[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24732-24737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11063]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: 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_Submission@omb.eop.gov
(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 info_coll@fws.gov (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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, at info_coll@fws.gov (email) or (703) 358-2503
(telephone).
[[Page 24733]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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.
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 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
[[Page 24734]]
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.
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 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 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 over-mitigate 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.
[[Page 24735]]
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 . . . .
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 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
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
[[Page 24736]]
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.
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 low-risk or lower impact activities
in the future.
EAWC/AWEA Comment 3F, re. Third-Party Monitoring
EWAC Comment: Having a blanket requirement for third-party
monitoring for all long-term ETPs is of limited utility and significant
cost.
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 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;
[[Page 24737]]
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.
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