Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2024 / Notices 3411 

Dated: January 12, 2024. 

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00896 Filed 1–17–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National 

Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development; Notice of Closed 

Meetings 

Pursuant to section 1009 of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended, notice is hereby given of the 

following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. 

Name of Committee: Eunice Kennedy 

Shriver National Institute of Child Health 

and Human Development Special Emphasis 

Panel; Implementation Science Coordinating 

Center for HIV-affected Adolescents. 

Date: March 26, 2024. 

Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, Eunice 

Kennedy Shriver, National Institute of Child 

Health and Human Development, 6710B 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, 

(Virtual Meeting). 

Contact Person: Magnus A. Azuine, Ph.D., 

Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy 

Shriver, National Institute of Child Health & 

Human Development, NIH, 6710B Rockledge 

Drive, Room 2125C, Bethesda, MD 20817, 

(301) 480–4645, magnus.azuine@nih.gov. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 

93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 

93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation 

Research; 93.209, Contraception and 

Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 

Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: January 12, 2024. 

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00900 Filed 1–17–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National 

Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development; Notice of Closed 

Meetings 

Pursuant to section 1009 of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended, notice is hereby given of the 

following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. 

Name of Committee: Eunice Kennedy 

Shriver National Institute of Child Health 

and Human Development Special Emphasis 

Panel; Member Conflict: Function, and 

Rehabilitation Sciences Study Section. 

Date: March 5, 2024. 

Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, Eunice 

Kennedy Shriver, National Institute of Child 

Health and Human Development, 6710B 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, 

(Virtual Meeting). 

Contact Person: Magnus A. Azuine, Ph.D., 

Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy 

Shriver, National Institute of Child Health & 

Human Development, NIH, 6710B Rockledge 

Drive, Room 2125C, Bethesda, MD 20817, 

(301) 480–4645, magnus.azuine@nih.gov. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 

93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 

93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation 

Research; 93.209, Contraception and 

Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 

Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: January 12, 2024. 

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00899 Filed 1–17–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2023–0203; 

FXES11130600000–223–FF06E00000] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Establishment of an 

Experimental Population of the Grizzly 

Bear in the Bitterroot Ecosystem of the 

States of Idaho and Montana; 

Environmental Impact Statement 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of intent, 

announcement of public meetings, and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), intend to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended, to evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts of restoring the 

grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) to 

the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE), a portion 

of the species’ historical range, in 

Montana and Idaho. We previously 

issued a final EIS, record of decision, 

and final rule under section 10(j) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, to reintroduce grizzly bears to 

the BE as a nonessential experimental 

population. However, conditions have 

changed, so we intend to reevaluate a 

range of options to restore the grizzly 

bear to the BE during the development 

of a new EIS. We invite input from other 

Federal and State agencies, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, privatesector businesses, and members of the 

public on the scope of the EIS, 

alternatives to our proposed approaches 

for assisting in the restoration of the 

grizzly bear in the BE, and the pertinent 

issues that we should address in the 

EIS. We also invite the public and 

interested parties to attend virtual 

public scoping meetings. 

DATES: 

Comment submission: We will accept 

comments received or postmarked on or 

before March 18, 2024. Comments 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. eastern time on the closing 

date. 

Public scoping meetings: We will host 

at least two virtual public scoping 

meetings to share information regarding 

the development of the draft EIS and 

allow the public to ask questions 

regarding the scope of issues and the 

proposed alternatives. We will 

announce the dates, times, and details 

of these virtual public scoping meetings 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3412 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2024 / Notices 

through local and regional media, press 

releases, emails, social media, and on 

our website at https://www.fws.gov/ 

bitterrooteis. 

ADDRESSES: 

Comment submission: You may 

submit comments by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R6–ES–2023–0203, which is 

the docket number for this action. Then, 

click on the Search button. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R6–ES–2023–0203, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

Supporting materials, such as the 

previous final EIS (Service 2000a, 

entire), the previous record of decision 

(ROD) (Service 2000b, entire), and the 

species status assessment report 

(Service 2023, entire), are available on 

the Service’s website at https://

www.fws.gov/bitterrooteis and at https:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2023–0203. 

Public scoping meetings: We will host 

at least two virtual public scoping 

meetings to share information regarding 

the development of the draft EIS and 

allow the public to ask questions 

regarding the scope of issues and the 

proposed alternatives. Although we will 

not solicit oral comments at these 

virtual public meetings, written 

comments may be submitted at any time 

during the scoping process. See 

Comment submission, above, for 

information on how to submit 

comments. We will announce the 

details regarding how to participate in 

these virtual public scoping meetings 

through local and regional media, press 

releases, emails, social media, and on 

our website at https://www.fws.gov/ 

bitterrooteis. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Grizzly Bear Recovery Office, 

University Hall, Room #309, University 

of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812; 

telephone 406–243–4903. 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-of 

contact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We 

announce our intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) to 

evaluate a range of alternatives to 

restore the grizzly bear to the Bitterroot 

Ecosystem (BE) in Montana and Idaho. 

Alternatives that may be considered 

include implementing the existing 

nonessential experimental population 

(NEP) regulations in title 50 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 

17.84(l) (see 65 FR 69624, November 17, 

2000), removing the BE NEP regulations 

from the CFR with or without additional 

management to aid natural 

recolonization, or designating a new 

experimental population for the BE 

under section 10(j) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 

16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). This notification 

of intent initiates the scoping process, 

which informs the development of the 

EIS. 

Information Requested 

In accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), we are conducting a public 

scoping process to invite input on the 

range of alternatives and issues to be 

addressed during the preparation of the 

EIS. Scoping is an early and open 

process for determining the scope of 

issues to be addressed and identifying 

issues that should be considered in 

selecting an alternative for 

implementation. Therefore, we request 

comments or information from other 

government agencies, Native American 

Tribes, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested parties 

concerning this action. We particularly 

seek comments concerning: 

(1) The alternatives that we should 

consider for restoring grizzly bears to 

the BE; 

(2) Other possible action alternatives 

that we should consider that meet our 

purpose and need and are technically 

and economically feasible; 

(3) Potential effects that the 

preliminary action alternatives could 

have on other aspects of the human 

environment, including ecological, 

aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, 

social, environmental justice, or health 

effects; 

(4) Approaches for managing grizzly 

bears in the BE, particularly regarding 

potential conflicts with human 

activities; 

(5) Considerations for grizzly bear 

connectivity to the BE; and 

(6) Other information relevant to 

grizzly bear restoration in the BE and its 

impacts on the human environment. 

We will consider the comments that 

we receive during the development of 

the draft EIS. Please include sufficient 

information with your submission (such 

as scientific journal articles or other 

publications) to allow us to verify any 

scientific or commercial information 

you include. Submissions merely stating 

support for, or opposition to, the action 

under consideration without providing 

supporting information do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support a determination. You may 

submit your comments and materials by 

one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES, 

above. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Background 

The grizzly bear is currently listed as 

a threatened species in the lower-48 

States under the ESA. The BE is one of 

six recovery zones identified in the 1993 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 

1993, entire). A recovery zone is an area 

large enough and of sufficient habitat 

quality to support a recovered grizzly 

bear population. The goal of the 

recovery plan is to reduce threats to the 

grizzly bear in each ecosystem so that 

the species can be considered for 

delisting due to recovery (USFWS 1993, 

p. 33). The grizzly bear is functionally 

extirpated in the BE, although there 

have been recent instances of individual 

grizzly bears dispersing into the 

ecosystem. Restoring a viable grizzly 

bear population to the BE would 

support the overall recovery of the 

grizzly bear in the lower-48 States. 

Grizzly bears once ranged throughout 

most of the Western United States. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2024 / Notices 3413 

However, grizzly bear abundance and 

distribution were greatly diminished by 

excessive human-caused mortality and 

loss of habitat. Since 1975, grizzly bear 

populations have increased, and the 

species’ range has expanded, in the 

Northern Continental Divide, Greater 

Yellowstone, Cabinet-Yaak, and Selkirk 

ecosystems. Expansion of the 

abundance and distribution of the 

species increases the redundancy, 

representation, and resiliency of grizzly 

bears within the lower-48 States and 

furthers conservation of the species. Our 

species status assessment provides a full 

account of the life history, ecology, 

range, and historical and current 

distribution of grizzly bears in the 

lower-48 States (Service 2023, entire). 

The BE is one of the largest 

contiguous blocks of federally managed 

land in the lower-48 States. The BE 

contains multiple wilderness areas, 

which make up the largest block of 

wilderness habitat in the Rocky 

Mountains south of Canada. Grizzly 

bear recovery requires large blocks of 

relatively undisturbed land and remote 

areas away from human disturbance. 

Due to its large wilderness areas, the BE 

offers favorable conditions to restore a 

healthy population of grizzly bears and 

to improve the long-term survival and 

recovery of grizzly bears in the lower-48 

States. 

In November 2000, we released a final 

EIS (Service 2000a, entire), a record of 

decision (ROD) (Service 2000b, entire), 

and a final rule under section 10(j) of 

the ESA (65 FR 69624, November 17, 

2000) to reintroduce grizzly bears into 

the BE as an NEP. The ROD described 

that grizzly bears would be restored to 

the BE and that their management 

would be guided by recommendations 

from a citizen management committee 

(Service 2000b, entire). In 2001, we 

published a notice of intent proposing 

to reevaluate our ROD and select the 

‘‘no action’’ alternative as the preferred 

alternative (66 FR 33623, June 22, 2001) 

and a proposed rule to remove the 

section 10(j) designation for the BE and 

the accompanying regulations in 50 CFR 

17.84(l) (66 FR 33620, June 22, 2001). 

However, we never finalized these 

proposals, and the NEP designation for 

the BE and the associated regulations 

remain in place. Additionally, we did 

not take any action to implement the 

ROD associated with the NEP 

designation; specifically, we did not 

reintroduce grizzly bears to the BE, and 

we did not establish a citizen 

management committee. 

In November 2021, the Alliance for 

the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems 

Council filed a lawsuit alleging that we 

failed to comply with our 2000 final 

rule and ROD to designate an NEP in the 

BE and unreasonably delayed 

completing our 2001 proposed 

rulemaking to rescind the experimental 

population designation, in violation of 

NEPA and the Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). AWR et 

al. v. Cooley et al., No. 9:21–cv–00136– 

DWM (D. Mont.). On March 15, 2023, 

the district court ruled that the Service 

unreasonably delayed implementing 

nondiscretionary actions in our ROD 

(Service 2000b, entire), in violation of 

NEPA and the APA. The court ordered 

the Service to prepare a supplemental 

EIS and, if warranted, a new ROD and 

final rule under section 10(j) of the ESA. 

On April 26, 2023, the court issued an 

order approving the Service’s proposal 

to complete a new final EIS and ROD 

within 43 months from the court’s order 

(November 26, 2026). 

Given the change in circumstances 

since our 2000 ROD (i.e., more 

observations of grizzly bears naturally 

dispersing into the BE), and in response 

to the court’s order, we are now taking 

a fresh look at a strategy for supporting 

restoration of grizzly bears in the BE. 

NEPA Analysis of Section 10 Actions 

NEPA requires Federal agencies to 

undertake an assessment of 

environmental effects of any proposed 

action prior to making a final decision 

and implementing the decision. NEPA 

also established the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ), which 

issued regulations implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508). The Service has 

regulatory authority under the ESA to 

manage the conservation and recovery 

of federally listed species, including 

creating rules and regulations and 

permitting legitimate activities that 

would otherwise be prohibited by the 

ESA. Development of a section 10(j) rule 

under the ESA is a Federal action 

requiring review under NEPA. 

Consistent with CEQ guidance for 

implementing NEPA, we intend to 

complete an EIS to consider approaches 

to restore the grizzly bear to the BE. The 

EIS will address the potential 

environmental impacts of a range of 

reasonable alternatives (including 

rulemaking actions) under section 10 of 

the ESA. The potential environmental 

impacts assessed in the EIS could 

include the effects on grizzly bears from 

management measures; effects on other 

environmental resources such as other 

federally listed species and cultural and 

Tribal resources; potential 

socioeconomic effects, including 

impacts on economic activities such as 

tourism and agriculture; and effects on 

a range of other resources identified 

through internal and external scoping. 

We will address our compliance with 

other applicable authorities in our 

NEPA review. 

Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

The purpose of our action is to restore 

a grizzly bear population to the BE that: 

is demographically viable; is well 

distributed throughout the BE; can 

increase and sustain itself at a recovered 

level; is protected by regulations, 

policies, or guidelines that (a) ensure 

grizzly bears and their habitats maintain 

long-term viability and connectivity and 

(b) provide management flexibilities to 

foster human social tolerance; and 

contributes to rangewide recovery of 

grizzly bears in the lower-48 States. 

This action is needed to comply with 

the April 26, 2023, order in AWR et al. 

v. Cooley et al., No. 9:21–cv–00136– 

DWM (D. Mont.). This action is also 

needed because the BE, one of six 

ecosystems identified for the recovery of 

the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States 

(USFWS 1993, entire), is functionally 

extirpated. Although we previously 

decided to reintroduce grizzly bears into 

the BE (Service 2000b, entire), we have 

not implemented that decision. Since 

designating the NEP in 2000, we have 

observed individual bears from other 

ecosystems dispersing through the BE 

and adjacent areas with greater 

regularity, particularly in the past 

several years. We now anticipate that a 

population of grizzly bears (defined as 

two or more breeding females or one 

female with two consecutive litters) may 

become established in the BE through 

natural recolonization in the next 15 to 

20 years. 

Preliminary Alternatives 

During the development of the draft 

EIS, we will consider a range of 

reasonable alternatives, including a no 

action, a proposed action, and 

preliminary alternatives. Our proposed 

action is to restore grizzly bears in the 

BE. Potential preliminary alternatives 

will include the following approaches: 

active reintroduction with or without 

designating a new experimental 

population in the BE, actions to support 

natural recolonization, actions to 

facilitate connectivity, or repealing or 

revising the existing NEP designation. 

These approaches may be considered 

separately or in any combination in the 

EIS. 

Under our preliminary no action 

alternative, the status quo of current 

grizzly bear management would 

continue as currently implemented. We 

would not pursue reintroduction or 

changes to current management 

practices. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3414 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2024 / Notices 

Summary of Potential Expected Impacts 

We expect that the alternatives could 

potentially restore a grizzly bear 

population to the BE with varying 

success and in varying timeframes. 

Potential impacts from implementing 

the alternatives may include 

environmental impacts on fish and 

wildlife (including grizzly bears), 

wilderness areas, visitor use and 

recreational experience, public and 

employee safety, socioeconomics, and 

Tribal cultural and related resources. 

We intend to explore these and other 

potential expected impacts during the 

development of the draft EIS. 

Anticipated Permits and Authorizations 

We will comply with the ESA to 

evaluate potential impacts to threatened 

and endangered species. We will fulfill 

the public involvement requirements 

under the National Historic Preservation 

Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 

36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). Information about 

historic and cultural resources within 

the area potentially affected by the 

alternatives will assist us in identifying 

and evaluating impacts to such 

resources and consulting with affected 

Indian Tribes and the State Historic 

Preservation Officer(s) on the potential 

for adverse effects. 

Anticipated Schedule for the EIS 

We expect to make the draft EIS 

available for public review and 

comment before the end of 2025. After 

public review and comment of the draft, 

we expect to make the final EIS 

available to the public in the fall of 

2026. We then expect to issue a ROD by 

November 2026, pursuant to a courtordered timeline, and if applicable, 

would issue a subsequent rulemaking 

under section 10(j) of the ESA soon 

after. 

Responsibilities to Tribes 

The Service has unique 

responsibilities to Tribes, including 

under the National Historic Preservation 

Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 

1996), Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act (25 

U.S.C. 3001), and Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 

2000bb et seq.); Executive Order 13007, 

Indian Sacred Sites (61 FR 26771, May 

29, 1996); Joint Secretarial Order 3403, 

Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to 

Indian Tribes in the Stewardship of 

Federal Lands and Waters (November 

15, 2021) and Secretarial Order 3206, 

American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal 

Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 

ESA (June 5, 1997); Director’s Order 

227, Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility 

to Tribes and the Native Hawaiian 

Community, and Other Obligations to 

Alaska Native Corporations and Alaska 

Native Organizations, in the 

Stewardship of Federal Lands and 

Waters; and the Service’s Native 

American Policy (510 FW 1). 

We apply the term ‘‘Tribal’’ or 

‘‘Tribe(s)’’ generally to federally 

recognized Tribes and Alaska Native 

Tribal entities. The Service will 

separately consult with Tribes on the 

proposals set forth in this document. We 

will also ensure that those Tribes 

wishing to engage directly in the NEPA 

process will have the opportunity to do 

so. As part of this process, we will 

protect the confidential nature of any 

consultations and other 

communications we have with Tribes, 

to the extent permitted by the Freedom 

of Information Act and other laws. 

References 

A list of the references cited in this 

document is available at https://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2023–0203. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authorities for this action are the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

Anna Mun ̃ oz, 

Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00873 Filed 1–17–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

[24XD4523WS DS64900000 

DWSN00000.000000 DP.64916; OMB Control 

Number 1093–0011] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; DOI Talent Registration 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of information collection; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, 

the Office of the Secretary are proposing 

to renew an information collection. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before March 

18, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Send your comments on 

this information collection request (ICR) 

by mail to Jeffrey Parrillo, 1849 C Street 

NW, Washington, DC 20240; or by email 

to DOI-PRA@ios.doi.gov. Please 

reference OMB Control Number 1093– 

0011 in the subject line of your 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request additional information about 

this ICR, contact Jeffrey Parrillo by 

email at DOI-PRA@ios.doi.gov, or by 

telephone at 202–208–7072. 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. 

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), 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. 

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 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES