Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0093; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports-Management Authority, 24139-24141 [2017-10702]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 100 / Thursday, May 25, 2017 / Notices
documenting the numbers and types of
traditional and non-traditional mental
health providers accessing training; the
content, nature and types of training
participants receive; and the extent to
which trainees experience knowledge,
skill and attitude gains/changes as a
result of training attendance. The multisite data collection design uses a twotiered data collection and analytic
strategy to collect information on (1) the
organization and delivery of training,
24139
and (2) the impact of training on
participants’ knowledge, skills and
abilities.
The annual burden estimates for this
activity are shown in the table below.
ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATE
Annualized Burden Estimates and Costs
Mental Health Care Provider Education in HIV/AIDS Program (10 sites)
Responses
per
respondent
Number of
respondents
Form
Total
responses
Hours per
response
Total hour
burden
All Sessions
One form per session completed by program staff/trainer
Session Report Form ...........................................................
Participant Feedback Form (General Education) ................
Neuropsychiatric Participant Feedback Form ......................
Adherence Participant Feedback Form ...............................
Ethics Participant Feedback Form .......................................
Total ..............................................................................
Written comments and
recommendations concerning the
proposed information collection should
be sent by June 26, 2017 to the
SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). To ensure timely receipt of
comments, and to avoid potential delays
in OMB’s receipt and processing of mail
sent through the U.S. Postal Service,
commenters are encouraged to submit
their comments to OMB via email to:
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.
Although commenters are encouraged to
send their comments via email,
commenters may also fax their
comments to: 202–395–7285.
Commenters may also mail them to:
Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, New Executive Office Building,
Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.
Summer King,
Statistician.
[FR Doc. 2017–10734 Filed 5–24–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162–20–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:04 May 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
600
5,000
4,000
1,000
2,000
12,600
1
1
1
1
1
........................
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–HQ–IA–2017–N069;
FXIA16710900000–167–FF09A30000]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: OMB Control Number 1018–
0093; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit
Applications and Reports—
Management Authority
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 June 26, 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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
600
5,000
4,000
1,000
2,000
12,600
0.08
0.167
0.167
0.167
0.167
........................
48
835
668
167
125
1,843
to the Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike,
MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803 (mail); or info_coll@fws.gov
(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0093’’ in
the subject line of your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, at info_coll@fws.gov
(email) or (703) 358–2503 (telephone).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
This information collection covers
permit applications and reports that our
Division of Management Authority uses
to determine the eligibility of applicants
for permits requested in accordance
with the criteria in various Federal
wildlife conservation laws and
international treaties. Service
regulations implementing these statutes
and treaties are in chapter I, subchapter
B of title 50, 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.
Information collection requirements
associated with the Federal fish and
wildlife permit applications and reports
are currently approved under three
different OMB control numbers: 1018–
0093, ‘‘Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit
Applications and Reports—Management
Authority; 50 CFR 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 21, 23’’; 1018–0150, ‘‘Renewal of
CITES Registration of Commercial
Breeding Operations for Appendix I
Wildlife and Other CITES
E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM
25MYN1
24140
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 100 / Thursday, May 25, 2017 / Notices
Requirements, 50 CFR 17 and 23’’; and
1018–0164, ‘‘Import of Sport-Hunted
African Elephant Trophies, 50 CFR 17.’’
In this revision of 1018–0093, we will
include all of the information collection
requirements associated with all three
OMB Control Numbers. If OMB
approves this revision, we will
discontinue OMB Control Numbers
1018–0150 and 1018–0164.
II. Data
OMB Control Number: 1018–0093.
Title: Federal Fish and Wildlife
Permit Applications and Reports—
Management Authority; 50 CFR 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23.
Form Numbers: FWS Forms 3–200–19
through 3–200–37, 3–200–39 through 3–
200–44, 3–200–46 through 3–200–53, 3–
200–58, 3–200–61, 3–200–64 through 3–
200–66, 3–200–69, 3–200–70, 3–200–73
through 3–200–76, 3–200–80, and 3–
200–85 through 3–200–88.
Type of Request: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Description of Respondents:
Individuals; biomedical companies;
circuses; zoological parks; botanical
gardens; nurseries; museums;
universities; antique dealers; exotic pet
industry; hunters; taxidermists;
commercial importers/exporters of
wildlife and plants; freight forwarders/
brokers; and State, tribal, local, and
Federal governments.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 7,902.
Estimated Completion Time per
Response: Varies from 15 minutes to 40
hours, depending on activity.
Estimated Annual Burden Hours:
5,620.
Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden
Cost: $519,903 for costs associated with
application processing fees, which range
from $0 to $250. There is no fee for
reports. Federal, tribal, State, and local
government agencies and those acting
on their behalf are exempt from
processing fees.
III. Comments
On February 24, 2017, we published
in the Federal Register (82 FR 11596) of
our intent to request that OMB approve
this information collection. In that
notice, we solicited comments for sixty
(60) days, ending on April 25, 2017. We
received five comments in response to
that Notice:
Comment 1: Email Comment Dated
04/21/2017 from Conservation Force:
We received a comment from
Conservation Force on April 21, that
provided a number of suggestions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:04 May 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
regarding trophy applications (3–200–
19, 3–200–20, 3–200–21, and 3–200–22)
and applications under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act for captivebreeding and take (3–200–37 and 3–
200–41). The commenter was concerned
the Service would reject applications
that were expired or soon to expire.
They also discuss various items that
they believe should be updated or
omitted. The commenter has raised
questions on why the Service was
requesting applicant’s social security
numbers. Furthermore, they were
concerned that the purposes for why
some applicants, particularly hunting
ranches, were requesting authorization
under the Endangered Species Act were
not clearly outlined on the application
and confusing to applicants. They end
with a statement of the need for an
electronic permitting system.
FWS Response to Comment 1: The
Service has addressed many of the
issues raised by the commenter. Over
one year ago, the Service discontinued
capturing applicant’s social security
numbers in our permitting database, so
have removed the question requesting
this information from the application
forms. The Service agrees with the
commenter regarding eliminating the
need to a description of the trophy being
imported and has removed that question
from forms 3–200–19, 3–200–20, 3–200–
21, and 3–200–22. The Service
recognizes the commenter’s concern
that some applicants may be confused
by some questions and has simplified
the application to request information in
a clearly manner to meet the needs for
a variety of permitting situations. In an
effort to provide better outreach to
applicants, the Service is committed to
developing web-based material to
provide greater insight to the permitting
process than may be available on the
face of any one application form.
Finally, the Service appreciates the
commenter’s suggestions for improving
the application process and are working
on an e-permits issuing system.
Comment 2: Email Comment Dated
04/25/2017 from The Humane Society
of the United States, Humane Society
International, and The Humane Society
Legislative Fund (combined response):
The Humane Society of the United
States (HSUS), Humane Society
International (HIS), The Humane
Society Legislative Fund expressed that
the information collected by the Service
is all necessary for the Service to
implement its regulations. They support
the current information collection and
expressed the need to continue to
collect the information to ensure the
proper implementation of CITES and
FWS regulations. They also expressed
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that the current information collection
provides a benefit to the public since
much of the collected information is
available through the Freedom of
Information Act providing the public an
opportunity to better monitor activities
that involved species that are protected
under CITES, the ESA, and other laws.
The commenters did not provide any
specific recommendations to improve
the information collection, however.
FWS Response to Comment 2: The
Service appreciates the commenters’
statement, but given that the comments
did not address specific issues that
would improve the application forms
themselves or the burden placed on
applicants. Therefore, we have no
additional response to the comments.
Comment 3: Email Comment Dated
04/21/2017 from the League of
American Orchestras: The commenter
represents over 800 nonprofit
organizations within the United States
that support or operate symphonies,
community orchestras, summer musical
festivals, and student/youth ensembles.
