2558 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2010 / Notices 

received by the public), there is no 

expectation of privacy of any 

transmitted position, binary, or safety 

related messages, or any information 

transmitted on AIS. In response to the 

Maritime Transportation Security Act of 

2002, the Coast Guard has developed a 

two-way maritime data communication 

system based on AIS technology, which 

is referred to as the NAIS. 

Levels of Information Sharing 

The following three levels pertain to 

information collected by the Coast 

Guard NAIS. 

The First level (Level A) is unfiltered 

(real-time) information collected by the 

NAIS that is less than 12 hours from 

transmission. Level A information may 

be shared with U.S. or foreign 

governments for legitimate internal 

government use (i.e., law enforcement, 

maritime safety, defense, and security 

purposes). The final policy would 

clarify that this information should be 

handled in accordance with Department 

of Homeland Security policies 

concerning sensitive but unclassified 

information, including by marking this 

information ‘‘For Official Use Only’’ 

(FOUO), or any successor controlled 

unclassified information marking and 

handling requirements subsequently 

implemented by the Department. Level 

A information would be handled as 

FOUO, or otherwise in accordance with 

another controlled unclassified 

information designation approved by 

the Department, due to the potential 

commercial sensitivities of the 

information collected by the NAIS and 

the unfiltered, embedded addressed and 

encrypted information, the release of 

which may pose a security risk. 

The Second level (Level B) is filtered 

(real-time) information collected by the 

NAIS that is less than 12 hours from 

transmission. Level B information may 

be shared with foreign governments or 

U.S. Federal, State, local, and Indian 

tribal governments, and with nongovernment entities that are 

contractually supporting a Federal 

government agency’s operations or 

research and development efforts, Coast 

Guard validated port partners, or nongovernmental organizations with which 

the U.S. has an established or 

formalized relationship (e.g., port 

authorities, pilot associations, local law 

enforcement agencies, etc.). Level B may 

filter out encrypted and addressed 

information as appropriate and will be 

filtered as the NAIS system filtering 

capabilities become available. As with 

Level A information, the final policy 

would clarify that this information 

should also be handled as FOUO or 

other appropriate designation due to the 

potential (but unverified) commercial 

sensitivities of the information collected 

by the NAIS and, if applicable, the 

embedded addressed and encrypted 

information, the release of which may 

pose a security risk. 

The Third level (Level C) is 

information collected by the NAIS that 

is more than 12 hours from 

transmission. This information should 

be considered historical and no longer 

needing to be handled as FOUO. 

Requests for filtered or unfiltered 

historical information would be 

processed in accordance with the 

Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 

552. 

In an effort to continue to enhance 

navigation safety and security, and to 

protect commercial and proprietary 

interests, this information may not be 

used for purposes other than those 

intended for the disclosure as approved. 

Foreign governments, Federal, State, 

local and Indian tribal governments, and 

non-government entities shall not 

retransmit or redistribute the 

information stream in any form other 

than those intended for the disclosure as 

approved, shall not charge a fee for its 

usage, and will be required to execute 

documentation imposing restrictions on 

the use of information collected by the 

NAIS. Any provision of information 

collected by the NAIS to foreign 

governments will be coordinated with 

and through the Department of State, as 

needed. 

Implementation of the final policy 

would be subject to NAIS system 

capability, especially with respect to 

evolving capabilities to filter NAIS 

information. 

Request for Comments 

We request your general comments on 

the applicability and levels of the 

sharing of information collected by the 

NAIS, the definition of historical NAIS 

information, and any commercial or 

security sensitivities with respect to 

sharing of information collected by the 

NAIS. 

We also seek comments on any or all 

of following specific questions on the 

development of the NAIS final policy: 

1. How might providing real-time, 

near real-time, or historical NAIS 

information to the public impact 

maritime commerce? 

2. What would be the impact of 

providing this information, if any, on 

the following? 

a. Safety of ships and passengers or 

crew, 

b. Security of ships and their cargo, 

c. Economic advantage or 

disadvantage to commercial 

stakeholders, 

d. Environmental impact on 

extractable resources or coastal 

activities. 

3. Is information collected by the 

NAIS considered sensitive? 

a. Is real-time or near real-time 

information collected by the NAIS 

viewed differently than historical NAIS 

information, and if so, how? 

b. Does the sharing of information 

collected by the NAIS generate concern 

about unfair commercial advantage? If 

so, for which segments of the industry 

is this a concern? 

c. Is there a timeframe within which 

real-time or historical information 

collected by the NAIS is considered 

sensitive or is no longer considered 

sensitive? 

d. Given that ships last for decades 

and that their capabilities and capacities 

are relatively stable, is there a concern 

that historical NAIS information might 

be analyzed to derive a competitive 

advantage? 

4. What controls on sharing real-time, 

near real-time, or historical information 

collected by the NAIS with the public 

are suitable? 

a. Who should receive each type of 

NAIS information? 

b. What are appropriate uses of 

information collected by the NAIS? 

c. Do message types matter? 

d. Should addressed messages be 

handled differently from broadcast 

messages? Do addressed messages 

contain information significant to 

understanding maritime activity? 

Should addressed messages be shared 

with the public? 

Written comments and responses to the 

above questions will be added to the 

docket number for this notice (USCG– 

2009–0701). The Coast Guard intends to 

review and analyze all comments 

received in order to develop the final 

policy for the sharing of information 

collected by the NAIS. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 5 U.S.C. 552 and 46 U.S.C. 70114. 

Dated: January 8, 2010. 

Dana A. Goward, 

Director, Assessment, Integration and Risk 

Management, U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2010–632 Filed 1–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5375–N–02] 

Federal Property Suitable as Facilities 

To Assist the Homeless 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Community Planning and 

Development, HUD. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2010 / Notices 2559 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies 

unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 

surplus Federal property reviewed by 

HUD for suitability for possible use to 

assist the homeless. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 15, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, 451 Seventh 

Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, 

DC 20410; telephone (202) 708–1234; 

TTY number for the hearing- and 

speech-impaired (202) 708–2565, (these 

telephone numbers are not toll-free), or 

call the toll-free Title V information line 

at 800–927–7588. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with the December 12, 1988 

court order in National Coalition for the 

Homeless v. Veterans Administration, 

No. 88–2503–OG (D.D.C.), HUD 

publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, 

identifying unutilized, underutilized, 

excess and surplus Federal buildings 

and real property that HUD has 

reviewed for suitability for use to assist 

the homeless. Today’s Notice is for the 

purpose of announcing that no 

additional properties have been 

determined suitable or unsuitable this 

week. 

Dated: January 7, 2009. 

Mark R. Johnston, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–346 Filed 1–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS-R7-MB-2010-N007] [70151-1231-BS51- 

L6] 

Information Collection Sent to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for Approval; OMB Control 

Number 1018-0124; Alaska Migratory 

Bird Subsistence Harvest Household 

Survey 

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. This ICR is scheduled 

to expire on January 31, 2010. 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. 

However, under OMB regulations, we 

may continue to conduct or sponsor this 

information collection while it is 

pending at OMB. 

DATES: You must send comments on or 

before February 16, 2010. 

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_DOCKET@OMB.eop.gov (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) or hope_grey@fws.gov (e-mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request additional information about 

this ICR, contact Hope Grey by mail or 

e-mail (see ADDRESSES) or by 

telephone at (703) 358–2482. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Control Number: 1018-0124. 

Title: Alaska Migratory Bird 

Subsistence Harvest Household Survey. 

Service Form Number(s): 3-2380, 3- 

2381-1, 3-2381-2, 3-2381-3, and 3-2381- 

4. 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Households within 

subsistence eligible areas of Alaska 

(Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Archipelago, 

the Aleutian Islands, or in areas north 

and west of the Alaska Range). 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Frequency of Collection: Annually for 

Tracking Sheet and Household Consent; 

three times annually for Harvest Report. 

Activity Number of annual 

respondents 

Number of annual 

responses 

Completion time 

per response 

Annual burden 

hours 

3-2380—Tracking Sheet and Household Consent .................. 2,829 2,829 5 minutes ......... 236 

3-2381-1 thru 3-2381-4—Harvest Report (three seasonal 

sheets).

2,300 6,900 5 minutes ......... 575 

Totals ................................................................................ 5,129 9,729 ..................... 811 

Abstract: The Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712) and the 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

742d) designate the Department of the 

Interior as the key agency responsible 

for managing migratory bird populations 

that frequent the United States and for 

setting harvest regulations that allow for 

the conservation of those populations. 

These responsibilities include gathering 

accurate geographical and temporal data 

on various characteristics of migratory 

bird harvest. We use harvest data to 

review regulation proposals and to issue 

harvest regulations. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

Protocol Amendment (1995) 

(Amendment) provides for the 

customary and traditional use of 

migratory birds and their eggs for 

subsistence use by indigenous 

inhabitants of Alaska. The Amendment 

states that its intent is not to cause 

significant increases in the take of 

species of migratory birds relative to 

their continental population sizes. A 

submittal letter from the Department of 

State to the White House (May 20, 1996) 

accompanied the Amendment and 

specified the need for harvest 

monitoring. The submittal letter stated 

that the Service, the Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game (ADFG), and Alaska 

Native organizations would collect 

harvest information cooperatively 

within the subsistence eligible areas. 

Harvest survey data help to ensure that 

customary and traditional subsistence 

uses of migratory birds and their eggs by 

indigenous inhabitants of Alaska do not 

significantly increase the take of species 

of migratory birds relative to their 

continental population sizes. 

Between 1989 and 2004, we 

monitored subsistence harvest of 

migratory birds using annual household 

surveys in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, 

which is the region of highest 

subsistence bird harvest in the State of 

Alaska. In 2004, we began monitoring 

subsistence harvest of migratory birds in 

subsistence eligible areas Statewide. 

The Statewide harvest assessment 

program helps to track trends and 

changes in levels of harvest. The harvest 

assessment program relies on 

collaboration among the Service, the 

ADFG, and a number of Alaska Native 

organizations. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES