28858 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

information collection. In accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, this notice seeks comments 

concerning the Integrated Public Alert 

and Warning Systems (IPAWS) 

Memorandum of Agreement 

Applications. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before August 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate 

submissions to the docket, please use 

only one of the following means to 

submit comments: 

(1) Online. Submit comments at 

www.regulations.gov under Docket ID 

FEMA–2018–0024. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

(2) Mail. Submit written comments to 

Docket Manager, Office of Chief 

Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW, 

8NE, Washington, DC 20472–3100. 

All submissions received must 

include the agency name and Docket ID. 

Regardless of the method used for 

submitting comments or material, all 

submissions will be posted, without 

change, to the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, 

and will include any personal 

information you provide. Therefore, 

submitting this information makes it 

public. You may wish to read the 

Privacy Act notice that is available via 

the link in the footer of 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wade Witmer, Deputy for the Integrated 

Public Alert and Warning System 

(IPAWS) Program, FEMA, Continuity 

Communications Division, (202) 646– 

2523, wade.witmer@fema.dhs.gov. You 

may contact the Information 

Management Division for copies of the 

proposed collection of information at 

email address: FEMA-InformationCollections-Management@fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public 

Law 114–143, The IPAWS 

Modernization Act of 2015, and 

Presidential Executive Order 13407 

establishes the policy for an effective, 

reliable, integrated, flexible, and 

comprehensive system to alert and warn 

the American people in situations of 

war, terrorist attack, natural disaster, or 

other hazards to public safety and 

wellbeing. The Integrated Public Alert 

and Warning System (IPAWS) is the 

Department of Homeland Security’s 

(DHS) response to the Executive Order. 

The Stafford Act (U.S.C. Title 42, 

Chapter 68, Subchapter II) requires that 

FEMA make IPAWS available to 

Federal, State, and local agencies for the 

purpose of providing warning to 

governmental authorities and the 

civilian population in areas endangered 

by disasters. The information collected 

is used by FEMA to create a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that 

regulates the management, operations, 

and security of the information 

technology system connection between 

a Federal, State, territorial, tribal or 

local alerting authority and IPAWS– 

OPEN (Open Platform for Emergency 

Notifications). 

Collection of Information 

Title: Integrated Public Alert and 

Warning Systems (IPAWS) 

Memorandum of Agreement 

Applications. 

Type of Information Collection: 

Extension, without change, of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

OMB Number: 1660–0140. 

FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 007–0–25, 

IPAWS Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) Application; FEMA Form 007– 

0–26, Memorandum of Agreement 

Application for Tribal Governments. 

Abstract: A Federal, State, territorial, 

tribal, or local alerting authority that 

applies for authorization to use IPAWS 

is designated as a Collaborative 

Operating Group or ‘‘COG’’ by the 

IPAWS Program Management Office 

(PMO). Access to IPAWS is free; 

however, to send a message using 

IPAWS, an organization must procure 

its own IPAWS compatible software. To 

become a COG, a Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) governing system 

security must be executed between the 

sponsoring organization and FEMA. 

Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal 

Government. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

160. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 160. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 160 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Respondent 

Cost: $8,150.4. 

Estimated Respondents’ Operation 

and Maintenance Costs: $0. 

Estimated Respondents’ Capital and 

Start-Up Costs: $0. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to the 

Federal Government: $115,890.42. 

Comments 

Comments may be submitted as 

indicated in the ADDRESSES caption 

above. Comments are solicited to (a) 

evaluate whether the proposed data 

collection is necessary for the proper 

performance of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) evaluate the 

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(c) enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) 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 

responses. 

Rachel Frier, 

Records Management Branch Chief, Office 

of the Chief Administrative Officer, Mission 

Support, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Department of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13290 Filed 6–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–AB–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–HQ–MB–2017–0092; 91200– 

FF09M20300–189–FXMB123109EAGLE] 

Updated Collision Risk Model Priors 

for Estimating Eagle Fatalities at Wind 

Energy Facilities 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) uses a collision risk 

model (CRM) to predict the number of 

golden and bald eagles that may be 

killed at new wind facilities. The model 

incorporates existing information on 

eagle exposure and collision probability 

in the form of prior distributions 

(priors). The Service has undertaken an 

analysis to update the priors using all 

available data that meet specific criteria 

for both species of eagle. This notice 

announces the availability of a summary 

report of that analysis, which generates 

new exposure and collision priors for 

both species of eagle. We are soliciting 

public comments on the summary 

report, which will be considered by the 

Service before using the new priors in 

the CRM. 

DATES: To ensure consideration of 

written comments, they must be 

submitted on or before August 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments by one of the following 

methods: 

Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS– 

HQ–MB–2017–xxxx, which is the 

docket number for this notice, and 

follow the directions for submitting 

comments. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28859 

By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or 

hand-delivery to Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–MB–2017– 

0092; Division of Policy, Performance, 

and Management Programs; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service; MS: BPHC; 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Request 

for Information below for more 

information). 

We request that you send comments 

by only one of the methods described 

above. We will post all information 

received on http://www.regulations.gov. 

This generally means that we will post 

any personal information you provide 

us (see the Public Availability of 

Comments section below for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eliza Savage, at 703–358–2329 

(telephone), or eliza_savage@fws.gov 

(email). Individuals who are hearing 

impaired or speech impaired may call 

the Federal Relay Service at 800–877– 

8337 for TTY assistance. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) uses a collision risk model 

(CRM) to predict the number of golden 

and bald eagles that may be killed at 

new wind facilities (USFWS 2013; New 

et al. 2015). The CRM incorporates 

existing knowledge of eagle use around 

a proposed wind facility (exposure) and 

the probability of an eagle colliding 

with an operating turbine (collision 

probability). Essentially, the CRM uses 

three estimates to generate an annual 

eagle fatality estimate in the form of a 

probability distribution. These estimates 

are: (1) A project-specific estimate of 

eagle exposure; (2) a project-specific 

estimate of the amount of hazardous 

area and time that will be created by the 

project; and (3) an estimate of the 

probability that an exposed eagle that 

enters the hazardous area will be struck 

and injured or killed by a turbine blade. 

The median (50th quantile) fatality rate 

of the CRM-generated probability 

distribution is the point on the 

distribution at which there is an equal 

risk of under- and overestimating eagle 

fatalities. The Service uses the 80th 

quantile of the CRM fatality probability 

distribution to determine the take limit 

for incidental take permits, which 

lowers the risk of underestimating eagle 

take to a 20% chance. 

In our 2016 revision to the eagle take 

regulations (81 FR 91494, Dec. 16, 

2016), the Service reaffirmed both our 

intent to use the CRM to obtain initial 

estimates of eagle fatalities at new wind 

facilities, and that we would undertake 

a review of the background data used in 

the model to generate the estimates. The 

model is constructed using a Bayesian 

framework, and as such incorporates 

existing information on eagle exposure 

and collision probability in the form of 

prior distributions (priors). The priors 

are formally combined with site-specific 

data on exposure and the amount of 

hazardous area and operational time for 

a site to estimate the expected number 

of annual eagle collision fatalities. 

The current priors for the CRM use 

data for golden eagles from nine sites 

with complete survey effort information 

for exposure, and four sites for collision 

probability (New et al. 2015). There 

were no data available to estimate 

parameters specific to bald eagles when 

we initially developed the model, so the 

golden eagle priors were used as 

surrogates for bald eagles. Public 

comments on the 2016 eagle rule 

revision were critical of the Service’s 

CRM because the priors for golden 

eagles had not been updated to include 

new information, and because priors 

have not been developed for bald eagles 

even though data on exposure and 

collision probability are now available 

for this species. In response to these 

comments, the Service committed to 

updating the golden eagle priors, and to 

explore whether sufficient data exist to 

develop separate bald eagle exposure 

and collision priors. 

The Service has undertaken that 

analysis using all available data that 

meet specific criteria for both species of 

eagle. This notice announces the 

availability of a summary report of that 

analysis, which includes new exposure 

and collision priors for both species of 

eagle. The report may be downloaded 

from the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Search for 

FWS–HQ–MB–2017–0092. You can also 

find the report on the Service’s website 

at: https://www.fws.gov/birds/ 

management/managed-species/eaglemanagement.php. The Service intends 

to incorporate these updated priors into 

our CRM after considering comments 

received in response to this notice; that 

update will be in the form of a revised 

version of Appendix D of the Eagle 

Conservation Plan Guidance (USFWS 

2013). 

For this update, the Service reviewed 

data sets for 419 wind energy facilities, 

but many did not meet our criteria for 

incorporation into the priors (see the 

summary report for criteria used to filter 

projects). Data from 71 new and the nine 

original wind projects were used for the 

updated exposure priors. Of these 80 

sites, 61 provided data for golden eagles 

and 59 for bald eagles. For the collision 

priors, 18 new sites in addition to the 

original four sites were identified as 

having data sufficient to include in the 

updated collision priors. We used data 

from 21 sites for golden eagles and 14 

for bald eagles in the collision-prior 

update. The updated exposure prior is 

lower for both species than the prior 

currently in use. The updated collision 

prior is slightly lower than the current 

prior for golden eagles and higher for 

bald eagles. 

Many of the commenters on the 2016 

eagle rule revision encouraged the 

Service to develop a specific bald eagle 

prior because they believe collision risk 

for bald eagles is lower than for golden 

eagles. The data available to the Service 

suggest that there is more variation in 

both exposure and collision risk for bald 

eagles, and that uncertainty results in a 

higher expected collision probability for 

this species. The Service does not regard 

this outcome as counter-intuitive, 

because the range in abundance of bald 

eagles across the landscape is far greater 

than for golden eagles, and where bald 

eagles are abundant, they engage in 

social behaviors and intra-specific 

interactions that may make them more 

vulnerable than golden eagles to 

collisions (81 FR 91552). Thus, the 

implication that bald eagles are at high 

risk at a few wind facilities, while their 

risk is much lower at many others, is 

tenable. The Service acknowledges, 

however, that the bald eagle collision 

prior is based on data from relatively 

few sites that do not span the range of 

bald eagle density conditions that exist 

across the country, and therefore may 

not be representative of all locations. 

Given this, the Service is considering 

three alternatives for how to incorporate 

species-specific priors for bald eagles 

into the CRM and fatality modeling 

process: 

(1) Use the updated species-specific 

priors, and use the 80th quantile of the 

CRM fatality estimates as the initial 

permitted take number for permits, as is 

the current practice. 

(2) Use the updated species-specific 

priors, but because the status of bald 

eagles is secure, adopt a risk-tolerant 

policy for bald eagles and select a more 

liberal quantile on the CRM fatality 

distribution as the initial permitted take 

number for this species. 

(3) Given the limitations in data 

available to inform the bald eagle priors, 

initiate an expert elicitation process to 

further refine the bald eagle priors. 

Under any of these scenarios, the 

Service would use data submitted under 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28860 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

permits to make updates to the priors in 

the future. 

Alternative 1 would mean that for a 

similar level of eagle use observed at a 

project site, the Service would use 

higher fatality estimates for bald eagles 

than for golden eagles. Alternative 2 

would be a decision by the Service to 

be more ‘risk-tolerant’ for bald eagles. 

This would mean that initial fatality 

predictions would be lower, however it 

would also likely mean that more 

permits would have to be amended to 

increase the permitted take over time 

(i.e., the Service would be 

underestimating take more often). 

Alternative 3 would be a decision by the 

Service that more information is needed 

to understand the potential variability of 

exposure and collision probability for 

bald eagles. Such a process could result 

in either higher or lower (or more 

variable) priors. With this notice, we are 

soliciting input from the public on these 

three alternatives, and we will take 

those comments into consideration in 

making a final decision. 

Many commenters on the draft 2016 

rule urged the Service to adopt changes 

to the golden eagle CRM priors based on 

a recent peer-reviewed scientific article 

by Bay et al. (2016). Service staff 

coordinated with authors of the Bay et 

al. paper in development of this update, 

and all data used in the Bay et al. paper 

that were available to us and that met 

our criteria were incorporated. The 

Service decided not to incorporate the 

results of the Bay et al. paper directly, 

however, for two main reasons. First, 

the Service could access and utilize 

more data than were used in the Bay et 

al. paper, and so our updated priors 

incorporate more recent information 

from a wider range of projects and sites 

than were used by Bay et al. Second, the 

Bay et al. analysis used a fatality 

estimator that did not account for the 

possibility of undetected eagle deaths 

during mortality monitoring when no 

dead eagles were found. The Service 

uses models in our update that account 

for imperfect detection when dead 

eagles are not encountered during 

monitoring, because there is ample 

evidence that finding no dead eagles 

does not mean there were no eagle 

fatalities. Thus, although the Service’s 

updated collision probability for golden 

eagles is higher than that reported by 

Bay et al., our approach is more accurate 

and consistent with our risk-averse 

policy with respect to estimating and 

managing eagle take. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Written comments we receive become 

part of the public record associated with 

this action. Before including your 

address, phone number, email address, 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that the 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. All submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public disclosure in 

their entirety. 

Literature Cited 

Bay, K., Nasman, K., Erickson, W., Taylor, 

K., Kosciuch, K. (2016). Predicting Eagle 

Fatalities at Wind Facilities, Journal of 

Wildlife Management 80:1000–1010. 

New, L., Bjerre, E., Millsap, B., Otto, M.C., 

Runge, M.C. (2015). A Collision Risk Model 

to Predict Avian Fatalities at Wind Facilities: 

An Example Using Golden Eagles, Aquila 

chrysaetos, PLOS ONE, 

journal.pone.0130978. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Eagle 

conservation plan guidance. Module 1–landbased wind energy. Version 2. Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, Washington, 

DC. URL http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ 

pdf/management/eagleconservationpla

nguidance.pdf. 

Dated: April 6, 2018. 

Susan Combs, 

Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Exercising 

the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for 

Fish and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13358 Filed 6–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Geological Survey 

[GX18LC00BM3FD00; OMB Control Number 

1028–0079] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; North American Breeding 

Bird Survey 

AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of information collection; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is 

proposing to renew an information 

collection (IC). 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before August 

20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Send your comments on the 

information collection request (ICR) by 

mail to the U.S. Geological Survey, 

Information Collections Clearance 

Officer, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 

159, Reston, VA 20192; or by email to 

gs-info_collections@usgs.gov. Please 

reference OMB Control Number 1028– 

0079 in the subject line of your 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request additional information about 

this ICR, contact Keith Pardieck by 

email at kpardieck@usgs.gov or by 

telephone at 301–497–5843. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the 

U.S. Geological Survey, in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, provide the general public and 

other Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on 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 soliciting comments on the 

proposed ICR that is described below. 

We are especially interested in public 

comment addressing the following 

issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to 

the proper functions of the USGS; (2) 

will this information be processed and 

used in a timely manner; (3) is the 

estimate of burden accurate; (4) how 

might the USGS enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (5) how might the 

USGS minimize the burden of this 

collection on the respondents, including 

through the use of information 

technology. 

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 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 may 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: Respondents supply the 

U.S. Geological Survey with avian 

population data for more than 600 North 

American bird species. The survey data, 

resulting population trend estimates, 

and relative abundance estimates will 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1