Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Notices 30771 

• Accounts Receivable (AR) 

documents—Edits include changes 

made to the Inter-creditor Agreement 

form to address an ongoing issue of how 

operators should disclose any crossdefaults between the AR loan and the 

HUD loan. 

• Master Lease documents—Changes 

include adding two new forms: 

Termination and Release of CrossDefault Guaranty of Subtenants— 

Proposed and Amendment to HUD 

Master Lease (Partial Termination and 

Release)—Proposed to reflect the 232 

Handbook policy related to a release of 

a project from a master lease. 

• Closing documents—Edits were 

made to the Surplus Cash Note and 

Subordination Agreement—(Financing) 

to restrict distributions when there is 

secondary financing. Security 

Instrument/Mortgage Deed Instrument/ 

Mortgage Deed of Trust to reflect 

Multifamily’s form and reduces the 

need to amend the document when the 

Regulatory Agreement—Borrower 

paragraph 38 is changed. New 

residential care facilities versions of 

Certificate of Actual Cost as well as a 

Rider to Security Instrument—LIHTC— 

were incorporated into the collection to 

replace Multifamily versions still in use 

which did not reflect ORCF policy. 

• Regulatory Agreement for Fire 

Safety—A new Regulatory Agreement 

for Fire Safety projects and a 

Management Agreement Addendum, as 

well as formalization of a Lender 

Certification for Insurance Coverage, to 

incorporate current samples already in 

place was added to the documentation 

collection. 

• Escrow documents—New proposed 

escrow forms for long-term debt service 

reserves and Off-Site Facilities were also 

added. 

• Asset Management documents— 

Change of participant application 

documents were revised to streamline 

the documents needed for a change in 

title of mortgaged property, change of 

operator or management agent, or 

complete change of all the parties. 

Documents still being used in the 

Multifamily format were incorporated 

into this collection, to specifically 

address ORCF policy. New Lender 

Narratives were also added for the 

addition of Accounts Receivable, for 

Requests to Release or Modify Original 

Loan Collateral and Loan Modifications 

(along with a corresponding 

Certification). New forms were also 

added to incorporate existing samples in 

use for Section 232 HUD Healthcare 

Portal Access, and notification to ORCF, 

by the Servicer and Operator of 

developing concerns within a project. 

• Supplemental Loan Documents— 

Section 241(a) Mortgage Insurance for 

Supplemental Loans for Multifamily 

Projects. All Section 241(a) loan 

documents that have been in use as 

samples are now made a part of the 

documentation collection for OMB 

approval. Note: HUD makes no changes 

to the Legal Opinion and Certification 

Documents. 

Respondents (i.e. affected public): 

Business or other for profit. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

5,451.00. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

26,001.27. 

Frequency of Response: 4.77. 

Average Hours per Response: 1.87. 

Total Estimated Burdens: 48,622.37. 

Solicitation of Public Comment 

This notice is soliciting comments 

from members of the public and affected 

parties concerning the collection of 

information described in Section A on 

the following: 

(1) Whether the proposed collection 

of information is necessary for the 

proper performance of the functions of 

the agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information; 

(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 those 

who are to respond: Including through 

the use of appropriate automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

HUD encourages interested parties to 

submit comment in response to these 

questions. 

Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. 

Dated: June 22, 2018. 

Colette Pollard, 

Department Reports Management Officer, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14081 Filed 6–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLAZG02200.L16100000.DO0000.LXSS20

6A0000] 

Notice of Availability of the Draft San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation 

Area Resource Management Plan and 

Associated Environmental Impact 

Statement, Arizona 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended, and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976, as 

amended, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Tucson Field Office 

(TFO) has prepared a Draft Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) and Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the San Pedro Riparian National 

Conservation Area (SPRNCA) and by 

this notice is announcing the opening of 

the comment period. 

DATES: To ensure that comments will be 

considered, the BLM must receive 

written comments on the Draft RMP/ 

Draft EIS within 90 days following the 

date the Environmental Protection 

Agency publishes its Notice of 

Availability of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS 

in the Federal Register. The BLM will 

announce future meetings or hearings 

and any other public participation 

activities at least 15 days in advance 

through public notices, media releases, 

and/or mailings. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

related to the SPRNCA Draft RMP/Draft 

EIS by any of the following methods: 

• Website: https://go.usa.gov/xQKFU. 

• Email: blm_az_tfo_sprnca_rmp@

blm.gov. 

• Fax: 520–258–7238. 

• Mail: Tucson Field Office Attn: 

Amy Markstein, 3201 East Universal 

Way, Tucson, AZ 85756. 

Copies of the SPRNCA Draft RMP/ 

Draft EIS are available in the Tucson 

Field Office at the above address and at 

the San Pedro Project Office, 4070 S 

Avenida Saracino, Hereford, AZ 85615. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Markstein, Planning & 

Environmental Specialist, telephone 

520–258–7231; address 3201 East 

Universal Way, Tucson, AZ 85756; 

email blm_az_tfo_sprnca_rmp@blm.gov. 

Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to 

contact the above individual during 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
30772 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Notices 

normal business hours. FRS is available 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave 

a message or question with the above 

individual. You will receive a reply 

during normal business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

SPRNCA was established by Public Law 

100–696 on November 18, 1988. The 

planning area is located in Cochise 

County in southeastern Arizona, and 

encompasses approximately 55,990 

acres of public land administered by the 

BLM TFO. The SPRNCA is located 

adjacent to the City of Sierra Vista and 

is near Fort Huachuca, Arizona. 

The SPRNCA is currently managed 

under the Safford District RMP (1992 

and 1994), which incorporated RMP 

level decisions from the San Pedro River 

Riparian Management Plan (1989). This 

planning effort would update 

management guidance from the 

previous plans and create a new RMP 

for the SPRNCA. The planning effort is 

needed to identify goals, objectives, and 

management actions for the SPRNCA’s 

resources and uses identified in the 

enabling legislation, including aquatic; 

wildlife; archaeological; paleontological; 

scientific; cultural; educational; and 

recreational resources and values. 

The BLM used public scoping 

comments to help identify planning 

issues that directed the formulation of 

alternatives and framed the scope of 

analysis in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. 

Issues identified included management 

of water, vegetation, and soil resources, 

fire management, Threatened and 

Endangered species management, 

livestock grazing, access, recreation, 

socio-economics, and lands and realty. 

The planning effort also considers lands 

with wilderness characteristics, wild 

and scenic rivers, and Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs). 

The Draft RMP/Draft EIS evaluates 

four alternatives in detail. Alternative A 

is the No Action Alternative, which is 

a continuation of current management 

in the existing Safford District RMP and 

San Pedro River Riparian Management 

Plan. It is a continuation of current 

public use, resource protection, and 

conservation prescriptions without 

change. It neither sets desired outcomes 

for resource management or most uses, 

nor addresses new issues unforeseen or 

nonexistent when the Safford District 

RMP was prepared. Alternative B 

provides opportunities for increased 

public access, includes livestock grazing 

in sensitive riparian and cultural areas, 

allows recreation uses, and focuses on 

active resource management using the 

broadest array of management tools. 

This would include use of heavy 

equipment, herbicide, hand tools, and 

prescribed fire to achieve goals and 

objectives, to mitigate any effects from 

increased use, and for ecosystem 

restoration. Alternative B places an 

emphasis on opportunities for 

motorized access. Alternative C is the 

BLM’s preferred alternative. Alternative 

C represents a balance between resource 

protection and public access, authorizes 

livestock grazing in areas compatible 

with the established conservation 

values, and provides for a diverse mix 

of recreation opportunities. As in 

Alternative B, Alternative C focuses on 

active resource management and would 

allow for use of the broadest array of 

management tools for ecosystem 

restoration and to meet goals and 

objectives. Alternative D emphasizes 

resource protection and conservation. It 

emphasizes primitive recreational 

experiences with limited motorized 

access, protection of wilderness 

characteristics, ACECs, and 

management of the San Pedro and 

Babocomari Wild and Scenic Rivers. It 

focuses on natural processes and use of 

‘‘light on the land’’ management 

methods, such as the use of hand tools 

and prescribed fire, to help meet goals 

and objectives. 

Pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.7–2(b), this 

notice announces a concurrent public 

comment period for potential ACECs. 

There are three existing ACECs under 

Alternative A, and three expanded and 

two new potential ACECs under 

Alternative D. ACECs are not proposed 

under Alternatives B and C. Pertinent 

information regarding these ACECs, 

including proposed designation acreage 

and resource use limitations are listed 

below. 

PROPOSED ACECS

Alternative A 

(acres) 

Alternative D 

(acres) ACEC resource values Resource use limitations 

Saint David Cienega ACEC ....... 380 2,710 Cienega habitat, Cultural and historical 

values.

Visual Resource Management 

(VRM) class II. 

San Pedro ACEC ....................... 1,420 7,230 Upland and riparian areas, Rare plants, 

Cultural and historical values.

VRM class II. 

San Rafael ACEC ...................... 370 560 Rare plants, Giant sacaton grasslands, 

Mesquite bosques.

VRM class II. 

Curry-Horsethief ACEC ............. ........................ 2,540 Cultural, historical, and paleontological 

values.

VRM class II, land use authorizations would be excluded. 

Lehner Mammoth ACEC ........... ........................ 30 Cultural, historical, and paleontological 

values.

VRM class II, land use authorizations would be excluded. 

Please note that public comments and 

information submitted including names, 

street addresses, and email addresses of 

persons who submit comments will be 

available for public review and 

disclosure at the above address during 

regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. 

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. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 

43 CFR 1610.2. 

Raymond Suazo, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13813 Filed 6–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–32–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[NPS–WASO–D–COS–POL–25829: 

PPWODIREP0][PPMPSPD1Y.YM0000] 

‘‘Made in America’’ Outdoor Recreation 

Advisory Committee Notice of Public 

Meeting 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Meeting notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES