The Climate Change Program Office (CCPO) operates within the Office of the Chief Economist at USDA and functions as the Department-wide coordinator of agriculture, rural and forestry-related climate change program and policy issues facing USDA. The CCPO ensures that USDA is a source of objective, analytical assessments of the effects of climate change and proposed response strategies. This project addresses the need for a scientifically sound, Department-wide guideline for quantifying GHG emissions and carbon sequestration at the farm- and entity-scale. The products developed by this project will be useful in assessing the carbon and GHG related environmental service benefits of various agricultural and forestry management practices and technologies. Supplementary information on the project is included below.

1. Project scope. USDA is embarking on an effort to create a “stand alone” set of GHG inventory guidelines that builds upon existing inventory efforts such as the Department of Energy's Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 1605(b) Guidelines, with an aim of providing simple, transparent and robust inventory and reporting tools. As much as is possible, the guidelines, methods, and reporting tools developed in this project will utilize and extend data and tools currently available publically. The guidelines and methods are not intended as an addition to or replacement of any current Federal GHG reporting systems or requirements. The guidelines will be prepared for direct greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration from agricultural and forestry processes. USDA does not plan to develop technical guidelines for indirect greenhouse gas emissions/sequestration, or address issues related to crediting reductions such as additionality or leakage under this effort. The guidelines being developed by USDA will be used within the Department and by farmers, ranchers, and forest land owners, and will be made publicly available. To ensure the project deliverables are of benefit to the widest possible set of stakeholders (including USDA, other Federal agencies, private landowners, private and public GHG registries, NGO's, private industry, policy-makers and others) the process of developing the guidelines, methods, and reporting tools will emphasize scientific rigor, transparency, internal consistency, and reducing uncertainty. We anticipate that the guidelines will need to be reviewed and may need to be amended before being adopted by other agencies or public or private registries. Specific potential uses of the project deliverables include aiding: (1) USDA in assessing GHG and carbon sequestration increases and decreases resulting from current and future conservation programs and practices; (2) USDA and others in evaluating and improving national and regional GHG inventory efforts; and (3) landowners, NGOs, and other groups assessing increases and decreases in GHG emissions and carbon sequestration associated with changes in land management. The project is planned for completion within the next three years.

Specifically, USDA requests comments on:

1.1 How may USDA best improve upon existing greenhouse gas estimation guidelines for the agriculture and forestry sectors, while at the same time simplifying input requirements and enhancing the ease of use for individuals and entities?

1.2 USDA intends to develop a standard set of methods for practice-, process-, farm- and entity-scale inventories which could provide a technical basis for improved methods for current voluntary State and regional systems. Are there specific areas where a USDA guideline would be most useful to current State and regional systems? Are there limitations to using the proposed quantification tools in the context of State and regional systems?

2. Objectives. The guidelines will result in a methodology for an integrated emissions inventory at the entity scale for all agricultural (crop and livestock) and forest management activities, including (but not limited to) those listed below:

2.1.1 Crop, residue and soil management practices and technologies to increase carbon sequestration and reduce nitrous oxide emissions on mineral and cultivated wetland soils, including tillage systems, crop rotations, nutrient management, fertilizer technologies, liming, water management, cover crops, agroforestry, wetland restoration, residue removal and alternatives to biomass burning.

2.1.2 Rice cultivation practices and technologies to reduce methane emissions, including improved water table management, cultivation and fertilizer management.

2.1.3 Are there specialty crops where specific changes in management can greatly reduce GHG emissions or increase carbon sequestration that should be considered to enhance completeness and comprehensiveness of the guidelines, estimation and reporting tools?

2.1.4 Are there additional cropland activities, management practices or technologies to be accounted for to enhance completeness and comprehensiveness of the guidelines, estimation and reporting tools?

2.2.1 Management practices and technologies to reduce methane emissions from enteric fermentation, including dietary modification, additives, feeding management, and reproductive management (genetic selection, gender differences, etc.).

2.2.2 Grazing land management practices and technologies to increase carbon sequestration and reduce nitrous oxide emissions, including rotational grazing and improved forage management.

2.2.3 Manure management practices and technologies to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions, including digesters, lagoon management, land application practices, and composting.

2.2.4 Are there additional grazing land and animal agriculture activities, management practices or technologies to be accounted for to enhance completeness and comprehensiveness of the guidelines, estimation and reporting tools?

2.3.1 Afforestation practices and technologies to increase carbon sequestration.

2.3.2 Forest management practices and technologies to reduce GHG emissions or increase carbon sequestration, including stand thinning, restoration, fertilization, and species selection.

2.3.3 Agroforestry practices and technologies to increase carbon sequestration through windbreaks, riparian buffers and silvopasture.

2.3.4 Forest preservation to reduce the risk of GHG emissions from fire, pests and disease.

2.3.5 Wood products management to reduce waste, increase product longevity and reduce the risk of GHG emissions from fire or decay.

2.3.6 Are there additional forest activities, management practices, equipment or technologies to be considered to enhance completeness and comprehensiveness of the guidelines, estimation and reporting tools?

The methods and tools will quantify all significant emissions and sinks associated with the management activities, thereby creating a standardized way to document changes in emissions and carbon sequestration resulting from conservation efforts and changing land and forest management practices. We envision the methods and tools being especially useful to USDA in evaluating the GHG-related environmental services benefits of conservation and renewable energy programs.

2.4 Are there sources of information relevant to the objectives of this project which can be made available to the author teams? If so, please provide this information or the name and contact details for the correspondent.

2.5 Are there opportunities to reduce GHG emissions and increase carbon sequestration in the agriculture and forestry sectors that should be reflected in the methods?

2.6 USDA intends to rely on engineering calculations, models, and observations as primary methodological approaches. How can USDA balance rigor while maintaining broad applicability, national consistency, and user friendliness?

2.7 What models and tools currently exist for farm- or entity- scale GHG inventory and reporting, and how might they be useful to the current project objectives? For each model noted, provide a source citation for information on the model.

3. Criteria. There are several key criteria that USDA will rely on in preparing the GHG guidelines, including the following:

3.1  Transparency means that the assumptions and methodologies used for an inventory should be clearly explained to facilitate replication and assessment of the inventory by users of the reported information. The transparency of inventories is fundamental to the success of the process for the communication and consideration of information.

3.2  Consistency means that the methods used to generate inventory estimates should be internally consistent in all its elements and the estimates should be consistent with other years. An inventory is consistent if the same methodologies are used for the base and all subsequent years and if consistent data sets are used to estimate emissions or removals from sources or sinks. Consistency is an important consideration in merging differing estimation techniques from diverse technologies and management practices.

3.3  Comparability requires that the estimates of emissions and sequestration being reported by one entity are comparable to the estimates being reported by others. For this purpose, entities should use common methodologies and formats for estimating and reporting inventories. Comparability is an important consideration in determining whether the guidelines specifies one method (for any technology or management practice) or allows users to select from a menu of methods.

3.4  Completeness means that an inventory covers all sources and sinks, as well as all greenhouse gases. Completeness also means full coverage of sources and sinks under the control of the entity. Completeness is an important consideration to be balanced with ease of use in reporting appropriately for an entity that may have a minor activity or an activity with severely limited data availability.

3.5  Accuracy is a relative measure of the exactness of an emission or removal estimate. Estimates should be accurate in the sense that they are systematically neither over nor under true emissions or removals, as far as can be judged, and that uncertainties are reduced as far as practicable.

3.6  Cost effectiveness is a measure of the relative costs and benefits of additional efforts to improve inventory estimates or reduce uncertainty.

3.7  Ease of use is a measure of the complexity of the user interface and underlying data requirements.

3.8 Are these appropriate criteria by which to formulate GHG estimation and reporting guidelines, methods and tools? Are there other criteria that should also be considered?

3.9 To the extent that there are tradeoffs, which criteria are more important than others in ensuring the usefulness of the project products for entity-scale estimation and reporting?

4. Expected outcomes and products. The project is expected to yield the following products.

4.1 A review of techniques currently in use for estimating carbon stocks and fluxes and GHG emissions from agricultural and forestry activities;

4.2 A technical guidelines document outlining the approach or approaches to conducting a farm-, ranch-, or forest-scale GHG estimation;

4.3 Specific methods for each source/sink category that are designed to be reliable and consistent with national inventory efforts;

4.4 A quantification where possible of uncertainties in estimation at the entity scale; and

4.5 A user-friendly tool that integrates multiple sources of entity-scale data to facilitate farm-, ranch-, and forest-scale quantification of greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration in a manner consistent with the methods and technical guidelines.

Timeline. The project is planned for completion over the next three years. Implementation of the project will include development of the draft guidelines and methods, technical and peer review, development of estimation and reporting tools and associated documentation, beta testing, solicitation of public comment, and publication of the final guidelines document as well as the estimation and reporting tools.

USDA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, or disability. Additionally, discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and marital or family status is also prohibited by statutes enforced by USDA (not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audio tape, etc. ) should contact the USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2000 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health (the Committee) advises the Secretary of Agriculture on means to prevent, conduct surveillance on, monitor, control, or eradicate animal diseases of national importance. In doing so, the Committee will consider public health, conservation of natural resources, and the stability of livestock economies. Among the key animal health issues the Committee will help the Secretary evaluate will be animal disease traceability.

Animal disease traceability will be the primary discussion topic at the meeting on March 4, 2011. APHIS has spent much of the past year developing a framework for animal disease traceability in the United States. Through the framework, APHIS will implement a flexible yet coordinated approach to animal disease traceability that embraces the strengths and expertise of States, Tribes, and producers and empowers them to find and use the traceability approaches that work best for them.

APHIS has conducted extensive outreach on the traceability framework and continues to seek input by using the Committee. We are developing the proposed rule and the traceability performance standards collaboratively and transparently. This helps us ensure that practical animal disease traceability options evolve.

Additional details regarding each meeting, including the preliminary and final agendas, will be posted on the Committee's Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/acah/ in advance of each meeting. Copies of agendas may also be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at the beginning of this notice.

All meetings will be open to the public, although public participants will be joined to the call in “observation” or “listen only” mode. Members of the public who wish to participate in a teleconference must notify the Committee by sending an e-mail through an access portal on the Committee's Web site or by e-mailing the Committee directly at SACAH.Management@aphis.usda.gov. In your e-mail, please provide your name and organizational affiliation (if any) and identify the meeting(s) you wish to join. The Committee will reply with a telephone number and participant pass code that will allow you to join the meeting.

Questions and written statements for the first meeting on March 4, 2011, may be submitted by or before March 1, 2011, for the Committee's consideration. For the meetings to be held in May and July, questions and written statements may be submitted up to 5 days before those meetings. Questions and written statements may be sent via e-mail to SACAH.Management@aphis.usda.gov or mailed to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at the beginning of this notice. Statements may also be filed with the Committee after the meeting by sending them to SACAH.Management@aphis.usda.gov.

This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).

Background

As a result of the Piute fire, the Piute Mountains were removed from the travel management analysis included in the Sequoia National Forest Motorized Travel Management Environmental Impact Statement released in October 2009. The Piute fire burned part of the project area being evaluated in the environmental impact statement between June 28 and July 25, 2008. Approximately 37,000 acres were burned. A majority of the non-system trails not included in the NFTS, within the fire burn area were proposed for addition to the NFTS as part of the Sequoia National Forest Motorized Travel Management EIS. A series of heavy rain events occurred in the area following the Piute Fire, causing excessive runoff and flash flooding. Early evaluations indicated that erosion was intense in much of the burned area. After review and consultation with the travel management interdisciplinary team, the Forest Supervisor decided to remove the Piute Mountains area from the Motorized Travel Management Proposed Action and other alternatives being evaluated. Only the prohibition of cross-country travel was considered in the Piute Mountains by the Motorized Travel Management EIS.

The use of motor vehicles in the Kern River Ranger District of the Sequoia National Forest has increased in recent years. Increased recreational vehicle use has led to the development of non-system off highway vehicle (OHV) trails, and has increased the potential for disagreements arising between motorized and non-motorized users of the Sequoia National Forest, in addition to complaints from private and Tribal property owners regarding trespassing, noise, stock, and fences. OHV use can also result in areas of degraded soil, water, and vegetation.

The purpose behind the Piute Mountains travel management project is to evaluate motor vehicle recreation opportunities in the Piute Mountains, while maintaining the natural and cultural resources present in those parts of the Piute Mountains managed by the Forest Service. The following needs for the Piute Mountains travel management plan have been identified by the project's interdisciplinary team:

1. The Sequoia National Forest has a need to provide greater diversity of motorized recreational opportunity for a variety of vehicles used by forest visitors. There is a need to provide motor vehicle access to dispersed recreation sites used for camping, hunting, sightseeing, horseback riding, hiking, rock climbing, rock hounding, and vegetation and firewood collecting. Forest Service policy calls for providing forest users with diverse road and trail opportunities for experiencing a variety of environments and modes of travel consistent with the national forest recreation role and land capability as stated in Forest Service Manual 2353.03(2).

2. Provide diverse opportunities for vehicles capable of off highway travel.

3. Evaluate the Piute Fire burn area regarding roads and trails, and natural and cultural resources.

4. Evaluate the forest transportation system needs of forest users, private and Tribal property owners, and special use permit holders within the Piute Mountains.

5. Establish consistency with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) semi-primitive non-motorized setting located within the Piute Mountains as established in the Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and its amendments. There are currently five NFTS motorcycle trails, totaling approximately13 miles, located within the project area semi-primitive non-motorized area. The Sequoia National Forest LRMP states that no OHV roads and trails will be designated within established semi-primitive non-motorized areas.

6. Determine if the Long Canyon/Dry Meadows Trail No. 34E31 should continue to be managed for motor vehicle use. Trail No. 34E31 provides a north south trail in the northern Piute Mountains as obligated by the July 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement to the Sequoia National Forest LRMP (pages 99-101). Trail No. 34E31 extends northward from Dry Meadows to the Forest boundary. Motorized use on Trail No. 34E31 was allowed to continue until a determination is made regarding its future. Trail No. 34E31 is currently located within a semi-primitive non-motorized area. The Mediated Settlement Agreement states that if a trail can accommodate OHV use, the boundary of the semi-primitive non-motorized area shall be adjusted (page 100). The Mediated Settlement Agreement also states that an environmental analysis shall be completed to evaluate forest resources, with emphasis on soils, wildlife and the Long Canyon Research Natural Area (page 100).

7. There is a need to evaluate the compatibility of motor vehicle use on the Bright Star Trail No. 34E34 with existing conditions, including trespass and sound, in the vicinity of the Liebel property.

The Sequoia National Forest will consider the following criteria presented in Subpart B of the Forest Service Travel Management Rule of 2005 during the environmental analysis regarding proposed changes to the forest transportation system. These considerations include:

• Possible impacts to natural and cultural resources;

• Public safety;

• Access to public and private lands;

• Availability of resources to maintain and administer roads, trails and use areas if actions proposed are undertaken;

• Minimizing damage to soil, watersheds, vegetation and other forest resources;

• Minimize disturbance of wildlife and disruption of wildlife habitat;

• Minimize the potential for disagreement between the various users of forest lands;

• Recognize the possible consequences of conflicting forest uses; and

• Compatibility of motorized and non-motorized uses of forest lands.

The Sequoia National Forest will also consider the speed, volume, composition and distribution of forest road traffic, the compatibility of vehicle class and forest road design features, and the maintenance of existing rights-of-way, during the environmental analysis.

The Sequoia National Forest proposes the following changes to the current forest transportation system. The proposed action is based upon the purpose and need for the project, and the results of an evaluation of motor vehicle use within the Piute Mountains. Public input gathered in a series of five meetings held in Kernville was used to develop the proposed action which would:

1. Add approximately 121 miles of existing non-system routes to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) as trails open to motorcycles only;

2. Add approximately 3 miles of existing non-system routes to the NFTS as trails open to all public vehicles;

3. Add approximately 0.1 miles of existing non-system route to the NFTS as road open to all public vehicles.

4. Change the status of approximately 3 miles of closed NFTS road to NFTS trail open to all public vehicles.

5. Change the status of approximately 1 mile of closed NFTS road to NFTS trail open to motorcycles only.

6. Change approximately 10 miles NFTS roads closed to public vehicles to NFTS roads open to all public vehicles.

7. Change approximately 0.5 miles NFTS road open to all to NFTS road closed to all public vehicles.

8. Change approximately 0.7 miles NFTS road open to all to NFTS road open to highway legal vehicles only.

9. Change approximately 0.4 miles of NFTS road open to highway legal vehicles only to NFTS road open to all public vehicles.

10. Change approximately 2.1 miles of NFTS trail open to motorcycles only to NFTS trail open to all public vehicles.

11. Change approximately 4.5 miles NFTS trail open to motorcycles only to NFTS trail closed to all public vehicles.

12. Add non-system route U00125, approximately 0.5 miles in length, and located in the Greenhorn Mountains, as a NFTS road.

13. Establish consistency with ROS settings and between the use of the Long Canyon/Dry Meadow Trail 34E31 and the 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement by changing the ROS classification on 7,175 acres of semi-primitive non-motorized land west of trail No. 34E31 to semi-primitive motorized. This would allow the continued motor vehicle use of NFTS trails 34E31, 34E41, and 34E52, and non-system trail U0013. This proposed action would require an amendment to the Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Maps showing the existing and proposed forest transportation system in the Piute Mountains can be found at the Piute Mountains Travel Management Plan Web site http://fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/projects/piutes-tm/index.html. The project maps are also available for viewing at: Forest Supervisor's Office, 1839 South Newcomb, Porterville, California, and Kern River Ranger District, 105 Whitney Road, Kernville, California.

Other alternatives will be developed based on significant issues identified during the scoping process for the environmental impact statement. Alternatives evaluated will need to respond to the specific condition of providing benefits equal to or better than the current condition. Alternatives being considered at this time include: (1) No Action, and (2) the Proposed Action.

The Forest Supervisor of the Sequoia National Forest, 1839 South Newcomb Street, Porterville, CA 93257, is the responsible official. A Record of Decision will be prepared by the responsible official documenting the decision and reasons for the decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service appeal regulations (36 CFR part 215).

The Responsible Official will decide whether to adopt and implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or take no action regarding the existing Piute Mountains forest transportation system. The Responsible Official will also decide whether to amend the Sequoia National Forest LRMP. The Sequoia National Forest will publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map identifying the roads, trails and areas that are designated for motor vehicle use. The Motor Vehicle Use Map will identify the classes of vehicles and, if appropriate, the times of year for which use is designated.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the U.S. Forest Service in preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's issues and contentions.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will also be accepted and considered.

The March 15 meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Finalize project approval process, (2) Review, discuss and vote on proposed projects, (3) Recommend projects to the Designated Federal Official, (4) Receive public comment. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by March 10, 2011 will have the opportunity to address the Committee at those sessions.

The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: This Resource Advisory Committee meeting will specifically deal with project purview and funding of projects. The agenda for the meeting can be found at http://www.fs.usda.gov/sawtooth. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by February 24, 2011 will have the opportunity to address the Committee at those sessions.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda includes a public comment period, continued review of Title II project proposals received, and a preliminary vote on projects to recommend for funding.

The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Update on status of funded projects; (2) Review, evaluate and recommend project proposals to be funded with Title II money; (3) Create a timeline to receive and review new project proposals and schedule the next meeting; and (4) Public Comment. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting.

In accordance with sections 751(a) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act), on January 5, 2011, the Department issued its final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (S4 in coils) from Mexico, covering the period July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009. The final results were subsequently released to all parties in the proceeding, and published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2011. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 2332 (January 13, 2011) ( S4 from Mexico 2008-2009 Final Results ). On January 14, 2011, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), we received a timely-filed allegation from the respondent in this administrative review, ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox SA) and Mexinox USA, Inc. (Mexinox USA) (collectively referred to as Mexinox), that the Department made ministerial errors with respect to several aspects of Mexinox's margin calculation. See Letter from Mexinox to the Department of Commerce, titled “Ministerial Error Comments,” dated January 14, 2011 (Mexinox Ministerial Letter). On January 20, 2011, we received comments from Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, AK Steel Corporation, and North American Stainless (collectively referred to as petitioners) regarding the ministerial errors alleged by Mexinox. See Letter from petitioners to the Department of Commerce, regarding “Response to Mexinox's Ministerial Error Allegations,” dated January 20, 2011 (Petitioners' Response Letter). For a discussion of the Department's analysis of the allegations in the Mexinox Ministerial Letter and rebuttal comments in the Petitioners' Response Letter, see Memorandum from Patrick Edwards and Brian Davis, Case Analysts, through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, to Richard Weible, Office Director, entitled, “Ministerial Errors Allegation in the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico: ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V.,” dated February 14, 2011 (Ministerial Error Allegation Memo).

A ministerial error, as defined at section 751(h) of the Act, includes “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which {the Department} considers ministerial.” See also 19 CFR 351.224(f). In its Ministerial Letter, Mexinox alleges that the Department made five ministerial errors in calculating Mexinox's antidumping duty margin. First, Mexinox alleges that the Department made a ministerial error by incorrectly placing a parenthesis in its calculation of cost of goods sold to derive constructed export price profit, effectively failing to extend the per-unit cost of production and per-unit packing expenses by the quantity sold. See Mexinox Ministerial Letter at 2. Second, Mexinox alleges that the Department incorrectly derived quarterly cost data by assigning a production quantity to those products which were sold, but not produced in certain quarters, thus overstating Mexinox's production quantities and miscalculating the indexed quarterly costs. Id. at 3. Third, Mexinox alleges several errors with regard to the Department's calculation of its U.S. indirect selling expenses. Specifically, Mexinox contends that the Department a) failed to include “other income/expenses” specific to Mexinox USA, b) double-counted certain service fee expenses incurred by Mexinox's affiliates in the United States, and c) applied the wrong raw material service fee in its calculation of Mexinox's total indirect selling expenses. Id. at 6. Fourth, Mexinox contends that the Department incorrectly accounted for employee profit sharing in its calculation of Mexinox's general and administrative (G&A) ratio. Id. at 9. Fifth, and finally, Mexinox alleges that the Department's margin calculation programs caused certain variables to be overwritten when comparison market sales were merged with Mexinox's reported costs. Id. at 10.

In their rebuttal letter, petitioners commented on only two of Mexinox's alleged errors. First, petitioners argue that Mexinox's allegation with regard to the inclusion of “other income/expenses” specific to Mexinox USA is methodological in nature and, therefore, does not constitute a ministerial error. See Petitioners' Response Letter at 2-3. Petitioners further argue that the Department did use the correct raw material services fee in its calculation of Mexinox's U.S. indirect selling expenses and, therefore, Mexinox's alleged error is incorrect. Id. at 4. Second, petitioners allege that, should the Department agree with Mexinox's allegation that the Department inadvertently overstated production quantities and consequently calculated incorrect quarterly cost indices, Mexinox's suggested programming changes would cause several errors in the Department's margin calculation programs and would continue to calculate incorrect quarterly cost indices. Id. at 6.

After analyzing Mexinox's ministerial error comments and petitioners' rebuttal comments, we have determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made ministerial errors with respect to our calculation for cost of goods sold and our quarterly costs indices, as well as certain aspects of Mexinox's indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States, and Mexinox's G&A ratio calculation. 1 See Mexinox's Ministerial Letter; see also Memorandum to the File, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico—Amended Final Results Analysis Memorandum for ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V.,” dated February 14, 2011 (2008-2009 S4 from Mexico Amended Final Results Analysis Memorandum), for a further discussion. Therefore, the Department has corrected both the Comparison Market Program and the U.S. Margin Program and, where appropriate, the relevant Macros Program to reflect the correction of these errors.

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the final results in this antidumping duty administrative review of S4 in coils from Mexico. After correcting for the noted ministerial errors with respect to cost of goods sold, quarterly costs, U.S. indirect selling expenses, and G&A expenses, the amended final weighted-average dumping margin has changed:

The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b). Where entered values are missing for some sales and reported for others, the Department calculates a per-unit assessment rate on an importer-specific basis. The Department calculated an importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rate by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. Where the duty assessment rates are above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer in accordance with the requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

After issuance of the amended final results of this review, for any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the amended final results that are above de minimis ( i.e., at or above 0.50 percent), we will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the per-unit dollar amount against each unit of merchandise on each of that importer's entries during the review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of review.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Mexinox for which Mexinox did not know the merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 30.69 percent all others rate if there is no company-specific rate for an intermediary involved in the transaction.

The following deposit requirements continue to be effective on any entries made on or after February 14, 2011, the date of publication of these amended final results, for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Mexinox, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other Mexican exporters will be 30.69 percent, the all others rate from the less-than-fair-value investigation; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all non-Mexican exporters will be the rate applicable to the Mexican exporter that supplied that exporter. These cash deposit requirements continue to remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these amended final results of review and notice in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i) of the Act.

Section 733(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), provides that the Department will value the factors of production (“FOPs”) in NME cases using the best available information regarding the value of such factors in a market economy (“ME”) country or countries considered to be appropriate by the administering authority. The Act requires that when valuing the FOPs, the Department utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more ME countries that are (1) at a comparable level of economic development and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. See section 733(c)(4) of the Act.

Previously, the Department calculated wages using a regression analysis that captured the worldwide relationship between per capita Gross National Income (“GNI”) and hourly wage rates in manufacturing pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments (“ Antidumping Methodologies Notice” ), 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006). On May 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F. 3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“ Dorbest I” ), invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). Subsequently, the Department issued a remand redetermination in the Dorbest litigation, and on February 9, 2011, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) affirmed in part, and remanded in part, the Department's wage rate methodology applied in that redetermination. See Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 11-14 (CIT Feb. 9, 2011) (“ Dorbest II” ). As a consequence of the CAFC's ruling in Dorbest I, the Department is no longer relying on the wage rate methodology described in its regulations. Since July 2010, the Department has applied an interim wage rate methodology that derives a surrogate wage rate from countries that are both economically comparable and significant producers of merchandise comparable to the merchandise subject to the antidumping duty proceeding. 1 In October 2010, the Department modified its calculations to apply a simple-average of industry-specific wage rates from those countries. 2

As part of the on-going process of evaluating options for determining labor values, the Department is considering methodologies that will best capture all labor costs. Currently, the Department uses earnings or wage data as reported in “Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing” of the International Labor Organization (“ILO”) Yearbook of Labor Statistics. Chapter 5B captures the pre-tax monetary remuneration received by the employee.

Chapter 5B data includes two types of compensation: (1) Direct wages and salaries (“wages”), as well as (2) earnings data, which include wages plus bonuses and gratuities (“earnings”). The Department prefers “earnings” data, when available, since it more accurately reflects the full remuneration received by workers. See Antidumping Methodologies Notice, 71 FR at 61721.

The ILO defines Chapter 5B wage rate data to include:

The ILO Chapter 5B data that the Department currently uses in its interim, simple-average industry-specific wage rate methodology for valuing labor is comprehensive ( i.e., this dataset includes annual earnings and wage data reported by most countries in the world). Additionally, the ILO Chapter 5B data is reported both on a national and an industry-specific level for each reporting country.

Under the current interim wage rate methodology, the Department assumes that indirect labor costs ( i.e., employer expenses for social benefits, pensions and training, etc.) are included in the calculated surrogate financial ratios ( i.e., factory overhead (“OH”), selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, and profit) for the NME producer. When the OH and SG&A line items are disaggregated, the Department has a practice of adjusting the surrogate financial ratios for OH, SG&A, and profit by categorizing all identifiable labor costs not included in the ILO's definition of Chapter 5B data as overhead expenses. 5 However, when OH and SG&A are aggregated, the Department is unable to determine whether adjustments are needed to account for all of the indirect labor-related costs.

Due to concerns that reliance on data from Chapter 5B of the ILO may under-count the NME producer's labor costs, the Department is considering alternative data sources for valuing labor to ensure all labor costs incurred by the NME producer are accounted for in the normal value (“NV”) calculation. The Department proposes relying on labor and wage data that include all costs incurred by the producer related to labor including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. One example of such a data source is “Chapter 6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing” from the ILO Yearbook of Labour Statistics.

The ILO defines Chapter 6A data to include:

The Department further notes its preference for data from as many countries as possible when considering alternative data sources for valuing labor, such as the ILO Chapter 6A data. Although information from a single surrogate country can reliably be used to value other FOPs, wage data from a single surrogate country does not normally constitute the best available information for purposes of valuing the labor input due to the variability that exists across wages from countries with similar GNI. 8 As a result, we do not find reliance on wage data from a single country to be preferable where data from multiple countries are available for the Department to use. 9 Although the Department discounted the use of the ILO Chapter 6A data in 2006 because very few market economy countries reported labor data, this may no longer be the case. 10 As of January 2011, sixty-six market economy countries reported ILO Chapter 6A data at the national level. Though it is improbable that all of these countries would be considered economically comparable to the country subject to an investigation or review, sixty-six is not an insignificant number of initial countries. The Department also notes that some market economy countries report industry-specific data under ILO Chapter 6A, which is in keeping with the Department's current, interim practice of relying on industry-specific data within the existing ILO source where available. The Department is aware that there may be data constraints using industry-specific data classified under ILO Chapter 6A because fewer market economy countries that are found to be economically comparable to a subject country report industry-specific under ILO Chapter 6A than under ILO Chapter 5B. Accordingly, in determining whether to source wage data from alternative data sources, such as ILO Chapter 6A, the Department will need to evaluate how to address situations where there are significant data constraints in light of its current preference for data from multiple countries at the industry-specific level.

On September 13, 2010, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico. See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 55559 (September 13, 2010) ( Preliminary Results ). This first administrative review of the order covers sales of subject merchandise, as described in the “Scope of the Order” section below, made during the POR from January 30, 2008, through July 31, 2009. Although we named nine companies in the notice of initiation for this review, 1 we only examined the individual sales of two companies—Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. (Maquilacero) and Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos S.A. de C.V. (Regiopytsa). See “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Respondent Selection Memorandum” from Ericka Ukrow, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, to Richard O. Weible, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, dated October 15, 2009 (Respondent Selection Memorandum).

We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results (75 at 55567) and received case and rebuttal briefs from the respondent companies, companies not selected for individual examination, and the domestic interested parties. 2 None of the parties requested a hearing on the issues raised in comments.

On January 6, 2011, the Department published a notice in which it extended the limit for completion of the final results of review until no later than February 10, 2011. See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 774 (January 6, 2011).

The POR is from January 30, 2008, through July 31, 2009.

The merchandise that is the subject of this order is certain welded carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm. The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to this order is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this antidumping duty administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 10, 2011 (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of all issues, which parties have raised and to which we have responded, is in the Decision Memorandum and attached to this notice as an appendix. The Decision Memorandum, which is a public document, contains a complete discussion of the issues raised in the review and their corresponding recommendations and is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) of the main Department of Commerce building, Room 7046. In addition, a complete version of the memorandum can be accessed on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

For reasons set forth in our Respondent Selection Memorandum, we selected two companies, Maquilacero and Regiopytsa, for individual examination of their sales of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR as permitted under section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For the final results, we have not changed the basis of the rate we applied to companies not selected for individual examination. In the Preliminary Results, we assigned the simple-average margin of the selected companies because Regiopytsa's public quantity-and-value sales information was indexed (as permitted under 19 CFR 351.304(c)), thereby making it impossible for us to calculate a weighted-average margin of the selected companies. See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 55567. Thus, for the final results, we have continued to take the simple average of the revised margins for Maquilacero and Regiopytsa and applied this rate to the companies not selected for individual examination.

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made revisions that have changed the results for all companies subject to this review ( i.e., including the companies named in the initiation notice but not selected for examination of individual sales). Where the revisions required corrections or modifications to programming language or draft instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), any such changes have been detailed in company-specific analysis memoranda and cost-adjustment memoranda for Maquilacero and Regiopytsa; all memoranda are dated concurrently with this notice and are on file in the CRU.

For Maquilacero, we have made the following revisions:

(1) We have adjusted the calculation of general and administrative (G&A) expenses by disallowing an offset, which Maquilacero claimed for revenue earned from a special project. We have also removed labor expenses, related to the special project, from the calculation of variable overhead expenses as a result of the offset disallowance. For a discussion of these adjustments, see Comment 3 of the Decision Memorandum.

(2) We have revised the draft liquidation instructions in order to clarify that, for the gap period ( i.e., July 28, 2008, through August 4, 2008), the CBP should terminate the suspension of liquidation of any entries and liquidate the entries without regard to antidumping duties. (We have similarly revised the draft liquidations instructions for Regiopytsa and the companies not selected for individual examination.) See Comment 4 of the Decision Memorandum.

(3) We have corrected the margin-calculation program so that domestic inland freight and domestic brokerage and handling expenses are converted from Mexican pesos to U.S.-dollar amounts before being deducted from U.S. price. See Comment 5 of the Decision Memorandum.

For Regiopytsa, we have made the following changes:

(1) We have revised our calculation to follow the Department's practice of basing the universe of sales on the entry date of export-price sales, where this information has been made available to the record. See Comment 2 of the Decision Memorandum.

(2) We have revised our calculation to follow the Department's practice of capping sales-related revenues (in this case interest and insurance revenues) to offset directly associated sales expenses. See Comment 6 of the Decision Memorandum.

(3) We have modified the margin program to ensure that, for products not produced in all six quarters, the total costs of manufacturing reflect quarterly values for scrap cost, scrap revenue, and the reconciliation adjustment, rather than values from the earliest quarter of production. See Comment 7 of the Decision Memorandum.

We determine that the following weighted-average or, if appropriate, simple-average dumping margins exist on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico for the period January 30, 2008, through July 31, 2009:

Background: The President's Export Council was first established by Executive Order on December 20, 1973 to advise the President on matters relating to U.S. export trade and report to the President on its activities and on its recommendations for expanding U.S. exports. The President's Export Council was renewed most recently by Executive Order 13511 of September 29, 2009, for the two-year period ending September 30, 2011.

Public Submissions: The public is invited to submit written statements to the President's Export Council by C.O.B. March 1, 2011 by either of the following methods:

Send electronic statements to the President's Export Council Web site at http://trade.gov/pec/peccomments.asp ; or

Send paper statements to J. Marc Chittum, President's Export Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230.

All statements will be posted on the President's Export Council Web site ( http://trade.gov/pec/peccomments.asp ) without change, including any business or personal information provided such as names, addresses, e-mail addresses, or telephone numbers. All statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

Meeting minutes: Copies of the Council's meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.

I. Abstract

This request is for extension of a current information collection.

Regulations at 50 CFR 648.8 and § 697.8 require that owners of vessels over 25 ft (7.6 m) in registered length that have Federal permits to fish in the Northeast Region display the vessel's name and official number. The name and number must be of a specific size at specified locations. The display of the identifying characters aids in fishery law enforcement.

No information is submitted to NOAA Fisheries as a result of this collection. The vessel name must be affixed to the port and starboard sides of the bow and, if possible, on its stern. The official number must be displayed on the port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, and on an appropriate weather deck so as to be clearly visible from enforcement vessels and aircraft.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0350.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection).

Affected Public: Individuals and households, business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,920.

Estimated Time per Response: 45 minutes to affix vessel name and registration number to the vessel.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,690.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $36,900 for paintbrushes, paint, and stencils.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

I. Abstract

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) has the responsibility for the conservation and management of marine fishery resources. Much of this responsibility has been delegated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under this stewardship role, the Secretary was given certain regulatory authorities to ensure the most beneficial uses of these resources. One of the regulatory steps taken to carry out the conservation and management objectives is to collect data from users of the resource.

Regulations at 50 CFR 648.11(g) require observer service providers to comply with specific requirements in order to operate as an approved provider in the Atlantic sea scallop (scallop) fishery. Observer service providers must comply with the following requirements: Submit applications for approval as an observer service provider; formally request observer training by the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP); submit observer deployment reports and biological samples; give notification of whether a vessel must carry an observer within 24 hours of the vessel owner's notification of a prospective trip; maintain an updated contact list of all observers that includes the observer identification number; observer's name mailing address, e-mail address, phone numbers, homeports or fisheries/trip types assigned, and whether or not the observer is “in service.” The regulations also require observer service providers submit any outreach materials, such as informational pamphlets, payment notification, and descriptions of observer duties as well as all contracts between the service provider and entities requiring observer services for review to NMFS/NEFOP. Observer service providers also have the option to respond to application denials, and submit a rebuttal in response to a pending removal from the list of approved observer providers. These requirements allow NMFS/NEFOP to effectively administer the scallop observer program.

The approved observer service providers submit information to NMFS/NEFOP via e-mail, fax, or postal service.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0546.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 805.

Estimated Time per Response: Application for approval of observer service provider, 10 hours; applicant response to denial of application for approval of observer service provider, 10 hours; observer service provider request for observer training, 30 minutes; observer deployment report, 10 minutes; observer availability report, 10 minutes; safety refusal report, 30 minutes; submission of raw observer data, 5 minutes; observer debriefing, 2 hours; biological samples, 5 minutes; rebuttal of pending removal from list of approved observer service providers, 8 hours; vessel request to observer service provider for procurement of a certified observer, 25 minutes; vessel request for waiver of observer coverage requirement, 5 minutes; observer contact list updates, 5 minutes; observer availability updates, 1 minute; service provider material submissions, 30 minutes; service provider contracts, 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 619.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $6,270.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Established in 1975 as the Nation's first marine sanctuary, the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary is managed by NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. It is one of 13 sanctuaries and protects the wreck of the famed Civil War ironclad, USS Monitor, best known for its battle with the Confederate ironclad, CSS Virginia in Hampton Roads, Va., on March 9, 1862.

The advisory council consists of 18 members and five alternates: 12 non-governmental voting members, five governmental voting members, and one non-voting Youth Seat. The council seats represent a variety of regional interests and stakeholders, including: Citizen-at-Large, Conservation, Economic Development, Education, Heritage Tourism, Maritime Archaeological Research, North Carolina Maritime Museums, Recreational/Commercial Fishing, Recreational Diving, The Mariners' Museum, Youth, the U.S. Navy, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard. It is the combined expertise and experience of these individuals that creates an advisory council that is a valuable and effective resource for the sanctuary manager.

The council's objectives are to provide the sanctuary manager with advice on: (1) Protecting natural and cultural resources, and identifying and evaluating emergent or critical issues involving sanctuary use or resources; (2) identifying and realizing the sanctuary's research objectives; (3) identifying and realizing educational opportunities to increase public knowledge and stewardship of the sanctuary environment; and (4) developing an informed constituency to increase awareness and understanding of the purpose and value of the sanctuary and the National Marine Sanctuary System.

The council may serve as a forum for consultation and deliberation among its members and as a source of advice to the sanctuary manager regarding the management of the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary advisory council holds open meetings to ensure continued public input on management issues and to increase public awareness and knowledge of the sanctuary environment. Public participation at these meetings is welcomed and encouraged.

The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT will meet in open session to receive and discuss information on the 2010 ICCAT meeting results and U.S. implementation of ICCAT decisions; NMFS research and monitoring activities; 2010 ICCAT activities; global and domestic initiatives related to ICCAT; the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act-required consultation on the identification of countries that are diminishing the effectiveness of ICCAT; the results of the meetings of the Committee's Species Working Groups; and other matters relating to the international management of ICCAT species. The public will have access to the open sessions of the meeting, but there will be no opportunity for public comment.

The Committee will meet in its Species Working Groups for a portion of the afternoon of March 8, 2011, and for one hour on the morning of March 9, 2011. These sessions are not open to the public, but the results of the species working group discussions will be reported to the full Advisory Committee during the Committee's open session on March 9, 2011.

The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Rachel O'Malley at (301) 713-9505 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Council is considering a strategy that would allow for input from its Industry Advisory Panels in advance of SSC meetings where ABC recommendations are made. The vehicle of input the Council is considering is an Industry Advisory Panel Performance Report that details industry perspective on various factors which influence catch and effort in a given fishery in the previous year(s). The Council anticipates that this process will afford the industry an opportunity to offer their perspective on factors influencing abundance, availability, fishing effort, catch, etc. The purpose of the meeting is to allow for joint discussion among the SSC Economic and Social Subcommittee and industry advisors concerning development of an AP Performance Report.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office (302) 526-5251 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Spiny Lobster Committee will review the draft of Amendment 10 to the Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan for the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Regions and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Amendment 10 addresses the requirements of the Reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) including establishment of Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs). The committee will modify Amendment 10/DEIS based on Gulf Council actions as appropriate and approve the modified Amendment 10/DEIS for public hearing.

The Law Enforcement Advisory Panel (AP) will receive an overview, followed by a discussion and development of recommendations, on the following Council actions: Regulatory Amendment 9 to the Snapper Grouper FMP; black sea bass bag limit analysis; and the Comprehensive ACL Amendment. The Comprehensive ACL Amendment will specify ACLs, AMs and other values as mandated in the MSA for species managed by the Council and not subject to overfishing. This includes species in the Snapper Grouper, Coral, Golden Crab, and Dolphin Wahoo fishery management units.

The Committee will also review the Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment (CE-BA) 2 that includes regulatory measures pertaining to the harvest of octocorals and non-regulatory actions that update existing Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) information. CE-BA 2 also modifies management of Special Management Zones in South Carolina, amends sea turtle release gear requirements for the commercial snapper grouper fishery, and designates new EFH and EFH/Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.

The AP will also review and provide recommendations for Regulatory Amendment 11 to the Snapper Grouper FMP containing alternatives to modify regulations pertaining to the deepwater species in order to reduce the socio-economic effects expected from the regulations in Amendment 17B to the Snapper-Grouper FMP while maintaining or increasing the biological protection to speckled hind and warsaw grouper in the South Atlantic.

The Mackerel Committee will review the draft of Amendment 18 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagic FMP for the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic and the Environmental Assessment (EA) requirements of the MSA to set ACLs and AMs for species managed in the FMP. The Committee will modify Amendment 18/EA based on Gulf Council actions as appropriate, approve the modified Amendment 18/EA for public hearing and provide direction to staff on Mackerel Amendment 19. Amendment 19 will address the sale of species in the FMP caught under the bag limit.

The Ecosystem-Based Management Committee will review comments from public hearings, receive an overview of the CE-BA 2 actions and alternatives and provide guidance to staff. The Committee will give the initial approval for CE-BA 2 and receive an update on ecosystem activities.

The Joint Law Enforcement Committee and Advisory Panel will receive a presentation on vessel monitoring systems, and the AP will provide its report to the Committee.

The Golden Crab Committee will review public scoping comments to Amendment 5 to the Golden Crab FMP addressing a catch share program for the commercial fishery and discuss appropriate changes to the amendment.

The Shrimp Committee will receive a report on the over-wintering status of the shrimp resource and determine if a closure is necessary.

The SEDAR Committee will receive an update on SEDAR activities, a report on the SEDAR Steering Committee meeting, and follow-up actions. The Committee will develop recommendations for the May 2011 Steering Committee meeting.

The Joint Executive/Finance Committees will receive a status report on the Calendar Year (CY) 2011 Council budget and activities, the status of the Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional budget, and will review and discuss the tentative CY 2011 Council budget and activities schedule.

The SOPPs Committee will develop changes to the operational policy and procedures in accordance with the final rule as proposed by staff.

The Snapper Grouper Committee will receive a report on activities within the Oculina Bank Experimental Closed Area and receive a report from the Scientific and Statistical Committee.

The Committee will receive an overview of the black sea bass bag limit issues and analysis and provide directions to staff.

The Committee will review public hearing comments regarding Regulatory Amendment 9, modify the amendment as appropriate, and approve the amendment for formal Secretarial review. Regulatory Amendment 9 addresses commercial trip limits for black sea bass, vermilion snapper, gag and greater amberjack.

The Committee will review and modify as appropriate Regulatory Amendment 11 and receive a report on the status of Amendment 18A. Amendment 18A includes improvements for fisheries statistics along with actions to modify the golden tilefish and black sea bass commercial fisheries.

The Committee will review the public hearing comments, modify, and recommend the initial approval of the Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit (ACL) Amendment.

The Committee will report on the status of Amendments 20, 21, 22 and 24 to the Snapper Grouper FMP. Amendment 20 concerns the current Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) program for wreckfish. Amendment 21 addresses alternatives for management of the snapper grouper fishery, including effort and participation reductions, endorsements, catch shares, and regional quotas. Amendment 22 includes options for long-term management measures for red snapper in the South Atlantic as the stock rebuilds. Amendment 24 addresses requirements under the MSA for red grouper, including establishment of ACLs, AMs and a rebuilding plan.

Council Session: March 10, 2011, 10:30 a.m. until 5:15 p.m. and March 11, 2011, 8:30 a.m. until 12 noon ( Note: a portion of the meeting will be Closed.)

Council Session: March 10, 2011, 10:30 a.m. until 5:15 p.m.

From 10:30 a.m.-10:45 a.m., the Council will call the meeting to order, adopt the agenda, and approve the December 2010 meeting minutes.

From 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee, approve Regulatory Amendment 9 for submission to the Secretary of Commerce, approve the black sea bass recreational bag limit changes, give the initial approval of the Comprehensive ACL Amendment, address issues from Regulatory Amendment 11, consider other Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

From 3:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the Spiny Lobster Committee, approve Spiny Lobster Amendment 10/DEIS for public hearing, consider other Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

From 3:45 p.m.-4 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the Mackerel Committee, approve Mackerel Amendment 18/EA for public hearing, consider other Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

From 4 p.m.-4:15 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the Ecosystem-Based Management Committee, give initial approval of the CE-BA 2, consider other Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

From 4:15 p.m.-4:30 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the Golden Crab Committee, consider Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

From 4:30 p.m.-4:45 p.m., the Council will receive a report from the SEDAR Committee, consider Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

From 4:45 p.m.-5:15 p.m. the Council will receive a legal briefing on litigation (closed session).

Council Session: March 11, 2011, 8:30 a.m. until 12 noon.

From 8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the joint Executive/Finance Committees and take action as appropriate.

From 8:45 a.m.-9 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the SOPPs Committee, approve any changes to SOPPs, consider Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

From 9 a.m.-9:15 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Law Enforcement Committee, consider Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

From 9:15 a.m.-9:30 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Shrimp Committee, consider Committee recommendations, and take action as appropriate.

From 9:30 a.m.-12 noon, the Council will receive status reports from NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office, NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Fisheries Science Center, review Experimental Fishing Permits as necessary, receive agency and liaison reports, and discuss other business including upcoming meetings.

Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office ( see ADDRESSES ).

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal final Council action during these meetings. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305 (c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Except for advertised (scheduled) public hearings and public comment, the times and sequence specified on this agenda are subject to change.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office ( see ADDRESSES ) by March 3, 2011.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.

The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On 12/17/2010 (75 FR 78977-78978) and 12/27/2010 (75 FR 81235-81236), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will provide the services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List:

On 12/17/2010 (75 FR 78977-78978), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and service deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products and service are deleted from the Procurement List:

The Corporation is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• 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;

• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and,

• 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 submissions of responses).

The AmeriCorps*VISTA Concept Paper and Application Instructions are used by the Corporation in the selection of VISTA sponsors and in the approval of both new and renewing VISTA projects. The information collection consists of a brief Concept Paper, and, if the Concept Paper is approved, a full application including budget.

The Progress Report (PPR) and VISTA Progress Report Supplement (VPRS) is designed to assure that AmeriCorps*VISTA sponsors address and fulfill legislated program purposes, meet agency program management and grant requirements, and assess progress toward project plan goals agreed upon in the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement.

The Corporation seeks to renew the Concept Paper and Application Instructions to: (a) Reduce respondent burden; (b) enhance data elements collected via this information collection tool; (c) comply with provisions in the Serve America Act regarding Focus Areas.

The Corporation seeks to renew the current PPR and VPRS used by AmeriCorps*VISTA sponsors and grantees to report progress toward accomplishing work plan goals and objectives, reporting actual outcomes related to self-nominated performance measures meeting challenges encountered, describing significant activities, and requesting technical assistance.

The Corporation is proposing to merge two current information collection requests into one information collection request consisting of four instruments.

The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the currently approved information collection requests. The Corporation also seeks to continue using the current information collections until the renewal is approved by OMB. The current information collection requests are due to expire on May 11, 2011 and September 30, 2011.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: AmeriCorps VISTA Concept Paper, Application Instructions, Progress Report and Progress Report Supplement.

Current ICR: VISTA Concept Paper and Application Instructions.

OMB Number: 3045-0038.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Potential sponsors, current sponsoring organizations, current subsite organizations, and VISTAs.

Instrument: Concept Paper.

Total Respondents: 3,200 Frequency: One time.

Average Time per Response: 2 hours

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 6,400 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

Instrument: Application Instructions.

Total Respondents: 1,000 for the full application.

Frequency: Annually

Average Time per Response: 15 hours for application.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 15,000 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

Current ICR: VISTA Project Progress Report and Project Report Supplement.

OMB Number: 3045-0043.

Agency Number: None.

Instrument: VISTA Project Progress Report.

Total Respondents: 1100.

Frequency: Quarterly.

Average Time Per Response: 7 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 30,800 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

Instrument: VISTA Progress Report Supplement.

Total Respondents: 1100.

Frequency: Annual.

Average Time Per Response: 9 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 9900 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

a. Project Background and Authorization. The Corps will study the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action within the CFPD. The CFPD consists of an area of approximately 1.32 million acres (or +/−2,100 sq mi) in Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, and DeSoto counties (an area of approximately 1,000 acres within Sarasota County is also included in the CFPD). Mining in the CFPD has occurred for over 100 years.

