[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 100 (Thursday, May 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24139-24141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10702]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-HQ-IA-2017-N069; FXIA16710900000-167-FF09A30000]


Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 
1018-0093; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports--
Management Authority

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) 
described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 
as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take 
this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire 
on May 31, 2017. 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: To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, 
we must receive them by June 26, 2017.

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 [email protected] 
(email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service 
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 
(mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include ``1018-0093'' in 
the subject line of your comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Service Information Collection 
Clearance Officer, at [email protected] (email) or (703) 358-2503 
(telephone).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract

    This information collection covers permit applications and reports 
that our Division of Management Authority uses to determine the 
eligibility of applicants for permits requested in accordance with the 
criteria in various Federal wildlife conservation laws and 
international treaties. Service regulations implementing these statutes 
and treaties are in chapter I, subchapter B of title 50, Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations stipulate general and 
specific requirements that, when met, allow us to issue permits to 
authorize activities that are otherwise prohibited.
    Information collection requirements associated with the Federal 
fish and wildlife permit applications and reports are currently 
approved under three different OMB control numbers: 1018-0093, 
``Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports--Management 
Authority; 50 CFR 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23''; 1018-0150, 
``Renewal of CITES Registration of Commercial Breeding Operations for 
Appendix I Wildlife and Other CITES

[[Page 24140]]

Requirements, 50 CFR 17 and 23''; and 1018-0164, ``Import of Sport-
Hunted African Elephant Trophies, 50 CFR 17.'' In this revision of 
1018-0093, we will include all of the information collection 
requirements associated with all three OMB Control Numbers. If OMB 
approves this revision, we will discontinue OMB Control Numbers 1018-
0150 and 1018-0164.

II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0093.
    Title: Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports--
Management Authority; 50 CFR 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23.
    Form Numbers: FWS Forms 3-200-19 through 3-200-37, 3-200-39 through 
3-200-44, 3-200-46 through 3-200-53, 3-200-58, 3-200-61, 3-200-64 
through 3-200-66, 3-200-69, 3-200-70, 3-200-73 through 3-200-76, 3-200-
80, and 3-200-85 through 3-200-88.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Description of Respondents: Individuals; biomedical companies; 
circuses; zoological parks; botanical gardens; nurseries; museums; 
universities; antique dealers; exotic pet industry; hunters; 
taxidermists; commercial importers/exporters of wildlife and plants; 
freight forwarders/brokers; and State, tribal, local, and Federal 
governments.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 7,902.
    Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 15 minutes to 
40 hours, depending on activity.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 5,620.
    Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $519,903 for costs associated 
with application processing fees, which range from $0 to $250. There is 
no fee for reports. Federal, tribal, State, and local government 
agencies and those acting on their behalf are exempt from processing 
fees.

III. Comments

    On February 24, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR 
11596) of our intent to request that OMB approve this information 
collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for sixty (60) days, 
ending on April 25, 2017. We received five comments in response to that 
Notice:
    Comment 1: Email Comment Dated 04/21/2017 from Conservation Force: 
We received a comment from Conservation Force on April 21, that 
provided a number of suggestions regarding trophy applications (3-200-
19, 3-200-20, 3-200-21, and 3-200-22) and applications under the U.S. 
Endangered Species Act for captive-breeding and take (3-200-37 and 3-
200-41). The commenter was concerned the Service would reject 
applications that were expired or soon to expire. They also discuss 
various items that they believe should be updated or omitted. The 
commenter has raised questions on why the Service was requesting 
applicant's social security numbers. Furthermore, they were concerned 
that the purposes for why some applicants, particularly hunting 
ranches, were requesting authorization under the Endangered Species Act 
were not clearly outlined on the application and confusing to 
applicants. They end with a statement of the need for an electronic 
permitting system.
    FWS Response to Comment 1: The Service has addressed many of the 
issues raised by the commenter. Over one year ago, the Service 
discontinued capturing applicant's social security numbers in our 
permitting database, so have removed the question requesting this 
information from the application forms. The Service agrees with the 
commenter regarding eliminating the need to a description of the trophy 
being imported and has removed that question from forms 3-200-19, 3-
200-20, 3-200-21, and 3-200-22. The Service recognizes the commenter's 
concern that some applicants may be confused by some questions and has 
simplified the application to request information in a clearly manner 
to meet the needs for a variety of permitting situations. In an effort 
to provide better outreach to applicants, the Service is committed to 
developing web-based material to provide greater insight to the 
permitting process than may be available on the face of any one 
application form. Finally, the Service appreciates the commenter's 
suggestions for improving the application process and are working on an 
e-permits issuing system.
    Comment 2: Email Comment Dated 04/25/2017 from The Humane Society 
of the United States, Humane Society International, and The Humane 
Society Legislative Fund (combined response):
    The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Humane Society 
International (HIS), The Humane Society Legislative Fund expressed that 
the information collected by the Service is all necessary for the 
Service to implement its regulations. They support the current 
information collection and expressed the need to continue to collect 
the information to ensure the proper implementation of CITES and FWS 
regulations. They also expressed that the current information 
collection provides a benefit to the public since much of the collected 
information is available through the Freedom of Information Act 
providing the public an opportunity to better monitor activities that 
involved species that are protected under CITES, the ESA, and other 
laws. The commenters did not provide any specific recommendations to 
improve the information collection, however.
    FWS Response to Comment 2: The Service appreciates the commenters' 
statement, but given that the comments did not address specific issues 
that would improve the application forms themselves or the burden 
placed on applicants. Therefore, we have no additional response to the 
comments.
    Comment 3: Email Comment Dated 04/21/2017 from the League of 
American Orchestras: The commenter represents over 800 nonprofit 
organizations within the United States that support or operate 
symphonies, community orchestras, summer musical festivals, and 
student/youth ensembles. Many of the commenter's members participate in 
international performances and therefore must obtain permits to move 
instruments that contain listed species. Most of the comments submitted 
deal more with the underlying regulations and U.S. obligations under 
CITES than with the permit applications themselves. The commenter 
requested that the Service work to eliminate or reduce the permitting 
requirements established under CITES. The commenter did state that the 
estimated completion time burden of 0.5 hour did not accurately reflect 
the time required for some orchestras to complete application form 3-
200-88. The commenter stated that its members are, for the most part, 
new to the permitting process and unfamiliar with the documentation 
requirements needed to complete the application form. As with the other 
commenters, this commenter raised the need for an electronic permitting 
system to streamline submission of applications.
    FWS Response to Comment 3: The Service has been actively working 
with the commenter and its members for several years to help education 
them on the permitting requirements under CITES and the application 
process. While most of the comments provided by this commenter are 
outside the information collection process, the Service will take them 
into advisement as we move forward in our efforts to address 
outstanding issues within the CITES community. The Service recognizes 
and, on many points made by the commenter, support the need for changes 
within the CITES context. In

[[Page 24141]]

regards to the estimated completion time burden, the Service recognizes 
that many of the applicants that fill out form 3-200-88 are large 
orchestras that may have multiple instruments that need to be exported. 
While the Service believes that each musician involved in the orchestra 
or, if the instruments are owned by the orchestra itself, should have 
all of the relevant information about their instruments readily 
available, it may take longer to compile all of the information than we 
initially estimated to complete the application form. Therefore, we are 
increasing our estimated time burden to 1.5 hours. Lastly, as with the 
previous commenters, the Service supports the concept of creating an 
electronic permitting system and is actively working on that endeavor 
at this time.
    Comment 4: Email Comment Dated 04/21/2017 from the National 
Association of Music Merchants: The commenter represents over 900 
members in the United States and 100 other countries, many of which are 
involved in the commercial trade of products recently regulated by 
CITES. Due to the recent listing of the affected timber species, many 
members are unfamiliar with the Service's permitting process. The 
commenter requested that the Service provide greater clarity of the 
need for permits due to the recent CITES listing and the permitting 
process.
    The commenter requested more detailed instructions as to the 
document requirements to conduct legal international business with 
products manufactured with listed wood species and greater recognition 
on the part of the Service on how the permitting process affects the 
commenter's members. Finally, the commenter requesting that an 
electronic permitting system be developed to streamline the permitting 
process.
    FWS Response to Comment 4: The Service has been actively working 
with the commenter and its members since the timber species were listed 
on CITES and the impact that the permitting process would have on 
international trade carried out by the commenter's members. The Service 
had modified the proposed applications to provide greater clarity and 
to make the applications more user-friendly. Several of the commenter's 
statements go outside this specific information collection process, but 
will be take the comments into consideration in other actions taken by 
the Service.
    Comment 5: Email Comment Dated 04/21/2017 from Taylor Guitars: 
Taylor Guitars addressed several factors that they stated affects their 
business process in order to export finish guitars. Taylor raised 
concerns about the permit application processing by the Service once an 
application is submitted to the Service. They were specifically 
concerned that how the Service reviews submitted applications and the 
permits issued creates a burden for Taylor to carry out the business as 
they did before a recent listing of a number of timber species in 
January 2017 under CITES. Taylor also raised issues that when the 
Service considers the time and cost burdens that applicants/permittees 
face when carrying out export business, particularly in regards to the 
cost of applying for a permit and the cost of clearance at the port of 
export. Taylor also recommended several ways to reduce the application 
burden. As with other commenters, Taylor suggested that the Service 
implement an electronic application process. Taylor also recommended 
that the Service consider establishing a permitting process for 
applicants that they would consider to be ``low risk exporters''. This 
process would combine both the permit application process and the 
clearance process at the port.
    FWS Response to Comment 5: Most of the comments provided by Taylor 
addressed the application process and the clearance process, not the 
application forms themselves or how those forms could be revised to 
improve the information collection. Taylor raised several aspects that 
would require specific rulemakings to address the Service's current 
regulatory structure and the implementation of CITES. The Service will 
take these comments into consideration as we consider revisions to our 
current regulations. The Service is, as stated previously, currently 
developing electronic applications that would allow applicants to 
supply permit applications electronically and pay the application fee 
online. This process, once in place, should allow for a smoother 
application process in regards to submissions and subsequent 
communication with the application.
    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. We will include or summarize each comment in our request 
to OMB to approve this IC. 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.

IV. Authorities

    The authorities for this action are the Endangered Species Act (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704), 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the 
Wild Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4901-4916), Lacey Act: Injurious 
Wildlife (18 U.S.C. 42), the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (TIAS 8249), and the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: May 22, 2017.
Madonna L. Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-10702 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P