Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices 78465 

provide in any voluntary submission 

you make. For additional information 

please read the Privacy Act notice that 

is available via the link in the footer of 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you need a copy of the information 

collection instrument with instructions, 

or additional information, please visit 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: 

http://www.regulations.gov. We may 

also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of 

Policy and Strategy, Regulatory 

Coordination Division, Laura Dawkins, 

Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20529–2140, 

Telephone number 202–272–8377. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments 

Note: The address listed in this notice 

should only be used to submit comments 

concerning this information collection. 

Please do not submit requests for individual 

case status inquiries to this address. If you 

are seeking information about the status of 

your individual case, please check ‘‘My Case 

Status’’ online at: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/ 

Dashboard.do, or call the USCIS National 

Customer Service Center at 1–800–375–5283. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

should address one or more of the 

following four points: 

(1) Evaluate 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) 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; 

(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, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection 

Request: Revision of a Currently 

Approved Collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Application for Waiver of Grounds of 

Inadmissibility. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the DHS 

sponsoring the collection: I–881; USCIS. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Individuals or 

Households. The information collected 

on this form is used by U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services (USCIS) to 

determine whether the applicant is 

eligible for a waiver of excludability 

under section 212 of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: 20,625 responses (paperformat) at 1.75 hours per response; 100 

responses (biometrics) at 1.17 hours. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: 36,211 burden hours. 

Dated: December 22, 2014. 

Laura Dawkins, 

Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 

Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30508 Filed 12–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–HQ–ES–2014–N257; FXHC1122

0900000–145–FF09E33000] 

Information Collection Request Sent to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for Approval; Land-Based Wind 

Energy Guidelines 

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 December 31, 

2014. 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 January 29, 2015. 

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_

Submission@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 BPHC, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803 (mail), or hope_grey@fws.gov 

(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0148’’ in 

the subject line of your comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request additional information about 

this ICR, contact Hope Grey at hope_

grey@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: 

Information Collection Request 

OMB Control Number: 1018–0148. 

Title: Land-Based Wind Energy 

Guidelines. 

Service Form Number: None. 

Type of Request: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Description of Respondents: 

Developers and operators of wind 

energy facilities. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Frequency of Collection: On occasion. 

Activity 

(reporting and recordkeeping) 

Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses 

Completion 

time per 

response 

(hours) 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Nonhour 

burden cost 

per response 

Total annual 

nonhour 

burden cost 

Tier 1 (Desktop Analysis) ........................ 40 40 81 3,240 $825 $33,000 

Tier 2 (Site Characterization) ................... 35 35 369 12,915 3,750 131,250 

Tier 3 (Pre-construction studies) ............. 30 30 14,695 440,850 149,288 4,478,640 

Tier 4 (Post-construction fatality monitoring and habitat studies) .................... 45 45 4,023 181,035 40,875 1,839,375 

Tier 5 (Other post-construction studies) .. 10 10 6,939 69,390 70,500 705,000 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78466 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices 

Activity 

(reporting and recordkeeping) 

Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses 

Completion 

time per 

response 

(hours) 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Nonhour 

burden cost 

per response 

Total annual 

nonhour 

burden cost 

Totals ................................................ 160 160 ........................ 707,430 ........................ 7,187,265

Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden 

Cost: $7,187,265. Costs will depend on 

the size and complexity of issues 

associated with each project. These 

expenses may include, but are not 

limited to: Travel expenses for site 

visits, studies conducted, and meetings 

with the Service and other Federal and 

State agencies; training in survey 

methodologies; data management; 

special transportation, such as allterrain vehicle or helicopter; equipment 

needed for acoustic, telemetry, or radar 

monitoring, and carcass storage. The 

Tier 3 estimate is very high because it 

includes every type of pre-construction 

monitoring study that could potentially 

be conducted. It is more likely that a 

selection of these studies will be 

performed at any given site, depending 

on the species of concern identified and 

other site-specific conditions. 

Abstract: As wind energy production 

increased, both developers and wildlife 

agencies recognized the need for a 

system to evaluate and address the 

potential negative impacts of wind 

energy projects on species of concern. 

We issued voluntary Land-Based Wind 

Energy Guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/ 

windenergy) in March 2012 to provide 

a structured, scientific process for 

addressing wildlife conservation 

concerns at all stages of land-based 

wind energy development. The 

Guidelines also promote effective 

communication among wind energy 

developers and Federal, State, tribal, 

and local conservation agencies. When 

used in concert with appropriate 

regulatory tools, the Guidelines are the 

best practical approach for conserving 

species of concern. We are asking OMB 

to renew approval for the information 

collection requirements in the 

Guidelines. We are not making any 

changes to the requirements. 

The Guidelines discuss various risks 

to species of concern from wind energy 

projects, including collisions with wind 

turbines and associated infrastructure; 

loss and degradation of habitat from 

turbines and infrastructure; 

fragmentation of large habitat blocks 

into smaller segments that may not 

support sensitive species; displacement 

and behavioral changes; and indirect 

effects, such as increased predator 

populations or introduction of invasive 

plants. The Guidelines assist developers 

in identifying species of concern that 

may potentially be affected by proposed 

projects, including, but not limited to: 

• Migratory birds; 

• Bats; 

• Bald and golden eagles and other 

birds of prey; 

• Prairie chickens and sage grouse; 

and 

• Listed, proposed, or candidate 

endangered and threatened species. 

The Guidelines follow a tiered 

approach. The wind energy developer 

begins at Tier 1 or Tier 2, which entails 

gathering existing data to help identify 

any potential risks to wildlife and their 

habitats at proposed wind energy 

project sites. The developer then 

proceeds through subsequent tiers, as 

appropriate, to collect information in 

increasing detail until the level of risk 

is adequately ascertained and a decision 

on whether or not to develop the site 

can be made. Many projects may not 

proceed beyond Tier 1 or 2, when 

developers become aware of potential 

barriers, including high risks to wildlife. 

Developers would only have an interest 

in adhering to the Guidelines for those 

projects that proceed beyond Tier 1 or 

2. 

At each tier, wind energy developers 

and operators should retain 

documentation to provide to the 

Service. Such documentation may 

include copies of correspondence with 

the Service, results of pre- and postconstruction studies conducted at 

project sites, bird and bat conservation 

strategies, or any other record that 

supports a developer’s adherence to the 

Guidelines. The extent of the 

documentation will depend on the 

conditions of the site being developed. 

Sites with greater risk of impacts to 

wildlife and habitats will likely involve 

more extensive communication with the 

Service and longer durations of pre- and 

post-construction studies than sites with 

little risk. 

Distributed or community-scale wind 

energy projects are unlikely to have 

significant adverse impacts to wildlife 

and their habitats. The Guidelines 

recommend that developers of these 

small-scale projects do the desktop 

analysis described in Tier 1 or Tier 2 

using publicly available information to 

determine whether they should 

communicate with the Service. Since 

such project designs usually include a 

single turbine associated with existing 

development, conducting a Tier 1 or 

Tier 2 analysis for distributed or 

community-scale wind energy projects 

should incur limited nonhour burden 

costs. For such projects, if there is no 

potential risk identified, a developer 

will have no need to communicate with 

the Service regarding the project or to 

conduct studies described in Tiers 3, 4, 

and 5. 

Adherence to the Guidelines is 

voluntary. Following the Guidelines 

does not relieve any individual, 

company, or agency of the responsibility 

to comply with applicable laws and 

regulations. Developers of wind energy 

projects have a responsibility to comply 

with all applicable laws and regulations, 

including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 

Act, and the Endangered Species Act. 

Comments Received and Our Responses 

Comments: On July 3, 2014, we 

published in the Federal Register (79 

FR 38055) 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 September 2, 2014. We 

received comments from the wind 

energy industry, a State agency, an 

environmental consulting firm, an 

environmental nongovernmental 

organization (NGO), and an 

independent consultant to the 

environmental NGO community. The 

comments are sorted below by relevance 

to the questions posed in the July 3, 

2014, notice, followed by our responses. 

We invited 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. 

Commenters felt that the collection of 

information was necessary and that the 

information has practical utility. We did 

not receive any comments to the 

contrary. It was noted that the necessity 

and utility of information collected are 

dependent upon whether information 

has previously been collected in the 

study area. We agree that existing 

information should be used, where 

available. The Guidelines encourage use 

of credible, publicly available 

information including published 

studies, technical reports, databases, 

and information from agencies, local 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices 78467 

conservation organizations, and/or local 

experts. Another commenter noted that 

any proposal to conduct a study should 

define the questions that are expected to 

be answered, because studies are 

sometimes proposed without regard for 

whether the information learned will 

contribute to useful project evaluation. 

We agree that information should not be 

collected for the sake of collecting 

information. To accomplish this, the 

Guidelines pose questions within each 

Tier to help developers and Service staff 

identify data needs and any necessary 

surveys or studies. 

The accuracy of our estimate of the 

burden for this collection of 

information. 

One commenter noted that the 

estimate of 50 responses and 

respondents annually submitting 

information related to Tier 4 seems low 

considering that the Guidelines are 

intended to apply not only to projects 

initiated after publication of the 

Guidelines, but also to projects that 

were already in development and 

already operating. Another commenter 

provided a revised estimated burden 

calculated by members of the wind 

energy industry community. We used 

the industry’s figures in revising the 

estimate of the burden, and also agreed 

with the comment that the number of 

respondents in Tier 4 should be higher 

to reflect ongoing fatality studies at 

existing facilities. In addition, we 

revised the total number of respondents 

and responses based on the number of 

wind energy projects the Service 

reviewed in fiscal year 2013. These 

changes are reflected in the table above. 

We have decreased our estimates for the 

total number of respondents. Although 

Tier 4 responses have increased in 

proportion to the total number of 

respondents, the number reflected in the 

table above is less than what we 

provided in our previous request to 

OMB. 

A third commenter noted that the 

burden estimates are dependent upon 

the size of the project, complexity of the 

issues, and experience and equipment 

needs of the consultant, as well as 

previous information available for the 

site. We agree that the factors listed all 

affect estimates of project costs. 

Ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected. 

Regarding the quality of the data, 

several commenters felt that there 

should be a standardized methodology 

for collection of pre- and postconstruction data. We agree that 

standardized methodologies are ideal. 

The Guidelines encourage the use of 

common methods and metrics. Such 

standardization allows for comparisons 

among projects and provides some 

certainty regarding what will be asked 

of a developer for specific projects. 

However, because of the need for 

flexibility in application, the Guidelines 

do not make specific recommendations 

on protocol elements for pre- and postconstruction studies. The Service’s 

wind energy Web site and the 

Guidelines direct developers to tools 

and resources that have been developed 

and compiled through collaborative 

efforts and partnerships between 

Federal, State, and tribal agencies; wind 

energy developers; and NGOs interested 

in wind energy-wildlife interactions. 

We received comments on specific 

survey methodologies and study design 

considerations, which detailed the 

manner in which studies should be 

designed, executed, and evaluated, and 

provided analysis of the usefulness and 

efficacy of certain pre- and postconstruction survey methods. As noted, 

the Guidelines do not recommend 

certain methods over others, and instead 

point users to methods generally 

accepted by the wind-wildlife 

community as scientifically valid with 

an aim towards greater consistency. 

One commenter suggested that in 

addition to standardized data collection, 

post-construction fatality monitoring 

should also be automated using new 

and emerging technologies, and that 

these automated systems should be 

required as conditions of receiving 

incidental take permits under the 

Endangered Species Act or Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act. This 

suggestion extends beyond the purview 

of the Guidelines in terms of permitting 

requirements. In addition, we do not 

have sufficient information about these 

systems at this time to evaluate their 

efficacy. If such technologies become a 

reality, their use, along with a suite of 

other existing tools, could potentially 

improve estimates of strike-related 

fatalities at wind energy facilities. 

Regarding the utility of the data, one 

commenter questioned whether the use 

of voluntary guidelines is effective due 

to a lack of use by public and private 

entities. The commenter referenced a 

map that shows that wind energy 

facilities have been, and continue to be, 

developed in areas of high risk to 

migratory birds, contrary to the purpose 

of the Guidelines to guide development 

away from areas of highest risk to more 

suitable areas. We are currently in the 

process of evaluating the efficacy and 

use of the Guidelines, and the Service 

is considering regulatory options. Based 

on feedback from the wind energy 

industry, and from Service staff, the 

Guidelines are often successful in 

improving communication and lead to 

development of wind projects that are 

safer for wildlife, but in other cases are 

not successful in preventing wind 

energy facilities from being constructed 

in areas of high risk to wildlife. 

Regarding clarity, several commenters 

indicated the need for greater 

transparency in pre- and postconstruction monitoring results, study 

design and protocol, and adaptive 

management plans. Several reasons 

were given regarding the need for 

greater transparency, including 

facilitating study replication and 

consistency, allowing public evaluation 

of the effectiveness of the Guidelines, 

improved quality of information 

collected, and the need for greater 

public oversight generally. It was noted 

that often these data are treated as 

proprietary information, or are 

considered as ‘‘confidential business 

information’’ and are withheld from 

requests made via the Freedom of 

Information Act. While we agree that 

the public availability of data would 

facilitate greater oversight, improved 

consistency and comparability in study 

design and results, and improved 

landscape-level and cumulative effects 

analyses, we do not have the authority 

to require companies to share data that 

they own. Often, we receive reports that 

contain an analysis of data collected, 

and not the raw data itself. The 

information that is provided to us will 

continue to be evaluated on a case-bycase basis when it is requested via the 

Freedom of Information Act. We are 

developing tools that would allow 

companies to transmit fatality 

monitoring data via an online system 

that would provide anonymity, but still 

make the data available. We will 

continue to pursue other means of 

increasing the transparency of 

information related to study 

methodology and fatality data. 

Ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents. 

One commenter felt that the burden of 

adhering to the Guidelines is adequately 

compensated for by the discretion that 

will be exercised by the Office of Law 

Enforcement should violations of the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

(BGEPA) occur. This comment has been 

noted, although it does not provide 

suggestions for ways to further 

minimize the burden of the information 

collection. We also received a comment 

suggesting burdens could be minimized 

through use of ‘‘desktop tools’’ or 

existing publicly available information 

online in Tiers 1 and 2, and by siting 

projects in areas with minimal risk to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78468 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2014 / Notices 

rare, threatened, and endangered 

species. We agree with the commenter 

that use of existing information reduces 

the burden on respondents. The 

Guidelines encourage use of credible, 

publicly available information, 

including published studies, technical 

reports, databases, and information from 

agencies, local conservation 

organizations, and/or local experts. We 

also agree that burdens are reduced by 

siting projects in areas with least risk to 

wildlife and their habitats, and note that 

this is exactly what we hope to 

accomplish by working with developers 

to implement the Guidelines. 

Other Comments 

Several other comments were 

provided that were not pertinent to the 

questions asked in the notice. These 

comments addressed regulatory tools for 

migratory bird conservation, BGEPA 

programmatic permits for incidental 

take of eagles, suggestions for what 

types of mitigation methods should be 

acceptable as compensation for loss of 

protected species, enforcement actions 

by the Office of Law Enforcement 

against wind facilities compared with 

other energy technologies, splitting 

environmental study responsibilities 

among separate consultants, and 

stakeholder involvement in the 

development of adaptive management 

plans. One commenter also noted that 

the Service did not estimate the burden 

on the public to access the information 

collected via Freedom of Information 

Act requests, administrative appeals, 

and lawsuits. The Paperwork Reduction 

Act requires that we analyze the burden 

placed on those who submit information 

to us, not on the burden of others 

attempting to access that information. 

Request for Public 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: December 23, 2014. 

Tina A. Campbell, 

Chief, Division of Policy and Directives 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30481 Filed 12–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–HQ–NCTC–2014–N258; FF09X32000– 

FXGO16610900400–145] 

Information Collection Request Sent to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for Approval; Application for 

Training, National Conservation 

Training Center 

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 December 31, 

2014. 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 January 29, 2015. 

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_

Submission@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 BPHC, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803 (mail), or hope_grey@fws.gov 

(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0115’’ in 

the subject line of your comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request additional information about 

this ICR, contact Hope Grey at hope_

grey@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: 

Information Collection Request 

OMB Control Number: 1018–0115. 

Title: Application for Training, 

National Conservation Training Center. 

Service Form Number: 3–2193. 

Type of Request: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Description of Respondents: 

Individuals, businesses, organizations, 

and State, local, and tribal governments. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain a benefit. 

Frequency of Collection: On occasion. 

Estimated Annual Number of 

Respondents: 500. 

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 

500. 

Estimated Time per Response: 10 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 84. 

Abstract: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service National Conservation Training 

Center (NCTC) in Shepherdstown, West 

Virginia, provides natural resource and 

other professional training for Service 

employees, employees of other Federal 

agencies, and other affiliations, 

including State agencies, private 

individuals, not-for-profit organizations, 

and university personnel. FWS Form 3– 

2193 (Training Application) is a quick 

and easy method for prospective 

students who are not from the 

Department of the Interior to request 

training. We encourage applicants to use 

FWS Form 3–2193 and to submit their 

requests electronically. However, we do 

not require applicants to complete both 

a training form required by their agency 

and FWS Form 3–2193. NCTC will 

accept a training request in any format 

as long as it identifies the name, 

address, and phone number of the 

applicant; sponsoring agency; class 

name; start date; and all required 

financial payment information. 

NCTC uses data from FWS Form 3– 

2193 to generate class rosters, class 

transcripts, and statistics, and as a 

budgeting tool for projecting training 

requirements. It is also used to track 

attendance, mandatory requirements, 

tuition, and invoicing for all NCTCsponsored courses both onsite and 

offsite. 

Comments Received and Our Responses 

Comments: On July 3, 2014, we 

published in the Federal Register (79 

FR 38055) a notice of our intent to 

request that OMB renew approval for 

this information collection. In that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES