Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2023 / Notices 71879 

funding opportunities and guidance to 

states and territories, as well as tribal 

and local communities; technical 

assistance to grantees and practitioners; 

publishing and sharing resources for 

individuals and family members seeking 

information on prevention, harm 

reduction, treatment and recovery; 

collecting, analyzing, and sharing 

behavioral health data; collaborating 

with other Federal agencies to evaluate 

programs and improve policies; and 

raising awareness of available resources 

through educational messaging 

campaigns and events. Integral to this 

role, SAMHSA conducts qualitative 

research and evaluation studies, 

develops policy analyses, and estimates 

the cost and benefits of policy 

alternatives for SAMHSA related 

programs. 

The goal of establishing the SAMHSA 

Generic Clearance for the Collection of 

Qualitative Research and Assessmentis 

to help public health officials, 

policymakers, community practitioners, 

and the public to understand mental 

health and substance use trends and 

how they are evolving; inform the 

development and implementation of 

targeted evidence-based interventions; 

focus resources where they are needed 

most; and evaluate the success of 

programs and policies. A key objective 

is to decrease the burden on 

stakeholders while expanding and 

improving data collection, analysis, 

evaluation, and dissemination. To 

achieve this objective, SAMHSA is 

streamlining and modernizing data 

collection efforts, while also 

coordinating evaluation across the 

agency to ensure funding and policies 

are data driven. Additionally, the 

agency is utilizing rigorous evaluation 

and analytical processes that are in 

alignment with the Foundations for 

Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 

2018. SAMHSA, using robust methods 

to collect, analyze, and report valid, 

reliable, trustworthy, and protected 

data, is key to improving and impacting 

behavioral health treatment, prevention, 

and recovery for communities most in 

need. By using rigorous methods, and 

improving the quality and completeness 

of program data, data can be 

disaggregated across different 

population groups to assess disparities 

within the behavioral health care 

system. SAMHSA’s vision will be 

accomplished by better leveraging 

optimal data to inform the agency’s 

policies and programs. 

The qualitative research participants 

will include grant recipients; policy 

experts; national, state, and local public 

health representatives; human service, 

and healthcare providers; and 

representatives of other health 

organizations. A variety of instruments 

and platforms will be used to collect 

information from respondents. The 

annual burden hours requested (15,000) 

are based on the number of collections 

we expect to conduct over the requested 

period for this clearance. The burden 

estimates were calculated based on the 

amount of IC submissions to the 0930– 

0393 Fast Track Generic Clearance for 

the Collection of Qualitative Feedback 

on the Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration 

(SAMHSA) Service Delivery that are 

ineligible for OMB approval under it. 

This Generic information collection will 

provide a viable replacement option. 

Internal assessments of projected IC 

submission over the next three years 

estimate the burden hours for this 

information collection to be 

approximately half that of the 0930– 

0393 Fast Track Generic Clearance for 

the Collection of Qualitative Feedback 

on the Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration 

(SAMHSA) Service Delivery. 

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN TABLE

Type of respondent Form Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Average 

burden hours 

per response 

Total burden 

hours 

SAMHSA internal and external 

stakeholders.

Qualitative Research ........................ 15,000 1 1 15,000 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

Alicia Broadus, 

Public Health Advisor. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22972 Filed 10–17–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4162–20–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R7–NWRS–2023–N071; 

FXRS12630700000–234–FF07R08000; OMB 

Control Number 1018–0141] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Alaska Guide Service 

Evaluation 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of information collection; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service), are proposing to renew an 

information collection with revisions. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before 

November 17, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain. Find this 

particular information collection by 

selecting ‘‘Currently under Review— 

Open for Public Comments’’ or by using 

the search function. Please provide a 

copy of your comments to the Service 

Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 5275 Leesburg Pike, 

Falls Church, VA 22041–3803 (mail); or 

by email to Info_Coll@fws.gov. Please 

reference ‘‘1018–0141’’ in the subject 

line of your comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Madonna L. Baucum, Service 

Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, by email at Info_Coll@fws.gov, 

or by telephone at (703) 358–2503. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
71880 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2023 / Notices 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.) and its implementing regulations 

at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), all information 

collections require approval under the 

PRA. We may not conduct or sponsor 

and you are not required to respond to 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

On April 19, 2023, we published in 

the Federal Register (88 FR 24207) a 

notice of our intent to request that OMB 

approve this information collection. In 

that notice, we solicited comments for 

60 days, ending on June 20, 2023. The 

Service also published the Federal 

Register notice (and both forms) on 

Regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS–R7– 

NWRS–2023–0005) to provide the 

public with an additional method to 

submit comments (in addition to the 

typical Info_Coll@fws.gov email and 

U.S. mail submission methods). We 

received the following comments in 

response to that notice: 

Comment 1: Anonymous electronic 

comment received May 6, 2023, via 

Regulations.gov (FWS–R7–NWRS– 

2023–0005–0004): ‘‘I recommend 

prohibiting commercial guiding on 

public lands. It is not necessary or 

appropriate. Many of them do 

something illegal [because] they have a 

client paying money and that alone 

pressures them to same day airborne, 

herd animals, bait, and the list goes on 

and on. 

There are plenty of hunters in Alaska 

if some rich fancy pants from Germany 

wants a trophy well he can afford to 

spend the time and money to learn the 

skill.’’ 

Agency Response to Comment 1: This 

comment does not address the 

information collection requirements. No 

response required. 

Comment 2: Electronic comment 

received May 16, 2023, via 

Regulations.gov (FWS–R7–NWRS– 

2023–0005–0005) from Josh Hayes: 

‘‘Data collection is necessary in order to 

properly understand guide/client/public 

interaction within the Refuges. In the 

high use areas, and in competitive 

permitted areas of Refuges in Alaska I 

feel it is paramount that commercial 

operators are regularly evaluated. 

Modern data collection is often 

electronic via phones, apps, internet 

based reporting etc. Due to limited 

internet/cell phone access and 

connectivity in many areas of Alaska— 

these collection methods are convenient 

only when allowing the Client to 

respond/reply within a fairly broad 

timeframe. 

As a commercial operator collecting 

in depth personal information from 

every client/guest is not necessarily 

convenient. Often due to inclement 

weather, written documentation is 

nearly impossible, and phones/devices 

often prove difficult to operate in rain, 

snow, or colder climates. Many clients/ 

guests are invitees of an individual or 

entity that has booked the trip on the 

client/guests behalf. For the commercial 

operators it would streamline data 

collection processes if only the 

individuals booking the trip provided 

their personal data—FWS could then 

solicit those individuals directly. Often 

times commercial operators only have 

the information of the point of contact 

for trip bookings and are not in contact 

with the other invitees until the day of 

the trip. Data Collection/Evaluation 

Comments; 

I believe that the following questions 

should be asked to individual clients 

being hosted by the guides and outfitters 

within all refuges: 

1. Did the guide/outfitter create and 

express accurate expectations prior to 

booking? 

2. Was the guide/outfitter honest 

regarding trip opportunities prior to 

booking? On the web, social media 

platforms, advertisements etc...? 

3. What was the level of public access 

and participation within the Refuge?’’ 

Agency Response to Comment 2 (by 

numbered recommendation): 

1. Did the guide/outfitter create and 

express accurate expectations prior to 

booking? Section 2 Question 4 asks the 

respondent to rate their level of 

agreement with the following statement 

‘‘My guided experience was what I 

expected based on the guide’s 

advertisement’’. We believe this 

question captures what is being 

expressed by the commenter. We 

recommend no change. 

2. Was the guide/outfitter honest 

regarding trip opportunities prior to 

booking? On the web, social media 

platforms, advertisements etc...? Section 

2 Question 4 asks the respondent to rate 

their level of agreement with the 

following statement ‘‘My guided 

experience was what I expected based 

on the guide’s advertisement’’. We 

believe this question captures what is 

being expressed by the commenter. We 

recommend no change. 

3. What was the level of public access 

and participation within the Refuge? It 

is unclear what the commenter is 

requesting clients be asked about ‘‘level 

of public access’’ and ‘‘participation’’. 

We recommend no change. 

Comment 3: Electronic comment 

received May 18, 2023, via 

Regulations.gov (FWS–R7–NWRS– 

2023–0005–0006) from Michael Zweng: 

‘‘Section #1—New form question #1. 

Although I explain to my clients in 

detail where we hunt, I think the 

question should have some specifics to 

guide the clients such as: name the bay 

where you hunted, the river you hunted, 

the mountain range where you hunted. 

I would eliminate question #5. This is 

going to guided hunting clients so we 

already know the answer. 

Section #2—New for question #1. I 

provide detailed client handbook to all 

my clients that explain everything on 

question #1. However, some clients are 

not necessarily interested in this aspect 

of the refuge and it goes in one ear and 

out the other. They may not absorb it 

and a guide may get a poor score just 

because the client did not absorb the 

information. This may reflect poorly on 

the guide and I think this question 

should be removed. 

Section #3—New form question #2. 

This question should be removed. 

Section #4—New form Question #1. 

This question implies the guide did 

some things poorly. The client may feel 

obligated to fill in this section even if it 

was the best outdoor experience they 

ever had. Maybe ask the question 

‘‘Please list anything your guide could 

have done to make your experience 

better’’. You will probably get feedback 

about better food and better 

accommodations but my hunts are sold 

as adventurous backpack style hunting 

so it was explained what we eat and 

how we hunt. 

Section #5—This entire section 

should be eliminated. It has no bearing 

on the quality of guide services 

provided and adds no value to the 

intended purpose of this questionnaire. 

I feel a lot of my clients would fail to 

complete this entire questionnaire if 

they were asked these questions.’’ 

Agency Response to Comment 3 (by 

section): 

Section #1: We believe this openended style question allows for the 

respondent to have maximum flexibility 

in describing where on the refuge their 

guided trip occurred. We recommend no 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2023 / Notices 71881 

change. This Form is not specific to 

competitively awarded guide service 

evaluations, but rather to all guided 

services on refuges (including 

noncompetitive guided activities as well 

as nonconsumptive uses). We 

recommend no change. 

Section #2: The question asks the 

respondent to rate their level of 

agreement with the statement ‘‘Your 

guide(s) provided information about 

. . .’’ not how well the client 

understood the information. The 

information gathered from this question 

is of interest to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System as it pertains to 

education and interpretation 

opportunities for guided clients. We 

recommend no change. 

Section #3: Understanding 

accessibility accommodations on 

National Wildlife Refuges is important 

to ensuring visitors of different physical 

abilities can experience Refuges. We 

recommend no change. 

Section #4: We do not believe this 

question make any implications about 

the guides’ services. By asking how a 

guide might ‘‘have made your 

experience better’’ (as asked in the 

Form), the Service may learn valuable 

feedback about visitor preferences. This 

initial effort (i.e., revision of the Form) 

is necessary to conduct a 2-year pilot of 

the revised Guide Service Evaluation 

Form. What we learn will help the 

Service determine whether further Form 

revision is needed. We recommend no 

change. 

Section #5: The National Wildlife 

Refuge System is interested in who 

visits Refuges to inform Visitor Services 

outreach activities. We recommend no 

change. 

Comment 4: Anonymous electronic 

comment received June 4, 2023, via 

Regulations.gov (FWS–R7–NWRS– 

2023–0005–0007): ‘‘Please don’t allow 

hunting, fishing, and trapping on any of 

these wildlife refuge locations anymore. 

Please protect the animals. These 

killings don’t benefit these animals in 

any way and this killing business is 

unnecessary.’’ 

Agency Response to Comment 4: This 

comment does not address the 

information collection; no response 

required. 

Comment 5: Electronic comment 

received June 19, 2023, via 

Regulations.gov (FWS–R7–NWRS– 

2023–0005–0008) from Jon M. DeVore, 

Attorney, on behalf of the Alaska 

Professional Hunters Association 

(APHA). Excerpts from the letter that 

express perspectives about the AK 

Guide Evaluation Form are below: 

‘‘1. So, the proposed Alaska Guide 

Service Evaluation form should set a 

specific goal of how best to gather the 

information it seeks in a manner that is 

most likely to obtain the greatest 

number of respondents. 