Many of the commenter’s members
participate in international
performances and therefore must obtain
permits to move instruments that
contain listed species. Most of the
comments submitted deal more with the
underlying regulations and U.S.
obligations under CITES than with the
permit applications themselves. The
commenter requested that the Service
work to eliminate or reduce the
permitting requirements established
under CITES. The commenter did state
that the estimated completion time
burden of 0.5 hour did not accurately
reflect the time required for some
orchestras to complete application form
3–200–88. The commenter stated that its
members are, for the most part, new to
the permitting process and unfamiliar
with the documentation requirements
needed to complete the application
form. As with the other commenters,
this commenter raised the need for an
electronic permitting system to
streamline submission of applications.
FWS Response to Comment 3: The
Service has been actively working with
the commenter and its members for
several years to help education them on
the permitting requirements under
CITES and the application process.
While most of the comments provided
by this commenter are outside the
information collection process, the
Service will take them into advisement
as we move forward in our efforts to
address outstanding issues within the
CITES community. The Service
recognizes and, on many points made
by the commenter, support the need for
changes within the CITES context. In
E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM
25MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 100 / Thursday, May 25, 2017 / Notices
regards to the estimated completion
time burden, the Service recognizes that
many of the applicants that fill out form
3–200–88 are large orchestras that may
have multiple instruments that need to
be exported. While the Service believes
that each musician involved in the
orchestra or, if the instruments are
owned by the orchestra itself, should
have all of the relevant information
about their instruments readily
available, it may take longer to compile
all of the information than we initially
estimated to complete the application
form. Therefore, we are increasing our
estimated time burden to 1.5 hours.
Lastly, as with the previous
commenters, the Service supports the
concept of creating an electronic
permitting system and is actively
working on that endeavor at this time.
Comment 4: Email Comment Dated
04/21/2017 from the National
Association of Music Merchants: The
commenter represents over 900
members in the United States and 100
other countries, many of which are
involved in the commercial trade of
products recently regulated by CITES.
Due to the recent listing of the affected
timber species, many members are
unfamiliar with the Service’s permitting
process. The commenter requested that
the Service provide greater clarity of the
need for permits due to the recent
CITES listing and the permitting
process.
The commenter requested more
detailed instructions as to the document
requirements to conduct legal
international business with products
manufactured with listed wood species
and greater recognition on the part of
the Service on how the permitting
process affects the commenter’s
members. Finally, the commenter
requesting that an electronic permitting
system be developed to streamline the
permitting process.
FWS Response to Comment 4: The
Service has been actively working with
the commenter and its members since
the timber species were listed on CITES
and the impact that the permitting
process would have on international
trade carried out by the commenter’s
members. The Service had modified the
proposed applications to provide greater
clarity and to make the applications
more user-friendly. Several of the
commenter’s statements go outside this
specific information collection process,
but will be take the comments into
consideration in other actions taken by
the Service.
Comment 5: Email Comment Dated
04/21/2017 from Taylor Guitars: Taylor
Guitars addressed several factors that
they stated affects their business process
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:04 May 24, 2017
Jkt 241001
in order to export finish guitars. Taylor
raised concerns about the permit
application processing by the Service
once an application is submitted to the
Service. They were specifically
concerned that how the Service reviews
submitted applications and the permits
issued creates a burden for Taylor to
carry out the business as they did before
a recent listing of a number of timber
species in January 2017 under CITES.
Taylor also raised issues that when the
Service considers the time and cost
burdens that applicants/permittees face
when carrying out export business,
particularly in regards to the cost of
applying for a permit and the cost of
clearance at the port of export. Taylor
also recommended several ways to
reduce the application burden. As with
other commenters, Taylor suggested that
the Service implement an electronic
application process. Taylor also
recommended that the Service consider
establishing a permitting process for
applicants that they would consider to
be ‘‘low risk exporters’’. This process
would combine both the permit
application process and the clearance
process at the port.
