations (50 CFR 21.29)
Comment 19: Comment received via
postal mail on August 22, 2019: The
commenter suggests the database be
made to allow transfer and acquisitions
between all possible legal permit types.
They suggest making sure the database
serves the permittee by saving all
submissions and allowing the permittee
to search and print all past submissions
easily.
They also suggest linking the
transfers, so that when one permittee
fills out a transfer on the database, it
will prompt that other involved
permittee by email.
Comment 20: Comment received via
postal mail on August 31, 2019: The
commenter says the database needs a
complete re-write. They state that
signing in is nearly impossible, and the
PDF forms are difficult to use, and often
deletes their information as they are
typing it. They suggest there should be
a PDF ’send/save’ mode where we send
the PDF as an attachment, and a
confirmation number/email for their
records that we note the data sent on
our records. They also suggest a
comments section on the form is
needed, and a description of the bird if
it has unusual markings, etc. They state
it should be easily used with any
browser type.
Agency Response to Comment 19–20:
Your comments are helpful as the
Service and States look to improve the
3–186A database and falconry record
keeping. If falconers perceive an issue
with the system for access, recognizing
or saving data, they should interact with
their state falconry administrator, as
states vary in their insistence of other
permit types being reported via the 3–
186A database. Reporting requirements
may vary, as each state may do what
they deem appropriate for record
keeping as long as those standards are
within the sideboards of Federal
Falconry regulations (50 CFR 21.29).
Comment 21: Comment received via
postal mail on August 22, 2019: The
commenter suggests increasing the
length of time a permittee has to report
a transfer or acquisition to make it less
likely that violations are a matter of
plain forgetting.
Agency Response to Comment 21:
Current timelines by Federal and State
regulations are 10 days for the length of
time necessary to report an acquisition
or transfer. This requirement may vary

E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM

19MYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 97 / Tuesday, May 19, 2020 / Notices
to be more restrictive, as each State may
do what they deem appropriate for
record keeping as long as those
standards are within the sideboards of
Federal Falconry regulations (50 CFR
21.29).
Comment 22: Comment received via
postal mail on October 15, 2019: The
commenter is confused by some
statements in the posting. The posting
indicated that the service anticipated
about 40 annual respondents. They state
that since the 3–186A form is required
for every raptor taken, release or
transferred, and nearly 700 birds are
taken annually, we would expect closer
to 1,000 3–186A forms to be submitted
every year.
Agency Response to Comment 22: We
admit the error of the Service statement
in the Federal Register notice and thank
the commenter for pointing this out. In
review of our statements, the Service
was indicating the time expected to be
interacting with all State falconry
administrators regarding the 3–186A
database. The commenter is correct on
the approximate time necessary for
falconers across the United States to
provide their pertinent data under their
permit to the states via the 3–186A
database.
Comment 23: Comment received via
postal mail on September 17, 2019: The
commenter supports the collection of
data regarding acquisition and
dispositions of wild raptors used in
falconry. They state that while the
Environmental Assessment by Millsap,
et al. found that falconry take of raptors
has no impact on raptor populations,
they acknowledge that comprehensive
collection of this information on a
nation-wide basis may be of value to
biologists and historians. They state that
collection of such data should also
support the following functions:
enforcing federal wildlife laws,
protecting endangered species and
managing migratory birds.
Agency Response to Comment 23: We
appreciate the commenter’s perspective.
The 3–186A database provides
information within and across State
boundaries to allow State and Federal
wildlife officials for periodic review of
take of raptors used for falconry, and to
be cognizant of potential impacts to
wild raptors where species issues have
been suggested or documented by
credible data, and/or independent, peer
reviewed research.
As part of our continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burdens, we are again soliciting
comments from the public and other
Federal agencies on the proposed ICR
that is described below. We are

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:57 May 18, 2020

Jkt 250001

especially interested in public comment
addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether or not the
information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) How might the agency 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 response.
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 that your
entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
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 (18 U.S.C. 42; 16 U.S.C.
3371 et seq.).
(3) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.).
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.
With the exception of Forms 3–186
and 3–186a, all Service permit
applications are in the 3–200 and 3–202
series of forms, each tailored to a
specific activity based on the
requirements for specific types of
permits. For this revision, we combined
Forms 3–200–10c and 3–200–10d into
one form (3–200–10c) to reduce the

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

29967

number of application forms and help
streamline the application process.
Since both forms dealt with possession
for education purposes, and asked
virtually the same questions of the
applicant, there was no need to have
separate forms. 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.
Proposed Revisions to This Information
Collection
With this submission, we are
proposing the following revisions to the
existing information collection:
Transfer of Eagle Requirements to OMB
Control No. 1018–0167
Information collection requirements
associated with the Federal fish and
wildlife permit applications and reports
for both migratory birds and eagles are
currently approved under a single OMB
control number, 1018–0022, ‘‘Federal
Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications
and Reports—Migratory Birds and
Eagles; 50 CFR 10, 13, 21, 22.’’ With this
submission to OMB, we are proposing to
reinstate OMB Control Number 1018–
0167, ‘‘Eagle Take Permits and Fees, 50
CFR 22.’’ Transferring the eagle
requirements back to its original
information collection will facilitate
easier management of the information
collection requirements associated with
eagles.
ePermits Initiative
The Service will request OMB
approval to automate certain migratory
bird permit forms. The Service’s new
‘‘ePermits’’ initiative is an automated
permit application system that will
allow the agency to move towards a
streamlined permitting process to
reduce public burden. Public burden
reduction is a priority for the Service;
the Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks; and senior
leadership at the Department of the
Interior. The intent of the ePermits
initiative is to fully automate the
permitting process to improve the
customer experience and to reduce time
burden on respondents. This new
system will enhance the user experience
by allowing users to enter data from any
device that has internet access,
including personal computers (PCs),
tablets, and smartphones. It will also
link the permit applicant to the Pay.gov
system for payment of the associated
permit application fee.

E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM

19MYN1

29968

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 97 / Tuesday, May 19, 2020 / Notices

We anticipate including the following
Service forms in the ePermits system: 3–
186, 3–186A, 3–200–6 through 3–200–9,
3–200–10a through 3–200–10c, 3–200–
10e, 3–200–10f, 3–200–12 through 3–
200–13, 3–200–67, 3–200–79, 3–200–81,
3–202–1 through 3–202–10, 3–202–12,
and 3–202–17.
Falconry Program Requirements
Additionally, we propose to
incorporate the information collection
requirements associated with the
Service’s falconry program into this
collection (OMB Control No. 1018–
0022). Beginning in 2014, the Service
passed the authority to issue permits for
the practice of falconry to individual
States (50 CFR 21.29; 78 FR 72830,
December 4, 2013). As part of this
change in authority, we required States
to maintain databases of falconers
authorized to conduct falconry in their
States and required falconers to report
transfers of falconry birds using the
paper version of FWS Form 3–186A. We
require each State that maintains its
own database to ensure that it is
compatible with the Service’s database.
To date, 47 States utilize the system
provided by the Service. The Service’s
database continues to track take of birds
from the wild by falconers and to
maintain records of persons permitted
by the States to practice falconry, as
required by 50 CFR 21.29(k)(1).
The primary purpose of this database
is to allow the Service to track take of
raptors from the wild by falconers to
ensure take does not exceed levels
established in the Service’s 2008
environmental assessment of the
impacts of the falconry regulations on
wild raptor populations. The ability to
track and document the effects of the
wild take of raptors by falconers
remains a responsibility of the Service.
The database also: (1) Provides falconers
and States with the information
necessary to allow the efficient
movement of falconers and raptors held
under falconry permits among States;
and (2) ensures that falconers can
formally document their experience
regardless of the States in which they
have resided, which is required to
advance from the apprentice- to generalto master-class permit levels.
In 2018, the Service requested and
received OMB approval under the
Department of the Interior Fast Track
generic clearance (OMB Control No.
1090–0011) to conduct usability testing
of the revised/repaired application and
database functionality. The revised/
repairs falconry database (database)
replaced a legacy system based on
outdated programming. It reduced the
cost to the government by eliminating

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:57 May 18, 2020

Jkt 250001

the need for Service personnel to enter
data for each new falconer, and simply
required the entry of data for State
administrators. In addition, this new
database enhances the user experience
by allowing them to enter data from any
device that has internet access,
including PCs, tablets, and smart
phones. The usability testing helped the
Service to address problems and
recommendations prior to the database
going live. We are now ready to request
full OMB approval of the falconry
database and the information collection
requirements associated with the
falconry program.
Title of Collection: Federal Fish and
Wildlife Permit Applications and
Reports—Migratory Birds; 50 CFR 10,
13, 21.
OMB Control Number: 1018–0022.
Form Number: FWS Forms 3–186, 3–
186A, 3–200–6 through 3–200–9, 3–
200–10a through 3–200–10c, 3–200–
10e, 3–200–10f, 3–200–12 through 3–
200–13, 3–200–67, 3–200–79, 3–200–81,
3–202–1 through 3–202–10, 3–202–12,
and 3–202–17.
Type of Review: Revision of an
existing information collection.
Respondents/Affected Public:
Individuals; zoological parks; museums;
universities; scientists; taxidermists;
businesses; utilities; and Federal, State,
local, and Tribal governments.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Respondents: 27,980.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 53,510.
Estimated Completion Time per
Response: Varies from 15 minutes to
260 hours, depending on activity.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 394,967.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion
for applications; annually or on
occasion for reports.
Total Estimated Annual Nonhour
Burden Cost: $491,050 (primarily
associated with application processing
fees).
An agency 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.
The authority for this action is the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Dated: May 14, 2020.
Madonna Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–10707 Filed 5–18–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–HQ–IA–2020–N051;
FXIA16710900000–190–FF09A30000; OMB
Control Number 1018–0093]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission to the Office of
Management and Budget for Review
and Approval; Federal Fish and
Wildlife Permit Applications and
Reports—Management Authority
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of information collection;
request for comment.
AGENCY:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, we, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, are proposing
to renew an existing information
collection with revisions.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before June 18,
2020.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments on
this information collection request to
the Office of Management and Budget’s
Desk Officer for the Department of the
Interior by email at OIRA_Submission@
omb.eop.gov; or via facsimile to (202)
395–5806. Please provide a copy of your
comments to the Service Information
Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/PERMA
(JAO), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041–3803 (mail); or by
email to [email protected]. Please
reference OMB Control Number ‘‘1018–
0093’’ in the subject line of your
comments.
SUMMARY:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madonna L. Baucum, Service
Information Collection Clearance
Officer, by email at [email protected],
or by telephone at (703) 358–2503. You
may also view the ICR at http://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), we, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service, we), are
proposing to renew an existing
information collection with revisions.
In accordance with the PRA, we
provide the general public and other
Federal agencies with an opportunity to
comment on new, proposed, revised,
and continuing collections of
information. This helps us assess the
impact of our information collection
requirements and minimize the public’s
reporting burden. It also helps the
public understand our information

E:\FR\FM\19MYN1.SGM

19MYN1