2. APHA recommends that the FWS 

should be more transparent about how 

the Alaska Guide Service Evaluations 

may be used by the FWS. 

3. This is not a suggestion that client 

evaluations be the only tool used to 

evaluate guides, but we do recommend 

that evaluations be available as a 

reference for the ranking panel and then 

used as a decision factor by the refuge 

manager. 

4. However, if it is the intent that the 

name and operations of individual 

guides are to be made public, the FWS 

should notify in advance the guide and 

operations. 

5. For example, bad weather may have 

caused a less than optimal experience, 

so we recommend that the FWS take 

any such factors into consideration 

when utilizing client feedback that 

might be pre-disposed to be negative for 

reasons unrelated to the guide 

personally. 

6. It is critical to ask, up front, if the 

hunter was successful in harvesting 

their target species then bifurcate the 

evaluations into two broad categories: 

successful harvest and unsuccessful 

harvest. 

7. Once harvest and weather are 

controlled for, clients should evaluate 

their trip first and foremost on safety. 

8. However, the Federal Register is 

not transparent on how the information 

will be ultimately used.’’ 

Agency Response to Comment 5: 

Comment responses by response 

number: 

1. This comment addresses post-data 

collection decision making but does not 

address the content of the Guide Service 

Evaluation Form; no response required. 

2. This comment addresses post-data 

collection decision making but does not 

address the content of the Guide Service 

Evaluation Form; no response required. 

This initial effort (i.e., revision of the 

Form) is necessary to conduct a 2-year 

pilot of the revised Guide Service 

Evaluation Form. What we learn will 

help the Service determine whether 

further Form revision is needed and 

how we will use this information. 

3. This comment addresses post-data 

collection decision making but does not 

address the content of the Guide Service 

Evaluation Form; no response required. 

This initial effort (i.e., revision of the 

Form) is not specific to competitively 

awarded guide service evaluations, but 

rather to all guided services on refuges 

(including noncompetitive guided 

activities as well as nonconsumptive 

uses). 

4. This comment addresses data 

management but does not address the 

content of the Guide Service Evaluation 

Form; no response required. All survey 

respondent names and responses will 

remain anonymous to the public. 

5. There are many factors that may 

impact the guided client experience on 

refuges. It is not possible for the Guide 

Service Evaluation Form to analyze all 

factors that are outside of the control of 

the guide service provider or the 

Service. This initial effort (i.e., revision 

of the Form) is necessary to conduct a 

2-year pilot of the revised Guide Service 

Evaluation Form. What we learn will 

help the Service determine whether 

further Form revision is needed. 

6. This Form is not specific to 

competitively awarded guide service 

evaluations, but rather to all guided 

services on refuges (including 

noncompetitive guided activities as well 

as nonconsumptive uses). This initial 

effort (i.e., revision of the Form) is 

necessary to conduct a 2-year pilot of 

the revised Guide Service Evaluation 

Form. What we learn will help the 

Service determine whether further Form 

revision is needed. 

7. Safety concerns are captured in 

Section 2 Question 2 of the Guide 

Survey Evaluation Form, ‘‘Please rate 

your level of agreement with the 

following statement: your guide used 

skills that kept you safe’’. 

8. This comment addresses post-data 

collection decision-making but does not 

address the content of the Guide Service 

Evaluation Form; no response required. 

This initial effort (i.e., revision of the 

Form) is necessary to conduct a 2-year 

pilot of the revised Guide Service 

Evaluation Form. What we learn will 

help the Service determine whether 

further Form revision is needed and 

how we will use this information. 

As part of our continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burdens, we invite the public and other 

Federal agencies to comment on new, 

proposed, revised, and continuing 

collections of information. This helps us 

assess the impact of our information 

collection requirements and minimize 

the public’s reporting burden. It also 

helps the public understand our 

information collection requirements and 

provide the requested data in the 

desired format. 

We are especially interested in public 

comment addressing the following: 

(1) Whether or not the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether or not the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the 

burden for this collection of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
71882 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2023 / Notices 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

(4) How might the agency minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of response. 

Comments that you submit in 

response to this notice are a matter of 

public record. We will include or 

summarize each comment in our request 

to OMB to approve this information 

collection request (ICR). Before 

including your address, phone number, 

email address, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Abstract: We collect information via 

Form 3–2349 (Alaska Guide Service 

Evaluation) to help us evaluate 

commercial guide services on our 

national wildlife refuges in the State of 

Alaska (State). The National Wildlife 

Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd–ee), 

authorizes us to permit uses, including 

commercial visitor services, on national 

wildlife refuges when we find the 

activity to be compatible with the 

purposes for which the refuge was 

established. With the objective of 

making available a variety of quality 

visitor services for wildlife-dependent 

recreation on National Wildlife Refuge 

System lands, we issue permits for 

commercial guide services, including 

big game hunting, sport fishing, wildlife 

viewing, river trips, and other guided 

activities. We use FWS Form 3–2349 as 

a method to: 

• Monitor the quality of services 

provided by commercial guides. 

• Gauge client satisfaction with the 

services. 

• Assess the impacts of the activity 

on refuge resources. 

The client is the best source of 

information on the quality of 

commercial guiding services. We 

collect: 

• Client name. 

• Guide name(s). 

• Type of guided activity. 

• Dates and location of guided 

activity. 

• Information on the services 

received, such as the client’s 

expectations, safety, environmental 

impacts, and client’s overall 

satisfaction. 

We encourage respondents to provide 

any additional comments that they wish 

regarding the guide service or refuge 

experience, and ask whether or not they 

wish to be contacted for additional 

information. 

The above information, in 

combination with State-required guide 

activity reports and contacts with guides 

and clients in the field, provides a 

comprehensive method for monitoring 

permitted commercial guide activities. 

A regular program of client evaluation 

helps refuge managers detect potential 

problems with guide services so that we 

can take corrective actions promptly. In 

addition, we use this information during 

the competitive selection process for big 

game and sport fishing guide permits to 

evaluate a renewing applicant’s ability 

to provide a quality guiding service. 

The Service is actively reviewing the 

current evaluation form to identify ways 

to improve the information collected to: 

• Provide more quantifiable and 

defensible data; 

• Provide statistical data for each 

completed and submitted form; and 

• Translate the client responses into 

useful information, so refuge 

management can make better informed 

decisions. 

Proposed Revisions 

Alaska Guide Service Evaluation 

(Form 3–2538) (NEW)—With this 

submission, the Service will propose a 

new form (Form 3–2538, ‘‘Alaska Guide 

Service Evaluation’’) to OMB for 

approval. The Service initially proposed 

this form for viability testing under 

OMB Control No. 1090–0011, ‘‘DOI 

Generic Clearance for the Collection of 

Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service 

Delivery,’’ in our December 22, 2020, 

Federal Register notice (85 FR 83604). 

However, the pandemic significantly 

limited the number of guide trips during 

the 2020 through 2022 seasons. In 

addition, changes to Control No. 1090– 

0011 now prohibit testing of new forms. 

We are now proposing the form to be 

approved under this collection (Control 

No. 1018–0141) rather than for usability 

testing under Control No. 1090–0011. 

In order to effectively adapt visitor 

services programming in the Alaska 

Region, we need to understand visitor 

satisfaction. To that end, the Alaska 

Guide Service Evaluation team, 

comprised of representatives from 

across the Region, with the assistance of 

the Human Dimensions Branch and the 

Service Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, has revised the 

current guide evaluation form. The 

revised form provides the region’s 

refuges with a useful and quantitative 

tool that reflects social science survey 

design best practices, and that is 

standardized for use across refuges in 

the region. Form 3–2538 would collect 

the following information from 

participants in the Alaska guide 

program: 

• Details regarding the guided trip— 

name of the person(s) or outfitters 

guiding the trip and top three purposes 

for visiting the refuge. 

• Experiences with guided trip. 

• Level of satisfaction with guided 

trip and details regarding purpose of 

visit to refuge. 

• Suggestions for improvements. 

• Details about visitor—gender; State 

and/or country of residence; year of 

birth; race or ethnicity; details regarding 

formal schooling; and approximate 

household income. 

• Contact information for followup 

questions (optional). 

Upon approval of the new Form 3– 

2538, the Service will review the form 

after two seasons to determine what, if 

any, changes need to be made prior to 

the next renewal of this collection. 

Individual refuge programs within 

Alaska will use the information 

collected to determine baseline guidesupported visitor experience conditions 

and be able to adapt management over 

time to continue to achieve desired 

guide-supported visitor experience 

opportunities on Alaska’s refuges. 

Alaska Guide Service Evaluation 

(Form 3–2349) (DISCONTINUE)—With 

this submission, and upon approval of 

Form 3–2538, the Service requests to 

discontinue the original Alaska Guide 

Service Evaluation (Form 3–2349). 

The public may request copies of any 

form contained in this information 

collection by sending a request to the 

Service Information Collection 

Clearance Officer (see ADDRESSES). 

Title of Collection: Alaska Guide 

Service Evaluation. 

OMB Control Number: 1018–0141. 

Form Number: Forms 3–2349 and 3– 

2538. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents/Affected Public: Clients 

of permitted commercial guide service 

providers. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Respondents: 300. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 300. 

Estimated Completion Time per 

Response: 20 minutes. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2023 / Notices 71883 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 100. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Frequency of Collection: One time, 

following use of commercial guide 

services. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

The authority for this action is the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Madonna Baucum, 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22963 Filed 10–17–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

[S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 

245S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 

SX064A000 24XS501520; OMB Control 

Number 1029–0118] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Federal Inspections and 

Monitoring 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of information collection; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, 

the Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 

are proposing to renew an information 

collection. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before 

November 17, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. Please provide a copy 

of your comments to Mark Gehlhar, 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement, 1849 C Street NW, 

Room 4556–MIB, Washington, DC 

20240, or by email to mgehlhar@

osmre.gov. Please reference OMB 

Control Number 1029–0118 in the 

subject line of your comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request additional information about 

this ICR, contact Mark Gehlhar by email 

at mgehlhar@osmre.gov, or by telephone 

at (202) 208–2716. Individuals in the 

United States who are deaf, deafblind, 

hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 

TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. You may 

also view the ICR at http://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we 

provide the general public and other 

Federal agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on new, proposed, revised, 

and continuing collections of 

information. This helps us assess the 

impact of our information collection 

requirements and minimize the public’s 

reporting burden. It also helps the 

public understand our information 

collection requirements and provide the 

requested data in the desired format. 

A Federal Register notice with a 60- 

day public comment period soliciting 

comments on this collection of 

information was published on June 12, 

2023 (88 FR 38094). No comments were 

received. 

As part of our continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burdens, we are again soliciting 

comments from the public and other 

Federal agencies on the proposed ICR 

that is described below. We are 

especially interested in public comment 

addressing the following: 

(1) Whether or not the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether or not the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the 

burden for this collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

(4) How might the agency minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of response. 

Comments that you submit in 

response to this notice are a matter of 

public record. Before including your 

address, phone number, email address, 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Abstract: This part establishes the 

procedures for any person to notify the 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement in writing of any 

violation that may exist at a surface coal 

mining operation and to request a 

Federal inspection. The information 

will be used to investigate potential 

violations of the Act or applicable State 

regulations. 

Title of Collection: Federal 

Inspections and Monitoring. 

OMB Control Number: 1029–0118. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents/Affected Public: 

Individuals. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Respondents: 11. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 11. 

Estimated Completion Time per 

Response: 1 hour. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 11. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain a benefit. 

Frequency of Collection: Once. 

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour 

Burden Cost: None. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

The authority for this action is the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Mark J. Gehlhar, 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

Division of Regulatory Support. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22998 Filed 10–17–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Receipt of Complaint; 

Solicitation of Comments Relating to 

the Public Interest 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1