14564 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2012 / Notices 

that it has been very useful. The tagging 

program has benefited horseshoe crab 

management and has had impacts on 

management of associated shorebird 

species whose population levels are of 

concern. The commenter had concerns 

on the effort of tag recoveries, and 

suggested that we provide higher 

incentives to commercial fishermen to 

report crab tags, increase efforts on 

spawning beaches to recover tags, 

record time searching for tags to 

determine catch-per-unit-effort, that 

online reporting can be done in a batch 

system, and that we increase efforts to 

collect tag data from commercial 

fishermen. While we recognize that all 

of these suggestions would make a 

stronger program with more significant 

scientific data, some come with 

substantial cost. At this time we do not 

have any additional funds to provide 

increased incentives to fishermen, 

increase tag recovery efforts on beaches 

(done by our cooperators at this time), 

or increase efforts to solicit tag data 

from commercial fishermen. Through 

our cooperators in the future, we can 

attempt to get an estimate of catch-perunit-effort and we will discuss this issue 

with the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission to determine if 

those data would be useful. We will also 

explore providing a batch-type data 

entry program on our Web site to report 

recaptured tags. We will explore 

collecting catch-per-unit-effort and 

online batch reporting in the future. 

Commenter 5 was supportive of the 

information collection, and commented 

that the scientific data provided by the 

program has been very useful for 

horseshoe crab management. 

Information was collected efficiently 

and the burden estimates were accurate. 

Commenter 6 opposed the use of 

horseshoe crabs by biomedical 

companies and proposed a ban on the 

use of horseshoe crabs for any purpose. 

Commenter 7 said that the tagging 

program is not necessary and the data 

generated by the program is not useful. 

The commenter also opposed the 

commercial harvest of horseshoe crabs 

and the use of horseshoe crabs by 

biomedical companies. The commenter 

proposed a ban on the use of horseshoe 

crabs for any purpose. 

Commenter 8 discussed the scientific 

merit of the tagging program and said 

that it has been very useful for 

horseshoe crab management purposes. 

The commenter suggested that the Fish 

and Wildlife Service increase efforts in 

resighting tagged crabs outside the 

Delaware Bay area. While we recognize 

that increasing effort for resighting 

tagged crabs would increase the quality 

of the scientific data, there is substantial 

cost associated with increasing that 

effort. At this time, we do not have any 

additional funds to increase tag recovery 

efforts on beaches (done by our 

cooperators at this time). We will 

encourage our cooperators to increase 

efforts in tag recovery outside the 

Delaware Bay area. The commenter also 

suggested we develop an application for 

smart phones in addition to the online 

reporting system that we currently offer. 

We will explore the development of an 

app for smart phones to provide another 

method for tag reporting. 

Commenter 9 discussed the scientific 

merit of the tagging program and said 

that it has been very useful to horseshoe 

crab and shorebird management (whose 

population levels are of concern). The 

commenter suggested that we increase 

efforts on spawning beaches of 

Maryland and Virginia to recover tags, 

record time searching for tags to 

determine catch-per-unit-effort, and use 

formal models to determine survival of 

bled crabs from the Lysate industry. As 

with previous comments, we will 

encourage our cooperators to increase 

tag recovery efforts on the Maryland and 

Virginia beaches; however, without 

increased funding, we will not be able 

to increase tag recovery efforts without 

the assistance of cooperators. Some 

formal studies are being done by our 

cooperators using the Service tagging 

program to evaluate impacts of both 

tagging and of the Lysate bleeding 

programs. We will continue to support 

the tagging programs that are evaluating 

crab survival. The commenter also 

suggested that we should facilitate batch 

reporting of crabs on the phone and to 

encourage tag reporting by commercial 

fishermen. At this time we do not have 

any additional funds to provide 

increased incentives to fishermen, 

increase tag recovery efforts on beaches 

(done by our cooperators at this time), 

or increase efforts to solicit tag data 

from commercial fishermen. We will 

work with our cooperators to attempt to 

get better distribution of tag recovery 

efforts. 

Commenter 10 provided comments 

similar in nature to Commenters 4 and 

9. 

We did not make any changes to our 

information collection requirements 

based on the above comments. 

We again invite comments concerning 

this information collection on: 

• Whether or not the collection of 

information is necessary, including 

whether or not the information will 

have practical utility; 

• The accuracy of our estimate of the 

burden for this collection of 

information; 

• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents. 

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 OMB in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that it will be done. 

Dated: March 6, 2012. 

Tina A. Campbell, 

Chief, Division of Policy and Directives 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5879 Filed 3–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R9–MB–2012–N0059; FF09M21200– 

123–FXMB1231099BPP0L2] 

Information Collection Request Sent to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for Approval; Approval 

Procedures for Nontoxic Shot and 

Shot Coatings 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service) have sent an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for 

review and approval. We summarize the 

ICR below and describe the nature of the 

collection and the estimated burden and 

cost. This information collection is 

scheduled to expire on April 30, 2012. 

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 submit comments on 

or before April 11, 2012. 

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 (email). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2012 / Notices 14565 

Please provide a copy of your comments 

to the Service Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS 2042–PDM, 4401 

North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 

22203 (mail), or INFOCOL@fws.gov 

(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0067’’ in 

the subject line of your comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request additional information about 

this ICR, contact Hope Grey at 

INFOCOL@fws.gov (email) or 703–358– 

2482 (telephone). You may review the 

ICR online at http://www.reginfo.gov. 

Follow the instructions to review 

Department of the Interior collections 

under review by OMB. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 1018–0067. 

Title: Approval Procedures for 

Nontoxic Shot and Shot Coatings, 50 

CFR 20.134. 

Service Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Request: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Description of Respondents: 

Businesses that produce and/or market 

approved nontoxic shot types or 

nontoxic shot coatings. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain a benefit. 

Frequency of Collection: On occasion. 

Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 1. 

Completion Time per Response: 3,200 

hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 3,200 hours. 

Estimated Annual Nonhour Cost 

Burden: $25,000. 

Abstract: The Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) 

prohibits the unauthorized take of 

migratory birds and authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to regulate take 

of migratory birds in the United States. 

Under this authority, we control the 

hunting of migratory game birds through 

regulations in 50 CFR part 20. On 

January 1, 1991, we banned lead shot for 

hunting waterfowl and coots in the 

United States. 

The regulations at 50 CFR 20.134 

outline the application and approval 

process for new types of nontoxic shot. 

When considering approval of a 

candidate material as nontoxic, we must 

ensure that it is not hazardous in the 

environment and that secondary 

exposure (ingestion of spent shot or its 

components) is not a hazard to 

migratory birds. To make that decision, 

we require each applicant to provide 

information about the solubility and 

toxicity of the candidate material. 

Additionally, for law enforcement 

purposes, a noninvasive field detection 

device must be available to distinguish 

candidate shot from lead shot. This 

information constitutes the bulk of an 

application for approval of nontoxic 

shot. The Director uses the data in the 

application to decide whether or not to 

approve a material as nontoxic. 

Comments: On September 26, 2011, 

we published in the Federal Register 

(76 FR 59421) a notice of our intent to 

request that OMB renew approval for 

this information collection. In that 

notice, we solicited comments for 60 

days, ending on November 25, 2011. We 

received one comment. The commenter 

opposed expending funds to support the 

approval of nontoxic shot, and stated 

that a survey is not needed. This 

information collection is not a survey. It 

consists of risk assessments, toxicity 

tests, and background information that 

an applicant must submit in order for us 

to determine whether or not a proposed 

shot is nontoxic. We did not make any 

changes to our information collection 

requirements. 

We again invite comments concerning 

this information collection on: 

• Whether or not the collection of 

information is necessary, including 

whether or not the information will 

have practical utility; 

• The accuracy of our estimate of the 

burden for this collection of 

information; 

• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents. 

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 OMB in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that it will be done. 

Dated: March 6, 2012. 

Tina A. Campbell, 

Chief, Division of Policy and Directives 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5878 Filed 3–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R7–R–2012–N046; 

FXRS126307000004A–FF07R08000] 

Information Collection Request Sent to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for Approval; Alaska Guide 

Service Evaluation 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service) have sent an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for 

review and approval. We summarize the 

ICR below and describe the nature of the 

collection and the estimated burden and 

cost. This information collection is 

scheduled to expire on March 31, 2012. 

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 submit comments on 

or before April 11, 2012. 

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 (email). 

Please provide a copy of your comments 

to the Service Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS 2042–PDM, 4401 

North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 

22203 (mail), or INFOCOL@fws.gov 

(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0141’’ in 

the subject line of your comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request additional information about 

this ICR, contact Hope Grey at 

INFOCOL@fws.gov (email) or 703–358– 

2482 (telephone). You may review the 

ICR online at http://www.reginfo.gov. 

Follow the instructions to review 

Department of the Interior collections 

under review by OMB. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 1018–0141. 

Title: Alaska Guide Service 

Evaluation. 

Service Form Number(s): 3–2349. 

Type of Request: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Description of Respondents: Clients of 

permitted commercial guide service 

providers. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES