Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 36247 

Section 221(g)(4) of the Act provides 

that debentures issued pursuant to that 

paragraph (with respect to the 

assignment of an insured mortgage to 

the Secretary) will bear interest at the 

‘‘going Federal rate’’ in effect at the time 

the debentures are issued. The term 

‘‘going Federal rate’’ is defined to mean 

the interest rate that the Secretary of the 

Treasury determines, pursuant to a 

statutory formula based on the average 

yield on all outstanding marketable 

Treasury obligations of 8- to 12-year 

maturities, for the 6-month periods of 

January through June and July through 

December of each year. Section 221(g)(4) 

is implemented in the HUD regulations 

at 24 CFR 221.255 and 24 CFR 221.790. 

The Secretary of the Treasury has 

determined that the interest rate to be 

borne by debentures issued pursuant to 

section 221(g)(4) during the 6-month 

period beginning July 1, 2009, is 33⁄8

percent. 

The subject matter of this notice falls 

within the categorical exemption from 

HUD’s environmental clearance 

procedures set forth in 24 CFR 

50.19(c)(6). For that reason, no 

environmental finding has been 

prepared for this notice. 

(Authority: Sections 211, 221, 224, National 

Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715l, 1715o; 

Section 7(d), Department of HUD Act, 42 

U.S.C. 3535(d).) 

Dated: July 10, 2009. 

Ronald Y. Spraker, 

Acting General Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. E9–17325 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R3–MB–2009–N149] [30120–1113– 

0000–D3] 

Information Collection Sent to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for Approval; Bald Eagle Postdelisting Monitoring 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We (Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Service) have sent an 

Information Collection Request (ICR) to 

OMB for review and approval. The ICR, 

which is summarized below, describes 

the nature of the collection and the 

estimated burden and cost. 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. 

DATES: You must send comments on or 

before August 21, 2009. 

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 (e-mail). 

Please provide a copy of your comments 

to Hope Grey, Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 4401 North 

Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 

(mail) or hope_grey@fws.gov (e-mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request additional information about 

this ICR, contact Hope Grey by mail or 

e-mail (see ADDRESSES) or by telephone 

at (703) 358–2482. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: None. This is 

a new collection. 

Title: Bald Eagle Post-delisting 

Monitoring. 

Type of Request: New. 

Affected Public: States, tribes, and 

local governments, Federal land 

managers, and nongovernmental 

partners. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Frequency of Collection: Once every 5 

years. 

Note: For each 5–year survey, we 

estimate a total of 48 respondents will 

provide 48 responses totaling 1,478 

burden hours. The burden estimates 

below are annualized over the 3–year 

period of OMB approval. 

Estimated Annual Number of 

Respondents: 16. 

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 

16. 

Estimated Time per Response: 30.8 

hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 493. 

Abstract: This information collection 

implements the requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.) (ESA). The bald eagle in the 

lower 48 States was removed from the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife on August 8, 2007 (July 9, 

2007, 72 FR 37346). Section 4(g) of the 

ESA requires that all species that are 

recovered and removed from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(delisted) be monitored in cooperation 

with the States for a period of not less 

than 5 years. The purpose of this 

requirement is to detect any failure of a 

recovered species to sustain itself 

without the protections of the ESA. 

The bald eagle has a large geographic 

distribution that includes a substantial 

amount of non-Federal land. Although 

the ESA requires that monitoring of 

recovered species be conducted for not 

less than 5 years, the life history of bald 

eagles is such that it is appropriate to 

monitor this species for a longer period 

of time in order to meaningfully 

evaluate whether or not the recovered 

species continues to maintain its 

recovered status. 

We plan to monitor the status of the 

bald eagle by collecting data on 

occupied nests over a 20–year period 

with sampling events held once every 5 

years. The Post-delisting Monitoring 

Plan for the Bald Eagle (Plan) describes 

monitoring procedures and methods. 

When OMB takes action on this ICR, 

we will publish a notice in the Federal 

Register announcing the availability of 

the final Plan. If you would like a copy 

of the Plan before the notice of 

availability is published, contact Hope 

Grey (see ADDRESSES) or you can obtain 

a copy online at http:// 

www.reginfo.gov. 

Comments: On July 9, 2007, we 

published a notice of availability for the 

draft Plan in the Federal Register (72 FR 

37373). We solicited comments for a 

period of 90 days, ending on October 9, 

2007. In addition, in the fall of 2007, we 

gave two web presentations for State 

biologists. These presentations focused 

on the survey and data collection 

methods. We considered all comments 

from the Federal Register notice and the 

web presentations and addressed them 

in the Plan. 

Comment: Adequate funding for 

monitoring has not been identified. 

Response: The Service will fund the 

area frame surveys for the initial 

baseline survey, including the use of 

aircraft and pilots to complete the 

surveys. We will continue to work with 

the States, tribes, and our other partners 

to secure funding for future surveys. 

Comment: Five-year intervals between 

monitoring are insufficient. 

Response: In order to assess several 

generations of bald eagles after delisting, 

this Plan recommends monitoring bald 

eagle nesting populations at 5–year 

intervals (which would follow the 

development cycle to maturity for one 

generation) for four generations or a 

total of 20 years. This exceeds the 

requirements of the ESA. Many States 

monitor bald eagle nests on an annual 

basis because the surveys provide 

valuable resource data. Some States 

have indicated that their future bald 

eagle monitoring will be greatly reduced 

due to its recovery and the need to 

allocate funding to other areas. Thus, 5– 

year survey intervals will provide more 

data for States where surveys are not 

otherwise planned. It may also provide 

a cost savings for other States if they can 

use these data at 5–year intervals to 

satisfy their needs. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
36248 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 

Comment: Twenty-five percent 

decline is too large of an interval to 

serve as a trigger mechanism for review. 

Response: The goal of the Plan is to 

detect a 25-percent or greater change in 

occupied bald eagle nests over any 

period, measured at 5–year intervals 

based on an 80 percent chance of 

detecting such a change. We believe this 

is a goal that both ensures continued 

recovery under the ESA and is costeffective. If a 25-percent decline is 

detected, it means a reduction to a level 

still recognized as recovered under the 

ESA. If such declines are detected, we, 

in conjunction with the States, will 

investigate causes of those declines. At 

the end of the 20–year monitoring 

program, we will coordinate with States 

and our other partners to conduct a final 

review and provide recommendations to 

ensure a properly managed population 

of the recovered bald eagle. 

Comment: Implementation involves 

potential sampling bias due to variable 

observer experience and familiarity with 

nesting territories. 

Response: We have structured 

training, pre-survey preparation, and 

survey protocols to minimize potential 

sampling bias. Though experienced bald 

eagle observers may be familiar with 

specific nests, pilot studies showed that 

the observers were able to change 

mindsets from ‘‘searching habitat’’ in 

Area plots to ‘‘determining the status of 

specific known list nests’’ in List plots, 

without issue. Using the dual-observer 

method to determine individual 

detection probabilities for observers will 

help account for differences in observer 

experience. In planning Area plots 

survey routes, observers will be given 

maps that show habitat, but not the 

location of nests, allowing survey route 

planning to be based on habitat 

characteristics. 

Comment: Conducting a large-scale 

monitoring project every 5 years could 

create staffing problems. 

Response: Staffing will require open 

and clear communication among the 

States, tribes, and the Service. If State 

staff are not available for surveys, we 

will draw upon local Service offices, 

tribal biologists, retired Service and 

State employees, and experienced 

volunteers to fill in as observers. 

Comment: There is a lack of a 

comprehensive monitoring program for 

environmental contaminants. 

Response: We worked with the U.S. 

Geological Survey to develop a 

searchable database/library dedicated to 

contaminants investigations of bald 

eagle, osprey, and peregrine falcons. 

The objective was to create a readily 

available source of information to 

consider should the bald eagle (or 

peregrine) population decline. This 

database provides biologists an 

overview of the most recent findings of 

contaminant effects on these species. If 

additional studies are needed during 

post-delisting monitoring, the database 

will clarify what has been studied and 

what has not. 

Comment: The phrase ‘‘broad 

geographic areas’’ in the section on 

Habitat implies that the analysis of 

survey data may be accomplished on 

something less than a rangewide scale. 

Response: This is correct. If trends in 

nest occupancy significantly decline 

over broad geographic areas, whether 

rangewide or more regionally, we will 

investigate a change in available nesting 

habitat as a possible cause and take 

appropriate actions, as feasible. 

Comment: Customized parameters 

may be required in certain local 

situations. 

Response: We agree and have 

modified the Plan accordingly. 

Comment: The definition of bald eagle 

habitat in the Plan, especially the size 

of water bodies required, may not be 

appropriate for some geographic 

regions, especially the Southwest. 

Response: We modified the Plan to 

reflect that local conditions may warrant 

modifications to the habitat being 

considered. Input from local eagle 

biologists will be necessary in these 

unique or localized conditions. 

Comment: Surveys based on Bird 

Conservation Regions (BCRs) will not 

work in some States (e.g., eagle 

distribution is linear and follows major 

waterways which cross multiple BCRs). 

Response: We recognize some of the 

limitations of this approach, but still 

maintain it is the most appropriate for 

application across broad geographic 

areas. We will work with local biologists 

to further refine the stratification on a 

local level. 

Comment: The boundary between the 

Northern Pacific Rainforest BCR and the 

Great Basin BCR, although correctly 

mapped in the Plan, is an incorrect 

depiction of the margin between the two 

ecoregions. This has resulted in 

inappropriate numbers being used in 

calculations of nests in the BCR tables 

in the Plan. 

Response: We have modified this 

portion of the Plan to reflect that we 

will work with local biologists and 

others to further refine the BCR 

boundaries to more accurately reflect 

habitat groupings and, as appropriate, 

modify calculations of nests and nest 

densities per BCR. 

We again invite comments concerning 

this information collection on: 

(1) Whether or not the collection of 

information is necessary, including 

whether or not the information will 

have practical utility; 

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the 

burden for this 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 

respondents. 

Comments that you submit in 

response to this notice are a matter of 

public record. Before including your 

address, phone number, e-mail 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: June 23, 2009 

Hope Grey, 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

FR Doc. E9–17387 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Comment Request 

AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of an extension of an 

information collection (1028–0082). 

SUMMARY: To comply with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), we are notifying the public that 

we have submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) an 

information collection request (ICR) for 

the extension of the currently approved 

paperwork requirements for Bird 

Banding and Recovery Reports. This 

collection consists of two forms 

(Application for Federal Bird Banding 

or Marking Permit and Reporting 

Encounter of Marked Bird with a Metal 

Federal Band (Recovery Report) and an 

electronic database (Bandit). 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. 

DATES: You must submit comments on 

or before August 21, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit written 

comments on this information 

collection directly to the Office of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES