Notices. Notice
3,963 words·~18 min read·
/register/2013/02/01/2013-02256A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5695-N-01] Request for Comment on the Redesign of the American Housing Survey AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the intent of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD)to redesign the American Housing Survey
(AHS)for 2015 and later years. As part of this redesign, HUD is soliciting public comments. HUD is interested in all comments, especially from government policy makers, academic researchers, and AHS data users that specify:
(1)Concerns related to redesigning the AHS sample;
(2)important content that should be added to the AHS to meet current and future housing data needs;
(3)current content that is no longer relevant, or has limited usefulness; and
(4)ideas for expanding the dissemination of the AHS data. To aid in the development of public comments, HUD has listed questions that have been posed by AHS survey managers and current AHS users. HUD encourages persons interested in commenting to consider these questions and to propose additional questions or provide additional topics HUD should take into consideration. DATES: Comments Due Date: April 2, 2013. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. 1. *Submission of Comments by Mail.* Comments may be submitted by mail to Shawn Bucholtz, Director, Housing and Demographic Analysis Division, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th St. SW., Room 8222, Washington, DC 20410. *2. Electronic Submission of Comments.* Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *www.regulations.gov.* HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the *www.regulations.gov* Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically. Note: To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule. *No Facsimile Comments.* Facsimile
(FAX)comments are not acceptable. *Public Inspection of Public Comments.* All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling 202-402-5538 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at *www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Bucholtz, Director, Housing and Demographic Analysis Division, Office of Policy, Development and Research, 451 7th Street SW., Room 8222, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone number 202-402-5538 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at telephone number 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background The American Housing Survey provides a periodic measure of the size and composition of the country's housing inventory. HUD provides all funding and oversight for the AHS. Through an interagency agreement, the Census Bureau provides operational management and field data collection. The current sample was drawn in 1985, with additions and subtractions to account for new construction, demolitions and conversions. The 2013 AHS will be the final survey administered to the current sample. HUD will draw a new sample for 2015, presenting HUD with an opportunity to redesign the survey to better meet current and future needs. The current AHS biennially collects data on subjects such as the amount and types of changes in the housing stock, the physical condition of the housing stock, the characteristics of the occupants, housing costs, the persons eligible for and beneficiaries of assisted housing, and the number and characteristics of vacant units. Starting in 2009, the AHS questions were classified into “core” modules and “rotating topical” modules in order to minimize respondent burden and satisfy widening needs for data content. Questions in the core modules are asked in each survey and typically undergo only minor revisions between surveys. Questions in the rotating topical modules are asked on a rotating basis. For instance, questions about potential health and safety hazards and home modifications made to assist occupants living with disabilities that were added to the 2011 AHS will not be included in the 2013 AHS. The 2013 AHS may include questions about neighborhood characteristics, people who had to temporarily move in with other households, ability to travel via public transportation, bicycling, or walking, energy efficiency, and emergency preparedness that were not in the 2011 AHS. The current AHS sample includes approximately 60,000 housing units that are visited every two years for the purposes of generating national estimates and additional housing units in metropolitan areas that are visited periodically for the purposes of generating metropolitan area estimates. These are referred to as metropolitan area oversamples. In 2011, 29 metropolitan area oversamples were conducted. HUD uses the AHS data to monitor the interaction among housing needs, demand and supply, as well as changes in housing conditions and costs, to aid in the development of housing policies and the design of housing programs appropriate for different target groups, such as first-time home buyers and the elderly. The AHS data allow HUD to evaluate, monitor, and design HUD programs to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Policy analysts, program managers, budget analysts, and Congressional staff use AHS data to advise executive and legislative branches about housing conditions and the suitability of public policy initiatives. Academic researchers and private organizations use AHS data in efforts of specific interest and concern to their respective communities. B. AHS Sample Redesign Issues The current AHS sample design includes a single longitudinal panel. As previously mentioned, some housing units in this single panel are surveyed every two years (for national estimates) and some are surveyed less frequently (for metropolitan area estimates). In 2011, the Census Bureau and HUD published a whitepaper on sample redesign options. This whitepaper evaluated the performance of the current sample design, identified potential problems with the current sample design, and presented options for alternative sample designs. After evaluating the whitepaper, HUD determined that the current single panel sample design was the best option. Through formal discussions with the Census Bureau and through informal discussions with AHS data users, HUD has identified other sample redesign issues that it has explored or will explore as part of the redesign process. The following is a list of questions already raised concerning the AHS sample redesign: 1. What is the appropriate sample size for generating national estimates, taking into consideration the necessary level of precision required by AHS users? 2. Should the AHS continue to oversample metropolitan areas? If so, how many metropolitan areas should be oversampled, which metropolitan areas should be oversampled, and how large should the sample size be for metropolitan oversamples? 3. What housing unit subgroups should HUD consider oversampling? For instance, in prior years, HUD has oversampled HUD-assisted housing, assisted housing for the elderly, and manufactured housing. C. AHS Content and Question Redesign Issues While a good sample design is necessary for a useful survey, the survey's content and questions are the most important features. Relevant content gathered through poorly-designed questions impacts the accuracy of survey results. Irrelevant content gathered though well-designed questions may not be useful. For a survey to maximize its usefulness the content must be relevant and it must be gathered through properly designed questions that yield accurate answers from respondents. The AHS is a housing survey and housing is a multi-dimensional good. An individual household's choice of a particular housing unit is a complex decision and may rely on many factors. As such, housing surveys should include content about the structure of the housing unit, the characteristics of the location of the housing unit, and the occupants of the housing unit. To accomplish this goal, the current AHS includes core modules that are used in each survey and rotating topical modules that are used as deemed necessary by HUD. Through formal discussions with the Census Bureau and through informal discussions with AHS data users, HUD has identified content and question issues that it will explore as part of the redesign process. The following is a list of issues raised concerning the AHS content and questions: 1. Should HUD continue the strategy of core and rotating topical modules? 2. What content should be included in the core modules, considering that housing characteristics change slowly? 3. What topics should HUD consider for rotating topical modules from 2015-2019? 4. What questions should HUD consider reformatting to elicit more accurate responses? For instance, are the questions on utility usage providing accurate information? 5. What questions in the AHS are duplicative with other surveys and should be under consideration for removal from the survey? 6. What data collection modes (web, telephone, face-to-face interviews, administrative data matching) should be used, given the secular decrease in response rates in both face-to-face and telephone surveys? How should questions be formulated differently if we anticipate multimode data collection? D. AHS Data Dissemination Redesign Issues AHS data is disseminated in three ways. First, summary statistics tables are created by the Census Bureau and are made available on the web in tabular format. Second, AHS microdata is made available through a public use file (PUF), which is available on the web. Due to the complexity of the PUF, several other PUF resources are made available to assist AHS users. Third, researchers wishing to use aspects of the AHS microdata that cannot be released publicly without risking the privacy of AHS respondents can gain access at one of the Census Research Data Centers with HUD and Census Bureau approval. HUD is interested in knowing how the AHS data might be disseminated differently to add value for the AHS user community and the general public. 1. What geographic identifiers should be disclosed on the PUF, taking into consideration that disclosure policies require that geographic identifiers do not reveal geographic entities with less than 100,000 persons? Prior geographic identifiers include specific metropolitan area name, metropolitan area status, Census Urban Area classifier, State name, County name, and HUD-created sub-metropolitan area zones. 2. Are the national and metropolitan area summary tables useful to AHS data users? 3. In what ways can HUD improve the organization and dissemination of the PUF? E. Request for Comments HUD is seeking additional information from the public regarding AHS redesign issues. Governmental policy makers, academic researchers, and other interested parties are encouraged to participate by submitting comments. Official address, contact, and due date for submitting comments are stated above. Dated: January 23, 2013. Jean Lin Pao, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research. [FR Doc. E3-2013-2261 Filed 1-31-13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-62-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R2-ES-2012-N271;FXES11120200000F2-134-FF02ENEH00] Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a General Conservation Plan for the American Burying Beetle for Pipelines and Well Field Development in Oklahoma and Texas AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of intent; announcement of meetings; request for comments. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), advise the public that we intend to prepare a draft environmental impact statement
(EIS)to evaluate the impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed General Conservation Plan
(GCP)for incidental take of the federally listed American burying beetle
(ABB)resulting from activities associated with construction, maintenance, operation, and repair of oil and gas pipelines, and related well field activities. Individual oil and gas companies would apply for an Endangered Species Act 10(a)(1)(B) permit and agree to implement the approved GCP. A GCP is a conservation plan suitable for the needs of a local area where the NEPA requirements and permit issuance criteria are met. After approval of the GCP, individuals apply for a permit for incidental take associated with activities covered in the GCP and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the GCP. We notice these permit applications and request comments from the public. DATES: In order to be included in the analysis, all comments must be received by March 4, 2013. We will hold two public scoping meetings within the 43-county proposed covered area within the ABB's range. Exact meeting locations and times will be noticed in local newspapers and at the Oklahoma Ecological Services Office Web site, *http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Oklahoma/,* at least 2 weeks prior to each event. ADDRESSES: Please provide comments in writing, by one of the following methods: *Email: ABB_GCP@fws.gov;* or *U.S. mail:* Field Supervisor, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 9014 E. 21st St., Tulsa, OK 74129. Please specify that your information request or comments concerns the Oil and Gas draft EIS/GCP. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Dixie Porter, by U.S. mail at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office, 9014 E. 21st St., Tulsa, OK 74129, or by phone at 918-581-7458. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We publish this notice in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), and its implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)at 40 CFR 1506.6, and section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). We intend to gather the information necessary to prepare an EIS to evaluate the impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed issuance of incidental take permits under the Act to applicants who agree to implement the GCP, which is also under development. The proposed GCP is a habitat conservation plan that will cover take of the ABB that is incidental to activities associated with the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of oil and gas pipelines and related well field activities, and will include measures necessary to minimize and mitigate impacts to covered species and their habitats to the maximum extent practicable. All NEPA requirements and permit issuance criteria will be met up front; then, after approval of the GCP, companies will apply for an incidental take permit pursuant to the GCP. Background Section 9 of the Act prohibits “taking” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered under section 4 of the Act. The Act's implementing regulations extend, under certain circumstances, the prohibition of take to threatened species. Under section 3 of the Act, the term “take” means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The term “harm” is defined by regulation as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is defined in the regulations as “an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3). Under Section 10(a)(1)(B), the Secretary of the Interior may authorize the taking of federally listed species if such taking occurs incidental to otherwise legal activities and where a conservation plan has been developed that describes:
(1)The impact that will result from such taking;
(2)the steps an applicant will take to minimize and mitigate that take to the maximum extent practicable, and the funding that will be available to implement such steps;
(3)the alternative actions to such taking that an applicant considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized; and
(4)other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan. Issuance criteria for an incidental take permit requires the Service to find that:
(1)The taking will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities;
(2)an applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking;
(3)an applicant has ensured that adequate funding for the plan will be provided;
(4)the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and
(5)the measures, if any, we require as necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan will be met. Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. We expect applicants to request permit coverage for a period of 20 years. Public Scoping A primary purpose of the scoping process is to receive suggestions and information on the scope of issues and alternatives to consider when drafting the EIS, and to identify, rather than debate, significant issues related to the proposed action. In order to ensure that we identify a range of issues and alternatives related to the proposed action, we invite comments and suggestions from all interested parties. We will conduct a review of this project according to the requirements of NEPA and its regulations, other relevant Federal laws, regulations, policies, and guidance, and our procedures for compliance with applicable regulations. We will hold two public scoping meetings: One in Tulsa, at the Oklahoma State University Tulsa Campus, and one in McAlester, Oklahoma. We will provide notices in local newspapers and on the Oklahoma Ecological Services Office Web site, *http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Oklahoma/,* with dates, times, and specific locations at least 2 weeks prior to each event. Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in a public meeting should contact us at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section no later than 1 week before the relevant public meeting. Information regarding this proposed action is available in alternative formats upon request. We will accept oral and written comments at each meeting. You may also submit written comments to the Field Supervisor at the email or U.S. mail addresses in the ADDRESSES section, above. Once the draft EIS and draft GCP are completed, there will be further opportunities for public comment on the content of these documents through additional public meetings and a 90-day public comment period. Alternatives The proposed action presented in the draft EIS will be compared to the No-Action alternative. The No-Action alternative represents estimated future conditions without the application for, or issuance of, an incidental take permit. No-Action represents the status quo. No-Action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, described operators would comply with the Act by avoiding impacts
(take)to the ABB where practicable. If take cannot be avoided and there is Federal involvement in the project (for example a Federal permit such as a Corps of Engineers 404 Clean Water Act permit, authorization, or funding exists) an operator or individual may receive take coverage through a biological opinion issued by the Service to the Federal action agency. If there is no Federal involvement in the project operators or individuals can apply for an incidental take permit from the Service. This approach is more time-consuming and less efficient because permits would need to be considered and processed one project at a time. This can result in an isolated independent mitigation approach. Proposed Alternative The proposed action is issuance of an incidental take permit for the covered species during construction, operation, and/or maintenance of pipelines or other well field development-related activities. The proposed GCP, which must meet the requirements in section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act, would be developed in coordination with the Service and implemented by an applicant. This alternative will allow for a comprehensive mitigation approach for authorized impacts and result in a more efficient and timely permit processing effort for the Service and the applicants. Actions covered under the requested incidental take permit may include possible take of covered species associated with activities including, but not limited to, construction, operation, maintenance, repair to pipelines or other well field development related activities. Forty-three counties are in the proposed permit area, including Adair, Atoka, Bryan, Carter, Cherokee, Choctaw, Cleveland, Coal, Craig, Creek, Delaware, Garfield, Garvin, Haskell, Hughes, Johnston, Latimer, Le Flore, Love, Major, Marshall, Mayes, McClain, McCurtain, McIntosh, Muskogee, Nowata, Okfuskee, Okmulgee, Osage, Ottawa, Pawnee, Pittsburg, Pontotoc, Pottawatomie, Pushmataha, Rogers, Seminole, Sequoyah, Tulsa, Wagoner, and Washington counties in Oklahoma and Lamar and Red River counties in Texas. The species covered under the requested incidental take permit is the ABB. We will be evaluating whether the covered activities will impact other species and whether they should be included on the permit or if management practices can be implemented that are sufficient to avoid take. These species and their legal status include: • American alligator ( *Alligator mississippiensis* )—Threatened (Similarity of Appearance) • Arkansas darter ( *Etheostoma cragini* )—Candidate • Arkansas River shiner ( *Notropis girardi* )—Threatened, Arkansas R. Basin population, with Critical Habitat • Black-Capped Vireo ( *Vireo atricapilla* )—Endangered • Gray bat ( *Myotis grisescens* )—Endangered • Harperella ( *Ptilimnium nodosum* )—Endangered • Indiana bat ( *Myotis sodalis* )—Endangered • Least tern ( *Sterna antillarum* )—Endangered, interior population • Leopard darter ( *Percina pantherina* )—Threatened with Critical Habitat • Neosho madtom ( *Noturus placidus* )—Threatened • Neosho Mucket ( *Lampsilis rafinesqueana* )—Proposed Endangered • Ouachita Rock pocketbook ( *Arkansia wheeleri* )—Endangered • Ozark Big-Eared bat ( *Corynorhinus townsendii ingens* )—Endangered • Ozark cavefish ( *Amblyopsis rosae* )—Threatened • Piping Plover ( *Charadrius melodus* )—Threatened, except Great Lakes watershed population • Rabbitsfoot ( *Quadrula cylindrica* ssp. *cylindrica* )—Proposed Threatened • Red-Cockaded woodpecker ( *Picoides borealis* )—Endangered • Scaleshell mussel ( *Leptodea leptodon* )—Endangered • Sprague's Pipit ( *Anthus spragueii* )—Candidate • Whooping crane ( *Grus americana* )—Endangered, except in the experimental population area • Winged Mapleleaf ( *Quadrula fragosa* )—Endangered; except where listed as experimental populations We do not anticipate that covered activities will result in take of these species, but we seek comments to help inform our evaluation. We will also evaluate whether covered activities are likely to impact the unlisted bald eagle ( * Haliaeetus leucocephalus * ), which is protected under the *Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.* Other Alternatives We seek information regarding other reasonable alternatives during this scoping period and will evaluate the impacts associated with such alternatives in the draft EIS. Public Availability of Comments Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that the 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. Environmental Analysis The Service will conduct an analysis of the impacts to the ABB and its habitat, and other resources such as vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, geology and soils, air quality, water resources, water quality, cultural resources, land use, recreation, water use, local economy, climate change, and environmental justice resulting from the proposed GCP and other alternatives considered. Following completion of the analysis, the Service will publish a notice of availability and a request for comments on the draft EIS and the draft GCP. The draft EIS and draft GCP are expected to be completed and available to the public in January or February, 2013. Dated: December 17, 2012. Joy E. Nicholopoulos, Acting, Regional Director, Southwest Region, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2013-02256 Filed 1-31-13; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 2
Traces to 2 documents
3 references not yet in our index
- 40 CFR 1506.6
- 50 CFR 17.3
- 50 CFR 17.22
Citation graph
cites case law
Cites 5Cited by 0 across 0 sources