FWS Response to Comment 5: Most of
the comments provided by Taylor
addressed the application process and
the clearance process, not the
application forms themselves or how
those forms could be revised to improve
the information collection. Taylor raised
several aspects that would require
specific rulemakings to address the
Service’s current regulatory structure
and the implementation of CITES. The
Service will take these comments into
consideration as we consider revisions
to our current regulations. The Service
is, as stated previously, currently
developing electronic applications that
would allow applicants to supply
permit applications electronically and
pay the application fee online. This
process, once in place, should allow for
a smoother application process in
regards to submissions and subsequent
communication with the application.
We again invite comments concerning
this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24141
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. We will include or
summarize each comment in our request
to OMB to approve this IC. 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.
IV. Authorities
The authorities for this action are the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(16 U.S.C. 704), the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.), the Wild Bird Conservation Act
(16 U.S.C. 4901–4916), Lacey Act:
Injurious Wildlife (18 U.S.C. 42), the
Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (TIAS 8249), and the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Dated: May 22, 2017.
Madonna L. Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–10702 Filed 5–24–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
[Docket No. ONRR–2012–0003; DS63602000
DR2000000.PX8000 178D0102R2]
U.S. Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative (USEITI)
Advisory Committee; Postponement of
Meeting
Office of the Secretary, Office
of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The June 2017 United States
Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative Advisory Committee meeting
has been postponed.
DATES: The meeting was scheduled for
June 7–8, 2017, in Washington, DC, and
will be rescheduled at a later date. We
will publish a future notice with a new
meeting date and location.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Judith Wilson, Program Manager, 1849
C Street NW., MS 4211, Washington, DC
20240. You may also contact the USEITI
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM
25MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 100 (Thursday, May 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24139-24141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10702]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-HQ-IA-2017-N069; FXIA16710900000-167-FF09A30000]
Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number
1018-0093; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports--
Management Authority
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 June 26, 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, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803
(mail); or info_coll@fws.gov (email). Please include ``1018-0093'' in
the subject line of your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, at info_coll@fws.gov (email) or (703) 358-2503
(telephone).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
This information collection covers permit applications and reports
that our Division of Management Authority uses to determine the
eligibility of applicants for permits requested in accordance with the
criteria in various Federal wildlife conservation laws and
international treaties. Service regulations implementing these statutes
and treaties are in chapter I, subchapter B of title 50, 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.
Information collection requirements associated with the Federal
fish and wildlife permit applications and reports are currently
approved under three different OMB control numbers: 1018-0093,
``Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports--Management
Authority; 50 CFR 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23''; 1018-0150,
``Renewal of CITES Registration of Commercial Breeding Operations for
Appendix I Wildlife and Other CITES
[[Page 24140]]
Requirements, 50 CFR 17 and 23''; and 1018-0164, ``Import of Sport-
Hunted African Elephant Trophies, 50 CFR 17.'' In this revision of
1018-0093, we will include all of the information collection
requirements associated with all three OMB Control Numbers. If OMB
approves this revision, we will discontinue OMB Control Numbers 1018-
0150 and 1018-0164.
II. Data
OMB Control Number: 1018-0093.
Title: Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports--
Management Authority; 50 CFR 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23.
Form Numbers: FWS Forms 3-200-19 through 3-200-37, 3-200-39 through
3-200-44, 3-200-46 through 3-200-53, 3-200-58, 3-200-61, 3-200-64
through 3-200-66, 3-200-69, 3-200-70, 3-200-73 through 3-200-76, 3-200-
80, and 3-200-85 through 3-200-88.
Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Description of Respondents: Individuals; biomedical companies;
circuses; zoological parks; botanical gardens; nurseries; museums;
universities; antique dealers; exotic pet industry; hunters;
taxidermists; commercial importers/exporters of wildlife and plants;
freight forwarders/brokers; and State, tribal, local, and Federal
governments.
Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 7,902.
Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 15 minutes to
40 hours, depending on activity.
Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 5,620.
Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $519,903 for costs associated
with application processing fees, which range from $0 to $250. There is
no fee for reports. Federal, tribal, State, and local government
agencies and those acting on their behalf are exempt from processing
fees.
III. Comments
On February 24, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR
11596) of our intent to request that OMB approve this information
collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for sixty (60) days,
ending on April 25, 2017. We received five comments in response to that
Notice:
Comment 1: Email Comment Dated 04/21/2017 from Conservation Force:
We received a comment from Conservation Force on April 21, that
provided a number of suggestions regarding trophy applications (3-200-
19, 3-200-20, 3-200-21, and 3-200-22) and applications under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act for captive-breeding and take (3-200-37 and 3-
200-41). The commenter was concerned the Service would reject
applications that were expired or soon to expire. They also discuss
various items that they believe should be updated or omitted. The
commenter has raised questions on why the Service was requesting
applicant's social security numbers. Furthermore, they were concerned
that the purposes for why some applicants, particularly hunting
ranches, were requesting authorization under the Endangered Species Act
were not clearly outlined on the application and confusing to
applicants. They end with a statement of the need for an electronic
permitting system.
FWS Response to Comment 1: The Service has addressed many of the
issues raised by the commenter. Over one year ago, the Service
discontinued capturing applicant's social security numbers in our
permitting database, so have removed the question requesting this
information from the application forms. The Service agrees with the
commenter regarding eliminating the need to a description of the trophy
being imported and has removed that question from forms 3-200-19, 3-
200-20, 3-200-21, and 3-200-22. The Service recognizes the commenter's
concern that some applicants may be confused by some questions and has
simplified the application to request information in a clearly manner
to meet the needs for a variety of permitting situations. In an effort
to provide better outreach to applicants, the Service is committed to
developing web-based material to provide greater insight to the
permitting process than may be available on the face of any one
application form. Finally, the Service appreciates the commenter's
suggestions for improving the application process and are working on an
e-permits issuing system.
Comment 2: Email Comment Dated 04/25/2017 from The Humane Society
of the United States, Humane Society International, and The Humane
Society Legislative Fund (combined response):
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Humane Society
International (HIS), The Humane Society Legislative Fund expressed that
the information collected by the Service is all necessary for the
Service to implement its regulations. They support the current
information collection and expressed the need to continue to collect
the information to ensure the proper implementation of CITES and FWS
regulations. They also expressed that the current information
collection provides a benefit to the public since much of the collected
information is available through the Freedom of Information Act
providing the public an opportunity to better monitor activities that
involved species that are protected under CITES, the ESA, and other
laws. The commenters did not provide any specific recommendations to
improve the information collection, however.
FWS Response to Comment 2: The Service appreciates the commenters'
statement, but given that the comments did not address specific issues
that would improve the application forms themselves or the burden
placed on applicants. Therefore, we have no additional response to the
comments.
Comment 3: Email Comment Dated 04/21/2017 from the League of
American Orchestras: The commenter represents over 800 nonprofit
organizations within the United States that support or operate
symphonies, community orchestras, summer musical festivals, and
student/youth ensembles. Many of the commenter's members participate in
international performances and therefore must obtain permits to move
instruments that contain listed species. Most of the comments submitted
deal more with the underlying regulations and U.S. obligations under
CITES than with the permit applications themselves. The commenter
requested that the Service work to eliminate or reduce the permitting
requirements established under CITES. The commenter did state that the
estimated completion time burden of 0.5 hour did not accurately reflect
the time required for some orchestras to complete application form 3-
200-88. The commenter stated that its members are, for the most part,
new to the permitting process and unfamiliar with the documentation
requirements needed to complete the application form. As with the other
commenters, this commenter raised the need for an electronic permitting
system to streamline submission of applications.
FWS Response to Comment 3: The Service has been actively working
with the commenter and its members for several years to help education
them on the permitting requirements under CITES and the application
process. While most of the comments provided by this commenter are
outside the information collection process, the Service will take them
into advisement as we move forward in our efforts to address
outstanding issues within the CITES community. The Service recognizes
and, on many points made by the commenter, support the need for changes
within the CITES context. In
[[Page 24141]]
regards to the estimated completion time burden, the Service recognizes
that many of the applicants that fill out form 3-200-88 are large
orchestras that may have multiple instruments that need to be exported.
While the Service believes that each musician involved in the orchestra
or, if the instruments are owned by the orchestra itself, should have
all of the relevant information about their instruments readily
available, it may take longer to compile all of the information than we
initially estimated to complete the application form. Therefore, we are
increasing our estimated time burden to 1.5 hours. Lastly, as with the
previous commenters, the Service supports the concept of creating an
electronic permitting system and is actively working on that endeavor
at this time.
Comment 4: Email Comment Dated 04/21/2017 from the National
Association of Music Merchants: The commenter represents over 900
members in the United States and 100 other countries, many of which are
involved in the commercial trade of products recently regulated by
CITES. Due to the recent listing of the affected timber species, many
members are unfamiliar with the Service's permitting process. The
commenter requested that the Service provide greater clarity of the
need for permits due to the recent CITES listing and the permitting
process.
The commenter requested more detailed instructions as to the
document requirements to conduct legal international business with
products manufactured with listed wood species and greater recognition
on the part of the Service on how the permitting process affects the
commenter's members. Finally, the commenter requesting that an
electronic permitting system be developed to streamline the permitting
process.
FWS Response to Comment 4: The Service has been actively working
with the commenter and its members since the timber species were listed
on CITES and the impact that the permitting process would have on
international trade carried out by the commenter's members. The Service
had modified the proposed applications to provide greater clarity and
to make the applications more user-friendly. Several of the commenter's
statements go outside this specific information collection process, but
will be take the comments into consideration in other actions taken by
the Service.
Comment 5: Email Comment Dated 04/21/2017 from Taylor Guitars:
Taylor Guitars addressed several factors that they stated affects their
business process in order to export finish guitars. Taylor raised
concerns about the permit application processing by the Service once an
application is submitted to the Service. They were specifically
concerned that how the Service reviews submitted applications and the
permits issued creates a burden for Taylor to carry out the business as
they did before a recent listing of a number of timber species in
January 2017 under CITES. Taylor also raised issues that when the
Service considers the time and cost burdens that applicants/permittees
face when carrying out export business, particularly in regards to the
cost of applying for a permit and the cost of clearance at the port of
export. Taylor also recommended several ways to reduce the application
burden. As with other commenters, Taylor suggested that the Service
implement an electronic application process. Taylor also recommended
that the Service consider establishing a permitting process for
applicants that they would consider to be ``low risk exporters''. This
process would combine both the permit application process and the
clearance process at the port.
FWS Response to Comment 5: Most of the comments provided by Taylor
addressed the application process and the clearance process, not the
application forms themselves or how those forms could be revised to
improve the information collection. Taylor raised several aspects that
would require specific rulemakings to address the Service's current
regulatory structure and the implementation of CITES. The Service will
take these comments into consideration as we consider revisions to our
current regulations. The Service is, as stated previously, currently
developing electronic applications that would allow applicants to
supply permit applications electronically and pay the application fee
online. This process, once in place, should allow for a smoother
application process in regards to submissions and subsequent
communication with the application.
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
Whether or not the collection of information is necessary,
including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this
collection of information;
Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of
public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request
to OMB to approve this IC. 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.
IV. Authorities
The authorities for this action are the Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704),
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the
Wild Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4901-4916), Lacey Act: Injurious
Wildlife (18 U.S.C. 42), the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (TIAS 8249), and the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Dated: May 22, 2017.
Madonna L. Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-10702 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
