Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 9, 2007 / Notices 26417 

and expedite future check-in or border 

crossing experiences. 

Number of Respondents: 31,980. 

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An 

estimated 31,980 hours annually. 

Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on May 2, 

2007. 

Fran Lozito, 

Director, Business Management Office, 

Operational Process and Technology. 

[FR Doc. E7–8819 Filed 5–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Transportation Security Administration 

[Docket No. TSA–2001–11334] 

Intent To Request Renewal From OMB 

of One Current Public Collection of 

Information: Aviation Security 

Infrastructure Fee (ASIF) Records 

Retention 

AGENCY: Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA), DHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) invites public 

comment on one currently approved 

information collection requirement 

abstracted below that we will submit to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for renewal in compliance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. The 

collection requires air carriers to retain 

the records that support carriers’ cost 

submissions that were collected for the 

Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee on 

the carriers’ individual and aggregate 

costs related to screening passengers 

and property in calendar year 2000. 

DATES: Send your comments by July 9, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed 

or delivered to Joanna Johnson, 

Communications Branch, Business 

Management Office, Operational Process 

and Technology, TSA–32, 

Transportation Security Administration, 

601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 

22202–4220. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

Paperwork Reduction Act issues: Joanna 

Johnson at the above address, or by 

telephone (571) 227–3651 or facsimile 

(571) 227–3588. 

For other issues: Michael Gambone, 

Acting Director, Office of Revenue, 

Office of Finance and Administration, 

TSA–14, Transportation Security 

Administration, 601 South 12th Street, 

Arlington, VA 22202–4220; e-mail: 

TSA-Fees@dhs.gov; telephone: (571) 

227–2323. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), an agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a valid OMB control 

number. The ICR documentation is 

available at www.reginfo.gov. Therefore, 

in preparation for OMB review and 

approval of the following information 

collection, TSA solicits comments in 

order to—

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information requirement is necessary for 

the proper performance of the functions 

of the agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) 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. 

Background 

To help defray TSA’s costs of 

providing civil aviation security 

services, and as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 

44940, TSA published in the Federal 

Register on February 20, 2002, an 

interim final rule adding part 1511 to 

the Transportation Security Regulations, 

which imposed a security service fee 

(September 11th Security Fee) and a fee 

known as the Aviation Security 

Infrastructure Fee (ASIF) on certain air 

carriers and foreign air carriers. See 67 

FR 7926, as codified at 49 CFR part 

1511. The amount of ASIF collected by 

TSA from the carriers, both overall and 

per carrier, is based upon the carriers’

aggregate and individual costs, 

respectively, for screening passengers 

and property in calendar year 2000. 49 

U.S.C. 44940(a)(2)(B)(i), (ii). 

In conjunction with the issuance of 

part 1511, TSA requested OMB approval 

to collect information necessary for TSA 

to establish the ASIF, including 

information about the carriers’

individual and aggregate costs related to 

screening passengers and property in 

calendar year 2000. This information 

collection included submissions to TSA 

of data on the carriers’ screening-related 

costs and also of independent audits of 

that data. On February 28, 2002, TSA 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice that OMB had approved the 

required collection and submission of 

this information under control number 

(2110–0002). See 67 FR 9355. This 

control number was subsequently 

transferred to a TSA OMB control 

number (1652–0001). 

On May 18, 2004 (69 FR 28141), TSA 

published a further information 

collection request seeking OMB 

approval to require air carriers to retain 

the records that support carriers’ cost 

submissions that were collected under 

control number 1652–0001 (previously 

2110–0002). OMB approved the request 

and issued the collection OMB control 

number 1652–0018. The information 

collection proposed under this notice is 

intended to apply to the retention 

requirement of 49 CFR 1511.9, and 

applies to OMB control number 1652–

0018. 

Purpose of Information Collection 

Under Part 1511, carriers must retain 

any and all documents, records, or 

information related to the amount of the 

ASIF, including all information 

applicable to the carrier’s calendar year 

2000 security costs and information 

reasonably necessary to complete an 

audit. This requirement includes 

retaining the source information for the 

calendar year 2000 screening costs 

reported to TSA; the calculations and 

allocations performed to assign costs 

submitted to TSA; information and 

documents reviewed and prepared for 

the required independent audit; the 

accountant’s working papers, notes, 

worksheets, and other relevant 

documentation used in the audit; and, if 

applicable, the specific information 

leading to the accountant’s opinion, 

including any determination that the 

accountant could not provide an audit 

opinion. 

Description of Information Collection 

The information collection, 

submission, and retention requirement 

applies to each air carrier and foreign air 

carrier that incurred costs for the 

screening of passengers and property in 

calendar year 2000. It is estimated that 

the 196 respondent air carriers and 

foreign air carriers will each, on average, 

incur $104.06 annually, which includes 

$54.60 in records storage, and $50 in 

labor costs for 2 hours of records 

management at $25 per hour. Thus, the 

total annual burden for 196 air carriers 

is estimated at $20,396. The annual 

average burden related to this 

requirement for all respondents 

combined over a three-year period is at 

a cost of $61,187. TSA may use the 

subject records to make determinations 

regarding security-related costs in 

calendar year 2000, including 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
26418 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 9, 2007 / Notices 

conducting reviews and otherwise 

ensuring compliance with part 1511. 

Issued in Arlington, Virginia on May 3, 

2007. 

Fran Lozito, 

Director, Business Management Office, 

Operational Process and Technology. 

[FR Doc. E7–8818 Filed 5–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9910–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Construction of an Industrial Facility in 

Brevard County, FL 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice: Receipt of application 

for an incidental take permit; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), announce the 

availability of an incidental take permit 

(ITP) application and Habitat 

Conservation Plan (HCP). Michael 

Richardson (applicant) requests an 

incidental take permit (ITP) for a 

duration of 5 years pursuant to section 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The 

applicant anticipates taking 

approximately 2.2 acre (ac) of Florida 

scrub-jay (Alphelocoma coerulescens)—

occupied habitat incidental to 

constructing an industrial facility in 

Brevard County, Florida (project). The 

applicant’s HCP describes the mitigation 

and minimization measures the 

applicant proposes to address the effects 

of the project to the scrub-jay. 

DATES: We must receive any written 

comments on the ITP application and 

HCP on or before June 8, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to review the 

application and HCP, you may write the 

Field Supervisor at our Jacksonville 

Field Office, 6620 Southpoint Drive 

South, Suite 310, Jacksonville, FL, 

32216, or make an appointment to visit 

during normal business hours. If you 

wish to comment, you may mail or hand 

deliver comments to the Jacksonville 

Field Office, or you may e-mail 

comments to erin_gawera@fws.gov. For 

more information on reviewing 

documents and public comments and 

submitting comments, see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Gawera, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 

Jacksonville Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES); telephone: 904/232–2580, 

ext. 121. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Review and Comment 

Please reference permit number 

TE151087–0 for Michael Richardson in 

all requests or comments. Please include 

your name and return address in your 

e-mail message. If you do not receive a 

confirmation from us that we have 

received your e-mail message, contact 

us directly at the telephone number 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. Our practice is to make 

comments, including names and home 

addresses of respondents, available for 

public review during regular business 

hours. There may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

administrative record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name and 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comments. We will not, however, 

consider anonymous comments. We 

will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

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 us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Background 

The Florida scrub-jay (scrub-jay) is 

found exclusively in peninsular Florida 

and is restricted to xeric uplands 

(predominately in oak-dominated 

scrub). Increasing urban and agricultural 

development has resulted in habitat loss 

and fragmentation, which have 

adversely affected the distribution and 

numbers of scrub-jays. 

The total estimated population is 

between 7,000 and 11,000 individuals. 

The decline in the number and 

distribution of scrub-jays in east-central 

Florida has been exacerbated by 

tremendous urban growth in the past 50 

years. Much of the historic commercial 

and residential development has 

occurred on the dry soils which 

previously supported scrub-jay habitat. 

Much of this area of Florida was settled 

early because few wetlands restricted 

urban and agricultural development. 

Due to the effects of urban and 

agricultural development over the past 

100 years, much of the remaining scrubjay habitat is now relatively small and 

isolated. What remains is largely 

degraded due to the exclusion of fire, 

which is needed to maintain xeric 

uplands in conditions suitable for scrubjays. 

Applicant’s Proposal 

The applicant is requesting take of 

approximately 2.2 ac of occupied scrubjay habitat incidental to the construction 

of an industrial facility. The project is 

located within Section 23, Township 25 

South, Range 36 East, Rockledge, 

Brevard County, Florida, on the west 

side of Riomar Drive near its southern 

terminus. 

Development of the project, including 

infrastructure, parking areas and 

landscaping, preclude retention of 

scrub-jay habitat onsite. Therefore, the 

applicant proposes to mitigate for the 

loss of 2.2 ac of occupied scrub-jay 

habitat by donating $44,880 to the 

Florida Scrub-jay Fund administered by 

The Nature Conservancy. Funds in this 

account are earmarked for use in the 

conservation and recovery of scrub-jays 

and may include habitat acquisition, 

restoration, and/or management. 

We have determined that the 

applicant’s proposal, including the 

proposed mitigation and minimization 

measures, would have minor or 

negligible effects on the species covered 

in the HCP. Therefore, the ITP is a ‘‘loweffect’’ project and qualifies for 

categorical exclusions under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), as provided by the Department 

of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 

Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1). 

This preliminary information may be 

revised based on our review of public 

comments that we receive in response to 

this notice. A low-effect HCP is one 

involving (1) minor or negligible effects 

on federally listed or candidate species 

and their habitats, and (2) minor or 

negligible effects on other 

environmental values or resources. 

We will evaluate the HCP and 

comments submitted thereon to 

determine whether the application 

meets the requirements of section 10(a) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If we 

determine that the application meets 

those requirements, we will issue the 

ITP for incidental take of the Florida 

scrub-jay. We will also evaluate whether 

issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP 

complies with section 7 of the Act by 

conducting an intra-Service section 7 

consultation. We will use the results of 

this consultation, in combination with 

the above findings, in our final analysis 

to determine whether or not to issue the 

ITP. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES