Information Collection Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; National Wildlife Refuge System Evaluation: Surveys of State Agencies, Indian Tribes, and Local Partners, 64084-64086 [E7-22202]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
64084
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 14, 2007 / Notices
and Services Office (CAJG), and
renumber the remaining items
accordingly.
Dated: November 5, 2007.
William H. Gimson,
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 07–5634 Filed 11–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–18–M
the Agency’s estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
of other forms of information
technology.
Proposed Project: Data Collection Tool
for Rural Hospital Flexibility Grant
Program: (New)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Health Resources and Services
Administration
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection
Comment Request
In compliance with the requirement
for opportunity for public comment on
proposed data collection projects
(section 3506(c)(2)(A) of Title 44, United
States Code, as amended by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.
L. 104–13), the Health Resources and
Services Administration (HRSA) will
publish periodic summaries of proposed
projects being developed for submission
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995. To request more
information on the proposed project or
to obtain a copy of the data collection
plans, call the HRSA Reports Clearance
Officer on (301) 443–1129.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
The mission of the Office of Rural
Health Policy (ORHP) is to sustain and
improve access to quality care services
for rural communities. In its authorizing
language (Sec. 711. [42 U.S.C. 912]),
Congress charged ORHP with
‘‘administer[ing] grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts to provide
technical assistance and other activities
as necessary to support activities related
to improving health care in rural areas.’’
In accordance with 42 U.S.C.
1820(g)(3)(F), the Health Resources and
Services Administration proposes to
revise the Rural Hospital Flexibility
Grant Program—Guidance and Forms
for the Application. The guidance is
used annually by 45 States in writing
applications for Grants under the Rural
Hospital Flexibility Program (Flex) of
the Social Security Act, and in
preparing the required report.
ORHP seeks to expand the
information gathered from Grantees on
their use of the grant funds. Flex
Grantees would be required to report on
the number of Critical Access Hospitals
(CAHs), other eligible hospitals,
Emergency Medical Service (EMS)
Number of
respondents
Form
providers, or rural health networks they
have worked with during the grant
period. Areas that can work with the
CAHs and eligible hospitals include:
Strategic Planning, Board Training,
Networking, Benchmarking/Quality
Reporting, EMS—Training, Medical
Direction, Transfers, and Health
Information Technology (HIT)
Adoption. During the grant period the
grantee can sponsor meetings, seminars,
workshops, and/or use other means as
appropriate to engage with the hospitals
on any of the above subjects or others
that are not listed. The Flex grantees
would report information on the total
number of hospitals or other
organizations that participated in any
sponsored activities, as well as provide
the name of the hospitals and
organizations and their addresses.
In addition, ORHP seeks further
information on the use of grant funds.
Many Flex grantees use sub-contractual
agreements to provide direct aid to
CAHs, eligible hospitals, rural health
networks, EMS providers or other
organizations. ORHP will ask each Flex
grantee to list all sub-contractual awards
made during the grant period, identify
the organization which received Flex
funding, the amount they received, and
the purpose of award. Services provided
to CAHs, other hospitals or providers,
EMS providers or other entities will be
quantified and the value of the service
provided will be submitted.
Submission may be made through the
use of a spreadsheet attached to the
application.
The estimated average annual burden
is as follows:
Responses per
respondent
Burden hours per
response
Total burden
hours
Flex Report ..............................................................................
45
1
12.5
562.5
Total ..................................................................................
45
..............................
..............................
562.5
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Send comments to Susan G. Queen,
Ph.D., HRSA Reports Clearance Officer,
Room 10–33 Parklawn Building, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland
20857. Written comments should be
received within 60 days of this notice.
Dated: November 7, 2007.
Alexandra Huttinger,
Acting Director, Division of Policy Review
and Coordination.
[FR Doc. E7–22241 Filed 11–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Information Collection Sent to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for Approval; National Wildlife
Refuge System Evaluation: Surveys of
State Agencies, Indian Tribes, and
Local Partners
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION:
Notice; request for comments.
SUMMARY: We (Fish and Wildlife
Service) have sent an Information
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Nov 13, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for
review and approval. The ICR, which is
summarized below, describes the nature
of the collection and the estimated
burden and cost. 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: You must submit comments on
or before December 14, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments and
suggestions on this ICR to the Desk
Officer for the Department of the
Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395–6566
(fax) or OIRA_DOCKET@OMB.eop.gov
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 14, 2007 / Notices
(e-mail). Please provide a copy of your
comments to Hope Grey, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS 222–ARLSQ, 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA
22203 (mail); (703) 358–2269 (fax); or
hope_grey@fws.gov (e-mail).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Hope Grey by mail, fax,
or e-mail (see ADDRESSES) or by
telephone at (703) 358–2482.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: None. This is
a new collection.
Title: National Wildlife Refuge System
Evaluation: Surveys of State Agencies,
Indian Tribes, and Local Partners.
Service Form Number(s): None.
Type of Request: New collection.
Number of annual
respondents
Activity
64085
Affected Public: Organizations that
collaborate with national wildlife
refuges, including, but not limited to,
State fish and wildlife agencies,
volunteer groups, local and national
conservation organizations, hunting and
fishing groups, and other civic
organizations.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
Frequency of Collection: One time.
Number of annual
responses
Completion time
per response
Annual burden
hours
400
150
320
120
20 minutes .......
20 minutes .......
107
40
Totals ................................................................................
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Local Partner Survey ...............................................................
State/Indian Tribe Survey ........................................................
550
440
.....................
147
Abstract:
We have contracted with Management
Systems International to perform an
independent evaluation of the National
Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).
Although the NWRS has existed for
more than 100 years, it has never
undergone an independent evaluation of
its overall effectiveness in achieving its
conservation mission. We are now
seeking such an evaluation to identify
program strengths and weaknesses, as
well as gaps in performance
information. Such evaluations are an
important element of the OMB Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
assessments, and this evaluation will
satisfy the PART requirements. The
evaluation includes two data collection
components involving the public:
(1) An online survey of local partners
(e.g., volunteer groups, local
conservation organizations, hunting and
fishing groups, and other civic
organizations).
(2) An online survey of Indian tribes
and State fish and wildlife agency
officials.
The perspective and observations of
NWRS partners are critical to fully
understand the issues and questions
that the independent evaluation will
explore. The surveys will collect data in
two broad categories:
(1) The quality of NWRS partnerships
with external organizations, and
(2) Partnering organizations’ views as
to the effectiveness of the NWRS in
achieving NWRS objectives.
Comments: On February 22, 2007, we
published in the Federal Register a
notice (72 FR 8004) of our intent to
request that OMB renew approval for
this information collection. In that
notice, we solicited comments for 60–
days, ending on April 23, 2007. We
received three comments that are
summarized below.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Nov 13, 2007
Jkt 214001
Comment #1: Individual questions if:
(1) the evaluation team assembled has
the required expertise to conduct a
sound and independent evaluation; (2)
the partners identified will be able to
provide responses indicative of the
American public and not be hand
picked to provide glowing reports; and
(3) the information collection is
necessary and requests a copy of the
survey instrument.
Response: We provided a copy of the
draft survey instrument to this
individual as well as a link to
Management System International’s
website so that biographical information
of MSI technical staff could be accessed.
Comment #2: The individual (same
from Comment #1 above) acknowledges
receipt of the survey instrument and
then states that MSI does not have the
proper experience to conduct this
evaluation. The individual also states
that hunting programs receive a
disproportionate amount of attention in
the NWRS given the wider U.S. public.
Response: Since 1995, MSI has been
approved by the General Services
Administration (GSA) to provide
management related contracting services
to Federal agencies under the Mission
Oriented Business Integrated Services
(MOBIS) contract and also has
significant experience conducting
evaluations for Federal agencies. MOBIS
contractors offer a full range of
management and consulting services
that can improve a Federal agency’s
performance and their endeavor in
meeting mission goals. MOBIS
contractors possess the necessary
expertise to facilitate how the Federal
Government responds to a continuous
stream of new mandates and
evolutionary influences including the
President’s Management Agenda;
Government Performance and Results
Act; Federal Acquisition Streamlining
Act; OMB Circular A–76; Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Activities Inventory Reform Act; and
government reinvention initiatives such
as benchmarking and streamlining.
MSI will be investigating refuge usage
of the six wildlife-dependent activities.
These activities include hunting,
fishing, environmental education,
environmental interpretation, wildlife
viewing and nature photography. These
issues will be explored in terms of their
fit with the NWRS’s mission and
mandates and the quality of the
programs provided.
Comment #3: Individual states that
the public groups identified as partners
and stakeholders (including volunteer
groups, local and national conservation
organizations, nonprofit organizations,
and State fish and game officials) that
are to be included in the broader
evaluation data collection efforts
exclude an important group, Indian
tribes. The individual volunteers that
the tribe (s)he represents be included in
the evaluation survey.
Response: Indian tribes are important
stakeholders and partners to the NWRS.
We will include Indian tribes in the
online survey and intend to collect
information in such a way that will
enable us to disaggregate responses by
representatives of tribes. This will
enable the evaluation team to analyze
the satisfaction levels of tribes in
interacting with the NWRS and, as
appropriate, provide a process to
explore ways to improve the working
relationship between tribes and the
NWRS.
We again invite comments concerning
this information collection on:
(1) whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
64086
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 14, 2007 / Notices
(3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) 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, e-mail address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment, including your personal
identifying information, may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask OMB in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Dated: August 22, 2007
Hope Grey,
Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Fish and Wildlife Service.
FR Doc. E7–22202 Filed 11–13–07; 8:45 am
Billing Code 4310–55–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[CACA 48668; CA–690–07–5101–ER–B240]
Notice of Intent To Prepare a Joint
Environmental Impact Statement and
Final Staff Assessment, and Amend
the California Desert Conservation
Area Plan; California
Correction
In the Federal Register of November
6, 2007, in FR Doc. E7–21762, on page
62672, at the end of the first column,
‘‘[Authority: 43 CFR 1712 and 43 CFR
1761]’’ should read ‘‘[Authority: 43 CFR
1610.5–5 and 43 CFR 2800]’’.
Dated: November 7, 2007.
Tom Pogacnik,
Assistant Deputy State Director, Natural
Resources (CA–930).
[FR Doc. E7–22173 Filed 11–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–40–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Notice of Availability of an
Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Minerals Management
Service (MMS) has prepared an
environmental assessment (EA) for Shell
Offshore, Inc’s. (SOI) proposed seismic
surveys in the Beaufort Sea Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) in 2007. The
EA concludes that with required
mitigation no significant adverse effects
(40 CFR 1508.27) on the quality of the
human environment would occur.
Therefore MMS issued a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). Based on
the FONSI, MMS issued to SOI the
Geological and Geophysical (G&G)
Permit 2007–04, which contained
mitigation measures to ensure that the
Beaufort Sea’s fish, wildlife, and Alaska
Native subsistence resources would not
be adversely impacted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Minerals Management Service, Alaska
OCS Region, 3801 Centerpoint Drive,
#500, Anchorage, Alaska 99503–5820,
Deborah Cranswick, telephone (907)
334–5267.
EA Availability: To obtain a copy of
the EA and FONSI, you may contact the
Minerals Management Service, Alaska
OCS Region, Attention: Ms. Nikki
Lewis, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, #500,
Anchorage, Alaska 99503–5820,
telephone (907) 334–5206. You may also
view the EA, FONSI, and G&G permit
(2007–04) on the MMS Web site at
https://www.mms.gov/alaska/re/
recentgg/RECENTGG.HTM.
Dated: September 17, 2007.
John T. Goll,
Regional Director, Alaska OCS Region.
[FR Doc. E7–22245 Filed 11–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
Environmental Documents Prepared
for Proposed Oil and Gas Operations
on the Gulf of Mexico Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS)
Environmental Assessment (EA),
Beaufort Sea Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) Deep-Penetration Seismic
Survey—2007
MMS
prepares SEAs and FONSIs for
proposals that relate to exploration for
and the development/production of oil
and gas resources on the Gulf of Mexico
OCS. These SEAs examine the potential
environmental effects of activities
described in the proposals and present
MMS conclusions regarding the
significance of those effects.
Environmental Assessments are used as
a basis for determining whether or not
approval of the proposals constitutes
major Federal actions that significantly
affect the quality of the human
environment in the sense of NEPA
Section 102(2)(C). A FONSI is prepared
in those instances where MMS finds
that approval will not result in
significant effects on the quality of the
human environment. The FONSI briefly
presents the basis for that finding and
includes a summary or copy of the SEA.
This notice constitutes the public
notice of availability of environmental
documents required under the NEPA
Regulations.
This listing includes all proposals for
which the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region
prepared a FONSI in the period
subsequent to publication of the
preceding notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY: Minerals Management Service
(MMS), in accordance with Federal
AGENCY:
Minerals Management Service
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Public Information Unit, Information
Services Section at the number below.
Minerals Management Service, Gulf of
Mexico OCS Region, Attention: Public
Information Office (MS 5034), 1201
Elmwood Park Boulevard, Room 114,
New Orleans, Louisiana 70123–2394, or
by calling 1–800–200–GULF.
Minerals Management Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of the Availability of
Environmental Documents. Prepared for
OCS Mineral Proposals on the Gulf of
Mexico OCS.
Minerals Management Service
(MMS), Interior.
Regulations that implement the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
announces the availability of NEPArelated Site-Specific Environmental
Assessments (SEA) and Findings of No
Significant Impact (FONSI), prepared by
MMS for the following oil and gas
activities proposed on the Gulf of
Mexico OCS.
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Nov 13, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\14NON1.SGM
14NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64084-64086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22202]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Information Collection Sent to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for Approval; National Wildlife Refuge System Evaluation:
Surveys of State Agencies, Indian Tribes, and Local Partners
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. The ICR, which
is summarized below, describes the nature of the collection and the
estimated burden and cost. 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: You must submit comments on or before December 14, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments and suggestions on this ICR to the Desk
Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-
6566 (fax) or OIRA--DOCKET@OMB.eop.gov
[[Page 64085]]
(e-mail). Please provide a copy of your comments to Hope Grey,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service, MS
222-ARLSQ, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail); (703)
358-2269 (fax); or hope_grey@fws.gov (e-mail).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request additional information
about this ICR, contact Hope Grey by mail, fax, or e-mail (see
ADDRESSES) or by telephone at (703) 358-2482.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: None. This is a new collection.
Title: National Wildlife Refuge System Evaluation: Surveys of State
Agencies, Indian Tribes, and Local Partners.
Service Form Number(s): None.
Type of Request: New collection.
Affected Public: Organizations that collaborate with national
wildlife refuges, including, but not limited to, State fish and
wildlife agencies, volunteer groups, local and national conservation
organizations, hunting and fishing groups, and other civic
organizations.
Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
Frequency of Collection: One time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of annual Number of annual Completion time per Annual burden
Activity respondents responses response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Partner Survey............ 400 320 20 minutes......... 107
State/Indian Tribe Survey....... 150 120 20 minutes......... 40
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................... 550 440 ................... 147
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract:
We have contracted with Management Systems International to perform
an independent evaluation of the National Wildlife Refuge System
(NWRS). Although the NWRS has existed for more than 100 years, it has
never undergone an independent evaluation of its overall effectiveness
in achieving its conservation mission. We are now seeking such an
evaluation to identify program strengths and weaknesses, as well as
gaps in performance information. Such evaluations are an important
element of the OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessments,
and this evaluation will satisfy the PART requirements. The evaluation
includes two data collection components involving the public:
(1) An online survey of local partners (e.g., volunteer groups,
local conservation organizations, hunting and fishing groups, and other
civic organizations).
(2) An online survey of Indian tribes and State fish and wildlife
agency officials.
The perspective and observations of NWRS partners are critical to
fully understand the issues and questions that the independent
evaluation will explore. The surveys will collect data in two broad
categories:
(1) The quality of NWRS partnerships with external organizations,
and
(2) Partnering organizations' views as to the effectiveness of the
NWRS in achieving NWRS objectives.
Comments: On February 22, 2007, we published in the Federal
Register a notice (72 FR 8004) of our intent to request that OMB renew
approval for this information collection. In that notice, we solicited
comments for 60-days, ending on April 23, 2007. We received three
comments that are summarized below.
Comment 1: Individual questions if: (1) the evaluation
team assembled has the required expertise to conduct a sound and
independent evaluation; (2) the partners identified will be able to
provide responses indicative of the American public and not be hand
picked to provide glowing reports; and (3) the information collection
is necessary and requests a copy of the survey instrument.
Response: We provided a copy of the draft survey instrument to this
individual as well as a link to Management System International's
website so that biographical information of MSI technical staff could
be accessed.
Comment 2: The individual (same from Comment 1
above) acknowledges receipt of the survey instrument and then states
that MSI does not have the proper experience to conduct this
evaluation. The individual also states that hunting programs receive a
disproportionate amount of attention in the NWRS given the wider U.S.
public.
Response: Since 1995, MSI has been approved by the General Services
Administration (GSA) to provide management related contracting services
to Federal agencies under the Mission Oriented Business Integrated
Services (MOBIS) contract and also has significant experience
conducting evaluations for Federal agencies. MOBIS contractors offer a
full range of management and consulting services that can improve a
Federal agency's performance and their endeavor in meeting mission
goals. MOBIS contractors possess the necessary expertise to facilitate
how the Federal Government responds to a continuous stream of new
mandates and evolutionary influences including the President's
Management Agenda; Government Performance and Results Act; Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act; OMB Circular A-76; Federal Activities
Inventory Reform Act; and government reinvention initiatives such as
benchmarking and streamlining.
MSI will be investigating refuge usage of the six wildlife-
dependent activities. These activities include hunting, fishing,
environmental education, environmental interpretation, wildlife viewing
and nature photography. These issues will be explored in terms of their
fit with the NWRS's mission and mandates and the quality of the
programs provided.
Comment 3: Individual states that the public groups
identified as partners and stakeholders (including volunteer groups,
local and national conservation organizations, nonprofit organizations,
and State fish and game officials) that are to be included in the
broader evaluation data collection efforts exclude an important group,
Indian tribes. The individual volunteers that the tribe (s)he
represents be included in the evaluation survey.
Response: Indian tribes are important stakeholders and partners to
the NWRS. We will include Indian tribes in the online survey and intend
to collect information in such a way that will enable us to
disaggregate responses by representatives of tribes. This will enable
the evaluation team to analyze the satisfaction levels of tribes in
interacting with the NWRS and, as appropriate, provide a process to
explore ways to improve the working relationship between tribes and the
NWRS.
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
(1) whether or not the collection of information is necessary,
including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection
of information;
[[Page 64086]]
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(4) 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, e-mail
address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal
identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it
will be done.
Dated: August 22, 2007
Hope Grey,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service.
FR Doc. E7-22202 Filed 11-13-07; 8:45 am
Billing Code 4310-55-S