The Corps has issued CWA Section 404 permits for phosphate mining in the region since 1977, with some existing permits authorizing mining through 2028. The Corps has determined as recently as June 2010 that the cumulative effects, past, present and reasonably foreseeable, of phosphate mining from 1977 to 2028 in the Peace River watershed, part of which lies within the CFPD Region, had not reached the significance threshold. Based on the continued applications for expanded mining in the CFPD and the need for additional information on the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions throughout the CFPD, the AEIS will consider the potential for significant cumulative effects of the proposed phosphate mines and mine expansions in the CFPD.

b. Purpose and Need. The basic purpose of the proposed action is to mine phosphate ore. The overall purpose is to mine phosphate ore from reserves located within the CFPD. The Corps recognizes that there is a public and private need for phosphate.

c. Prior EAs, EISs. The U.S. EPA issued a final Areawide EIS on the Central Florida Phosphate Industry in November 1978.

d. Alternatives. An evaluation of alternatives to the Applicants' preferred alternative initially being considered includes a No Action alternative, alternatives that would avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the aquatic resources within the CFPD, alternative practices or analysis methods for minimizing or evaluating cumulative effects of mining, and other reasonable alternatives that will be developed through the project scoping process which may also meet the identified purpose and need.

e. Issues. The following issues have been identified for analysis in the DAEIS. This list is preliminary and is intended to facilitate public comment on the scope of the DAEIS. The DAEIS will consider the effects on Federally listed threatened and endangered species, health and safety, socioeconomics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands and other aquatic resources, historic properties, cultural resources, fish and wildlife values, land use, transportation, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, in general, the needs and welfare of the people, and other issues identified through scoping, public involvement, and interagency coordination. At the present time, the primary areas of environmental concern are the loss of wetland functions and value, mitigation of such losses, the effect of proposed mining on groundwater and surface water quality, and potential cumulative effects. The issues of concern and the methods used to evaluate those issues will be defined through the scoping process.

f. Scoping Process. CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) require an early and open process for determining the scope of an EIS and for identifying significant issues related to the proposed action. The Corps is furnishing this notice to advise other Federal and State agencies, affected Federally recognized Tribes, and the public of our intentions. This notice announces the initiation of a 45-day scoping period which requests the public's involvement in the scoping and evaluation process of the DEIS. Stakeholders will be notified through advertisements, public notices and other means. All parties who express interest will be given an opportunity to participate in this process. The process allows the Corps to obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues and an opportunity to provide reasonable alternatives to be included in the Draft AEIS. ( See DATES and ADDRESSES for meeting schedules)

g. Public Involvement. The Corps invites Federal agencies, American Indian Tribal Nations, State and local governments, and other interested private organizations and parties to attend the public scoping meetings and provide comments in order to ensure that all significant issues are identified and the full range of issues related to the permit request are addressed.

h. Coordination. The proposed action is being coordinated with a number of Federal, State, regional, and local agencies including but not limited to the following: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, local counties, and other agencies as identified in scoping, public involvement, and agency coordination.

i. Agency Role. The Corps will be the lead agency for the AEIS. The U.S. EPA has agreed to be a cooperating agency. The Corps expects to receive input and critical information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Geological Service, and other Federal, State, and local agencies.

j. Availability of the Draft AEIS. The Corps currently expects the DAEIS to be made available to the public by October 2011. A public meeting will be held during the public comment period for the DAEIS. Written comments will be accepted at the meeting.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title of Collection: Consolidated Annual Report (CAR) for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV).

OMB Control Number: 1830-0569.

Agency Form Number(s): N/A.

Frequency of Responses: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government, State Educational Agencies or Local Educational Agencies.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 55.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 8,800.

Abstract: The purpose of this information collection package—the Consolidated Annual Report—is to gather narrative, financial and performance data as required by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV). Perkins IV requires the Secretary to provide the appropriate committees of Congress copies of annual reports received by the Department from each eligible agency that receives funds under the Act. The Office of Vocational Adult Education (OVAE) will determine each State's compliance with basic provisions of Perkins IV and the Education Department General Administrative Regulations [Annual Performance Report] and Part 80.41 [Financial Status Report]). OVAE will review performance data to determine whether, and to what extent, each State has met its State adjusted levels of performance for the core indicators described in section 113(b)(4) of Perkins IV.

Copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 4469. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537. Requests may also be electronically mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the complete title of the information collection and OMB Control Number when making your request.

Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority, requirement, and definition that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in room 10061, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Purpose of Program: To support school and community partnerships in their efforts to develop, coordinate, and implement a comprehensive plan of evidence-based programs, effective policies, and innovative strategies that create safe, drug-free, and respectful environments for learning and promote the behavioral health of children and youth.

Program Background: We published a notice of final priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and definitions for this program (2007 NFP) in the Federal Register on May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26692). The 2007 NFP contained background information and our reasons for the particular priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and definitions established in that notice; the priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and definitions announced in the 2007 NFP were used for the FY 2007, FY 2008, and FY 2009 SS/HS competitions.

In this notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions (NPP), we propose priorities, requirements, and definitions that would replace the priorities, requirements, and definitions that we established in the 2007 NFP. While some of the priorities, requirements, and definitions included in this NPP are completely new, others are based—at least in part—on the priorities, requirements, and definitions reflected in the 2007 NFP. With the priorities, requirements, and definitions proposed in this notice, the program-specific selection criteria established in the 2007 NFP are no longer needed. For this reason, we do not propose program-specific selection criteria in this NPP.

This notice contains three proposed priorities.

Since 1999 the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice have collaborated on the Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) grant program to support school and community partnerships in implementing an integrated, comprehensive community-wide plan designed to create safe, respectful, and drug-free school environments and to promote “prosocial” skills and healthy childhood development. Since its inception, the intent of the SS/HS program has been that SS/HS grantees would draw from the best practices and research in education, behavioral health, law enforcement, and juvenile justice in developing a comprehensive plan of activities, curricula, programs, and services to address issues that adversely affect the learning environment and healthy childhood development.

In the 1999 grant application for this program, we articulated the following three important program goals for SS/HS:

(1) Helping students develop the skills and emotional resilience necessary to promote positive mental health, engage in prosocial behavior, and prevent violent behavior and drug use.

(2) Ensuring that all students who attend the targeted schools are able to learn in safe, disciplined, and drug-free environments.

(3) Helping develop an infrastructure that will institutionalize and sustain integrated services after Federal funding has ended.

Over the years, we have revised and added to the absolute priority, program requirements, program-specific selection criteria, and the definitions that we established for the SS/HS program in 1999. Specifically, the absolute priority was refined in 2004 and 2007; program-specific selection criteria were revised in 2001, 2004, and 2007; and other minor revisions were made to clarify requirements and to enhance the SS/HS comprehensive plan development in 2004 and 2007. These revisions enhanced the implementation of the program while maintaining the intent, as described in 1999, of funding school and community partnerships to implement an integrated, comprehensive community-wide plan designed to create safe, respectful, and drug-free school environments and to promote prosocial skills and healthy childhood development.

In large part the success of SS/HS grantees assessed since 2005 demonstrates that the first two of the three program goals, stated in 1999 application, are being met. A recently completed 5-year evaluation of SS/HS found that the projects resulted in—

• Fewer students witnessing violence;

• Fewer students involved in violent incidents;

• More teachers and students feeling safer at school and in the community;

• More than 80 percent of school staff reporting reductions in alcohol and other drug use among their students; and

• Increased access for students to mental health services.

We do not have similar data to support that the third program goal identified in 1999, developing an infrastructure that will institutionalize and sustain integrated services after Federal funding has ended, is achieving similar success.

In an effort to improve the success of SS/HS grantees and increase the likelihood that positive outcomes are sustained after the grant period, we reviewed quantitative and qualitative data from applicants, current grantees, and prior grantees and discussed with our Federal partners how the SS/HS grant program could be changed to increase and sustain positive outcomes among grantees. Feedback from current and former grantees and reviews of SS/HS qualitative and quantitative evaluation data revealed: (1) Shortcomings in the SS/HS program design as it relates to sustaining successful outcomes; (2) certain common characteristics shared by those grantees with successful long-term outcomes; and (3) the need for applicants to have more time to complete the SS/HS grant application.

On the first point regarding shortcomings in the SS/HS program design, many grantees stated that the absolute priority on comprehensive plans used in the 2007 competition (the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Priority) did not encourage using SS/HS Federal grant funds to support, facilitate, and create “systems change” in child- and family-serving agencies in the community or leveraging existing resources in such agencies. Instead, in meeting the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Priority, many grantees focused only on the set of activities, curricula, programs, and services they described in their comprehensive plan. By doing so, they did not experience any of the benefits that systems change can bring to the community or appreciate the importance of developing an infrastructure that will institutionalize and sustain integrated services after Federal funding has ended.

To meet the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Priority, applicants under this program have been required to submit plans that focus activities, curricula, programs, and services in a manner that responds to the community's existing needs, gaps, or weaknesses in areas related to the five comprehensive plan elements:

• Element One: Safe school environments and violence prevention activities.

• Element Two: Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug prevention activities.

• Element Three: Student behavioral, social, and emotional supports.

• Element Four: Mental health services.

• Element Five: Early childhood social and emotional learning programs.

While all applications to date have included a detailed comprehensive plan related to these SS/HS elements, only some of the SS/HS grantees have been able to sustain their respective school-community partnerships after the project ended. These sustained school-community partnerships resulted in the following successful qualitative long-term outcomes:

• Greater community support and awareness of issues that affect the healthy development of children.

• Data-driven decision-making.

• Changes in school, community-based organization, and local government policies, procedures, and practices to better serve children and their families.

• Unprecedented local collaboration that enables and encourages lasting changes.

• Sustaining activities, curricula, services, and programs after the grant project ends.

On the second point, grantee data and discussions with prior grantees have revealed common characteristics among those grantees that have demonstrated the successful long-term outcomes outlined in the previous paragraph. One common characteristic being that when grantees and their partner agencies incorporated a range of strategies—including capacity building, collaboration and partnership, policy change and development, systems change and integration, and the use of technology—in their SS/HS comprehensive plan they had successful long-term outcomes. While the activities, curricula, programs, and services that grantees carry out as part of their SS/HS projects were key, successful long-term outcomes were not as likely to result when they occurred in isolation from other strategies.

Other common characteristics of grantees with successful long-term outcomes were: They used existing community partnerships to support the development of the SS/HS application; community assessment data was used by the partnership to complete the application; and the community partnership facilitated the implementation of the project. A soon to be released national cross-site evaluation report on the 2005 and 2006 SS/HS grantees states that the value of the partnerships developed or enhanced through the SS/HS grant should not be understated and that grantees with higher functioning partnerships were associated with greater improvements reported by school staff.

Finally, we heard from many applicants that completing the application was very labor intensive and greatly exceeded the 26 hours that we estimated it would take to complete the application. Applicants stated that without a preexisting community partnership, there was not sufficient time between the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice inviting applications for new awards and the deadline for transmittal of applications to solicit partners, negotiate a memorandum of agreement, search existing data sources, gather needed data, and complete the application.

For these reasons, we are proposing three priorities in this notice. The first priority responds to the findings regarding the need to: (a) Focus on the importance of developing an infrastructure that will be institutionalized and that will sustain integrated services after Federal funding has ended, and (b) build on what we know about projects that have had successful long-term outcomes. Specifically, in Proposed Priority 1, we propose to require applicants to include, in their SS/HS comprehensive plan, the use of a range of strategies—such as capacity building, collaboration and partnership, policy change and development, systems change and integration, and the use of technology—along with a description of the specific activities, curricula, programs, and services that will be implemented. To acknowledge and support the value of a proactive partnership among key child, family, and community agencies in the planning process, we also propose within Proposed Priority 1 a focus on the collaborative community process.

To address burden and time issues required to complete an application, the Department will use a two-tiered application process that includes a pre-application phase and a full application phase. The Department will invite all eligible applicants to submit a pre- application, which will require less cost, effort, and time to respond to than submitting a full application. The Department then will invite only those applicants with the highest-scoring pre-applications to submit a full application. To align with the two-tier application process we are proposing two priorities: One for the pre-application phase and one for the full application phase. Only those applicants invited to submit a full application would be required to meet the full application priority (Proposed Priority 2).

In Proposed Priorities 1 and 2, we include a description of the five SS/HS program elements. The substance of these elements remains largely unchanged from how we have described these elements in the past. To align with the age continuum we have re-ordered the elements to begin with early childhood-related activities. We have revised the titles of the elements to be positive and action-oriented. Also, we have heard from grantees that behavioral, social, and emotional supports are frequently addressed by curricula, programs and services related to early childhood social and emotional learning and development; drug, alcohol, and violence prevention; and mental health elements. Thus, we propose to eliminate the element titled “Student Behavioral, Social, and Emotional Supports” and include behavioral and emotional supports in the mental health element. Finally we have added the element “Connecting families, schools, and communities.” This element was included in the 2005 absolute priority and was then eliminated in the 2007 absolute priority. We believe there is a need to renew focus on the collective and individual benefits that can result by engaging families, schools, and communities in responding to issues related to alcohol and drug use, antisocial behavior, and violence.

Finally, as noted earlier in this notice, the proposals reflected in this notice incorporate some of the priorities and requirements established in the 2007 NFP. Proposed Priority 3 is one such priority. This priority, which focuses on applications from LEAs that have not received a grant or services under the SS/HS program, comes directly from the 2007 NFP. It was established in conjunction with the broadening of eligibility to LEAs who had previously received an SS/HS award. We established this priority in the 2007 NFP because we recognized that previous SS/HS grantees may have had experiences with the SS/HS program that give them a competitive advantage. We continue to believe that it is appropriate for the Department to give priority to applications from LEAs that have not yet received a SS/HS grant; this proposed priority would level the playing field for novice applicants. For this reason, we include this priority in this NPP.

Under this proposed priority, an eligible applicant would be required to demonstrate its community's capacity to use a collaborative process to conduct a community needs assessment and use the data collected to design an SS/HS comprehensive plan (as defined in this notice) related to the following five comprehensive plan elements:

Element One: Promoting early childhood social and emotional learning and development.

Element Two: Promoting mental, emotional, and behavioral health.

Element Three: Connecting families, schools, and communities.

Element Four: Preventing and reducing alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use.

Element Five: Creating safe and violence-free schools.

To demonstrate capacity, an applicant would be required to describe in its pre-application (1) how required SS/HS partners will engage community members, community organizations, and students and their families to collaborate and participate in a community assessment; and (2) how each partner would support an SS/HS planning and design process to gather qualitative and quantitative descriptive information about their efforts to develop and coordinate integrated systems that create safe, drug-free, and respectful environments for learning and promote the behavioral health of children and youth.

Under this proposed priority, each eligible applicant selected by the Secretary to submit a full application under this program would be required to assess its community's existing needs and gaps and submit, as part of its full application, a comprehensive plan (as defined in this notice) for creating safe, drug-free, and respectful environments for learning and promoting the behavioral health of children and youth. The comprehensive plan, must address the following five elements:

Element One: Promoting early childhood social and emotional learning and development.

Element Two: Promoting mental, emotional, and behavioral health.

Element Three: Connecting families, schools, and communities.

Element Four: Preventing and reducing alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use.

Element Five: Creating safe and violence-free schools.

Under this priority, we propose to give priority to applications from LEAs that have not yet received a grant under the SS/HS program as an applicant or as a member of a consortium. In order for a consortium application to be eligible under this priority, no member of the LEA consortium may have received a grant or services under this program as an applicant or as a member of a consortium applicant.

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register . The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

The Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes the following requirements for pre-applications and full applications under this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

Background: In 1999 local educational agencies (LEAs) were the only eligible applicants. In 2004, an eligibility requirement was established that limited eligibility to LEAs or a consortium of LEAs that had never received SS/HS funds (69 FR 30756). In the 2007 NFP we broadened eligibility to include prior grantees, provided that they did not currently have an active SS/HS project. We also stated that prior grantees could not serve the same schools or sub-regions with a subsequent grant that they served with a previous SS/HS grant. We do not propose to change the eligibility requirements established in FY 2007 for the pre-application. Accordingly, Proposed Pre-application Requirement 1—Eligible Applicant would incorporate these requirements.

An eligible applicant is (1) an LEA that is not an active SS/HS grantee and is not a member of an active SS/HS consortium grant, or (2) a consortium of LEAs, none of which are active SS/HS grantees. For the purpose of this eligibility requirement, a grant is considered active until the end of the grant's project or funding period, including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's authority to obligate funds.

Additionally, former SS/HS grant recipients ( i.e., LEAs that previously received funds or services, or consortia of LEAs that include one or more LEAs that previously received funds or services under the SS/HS program) must submit a program-specific assurance stating that, if awarded, the project will not serve those schools or sub-regions served by a previous SS/HS grant. Applications from prior SS/HS grant recipients (or from a consortium that includes one or more LEAs that previously received SS/HS funds or services) that do not include the program-specific assurance will not be considered for funding.

Background: Since 1999, early childhood social and emotional learning and development has been one of the core elements of the SS/HS program. The Federal partners included early childhood social and emotional development as a component of the SS/HS program because they believed that, based on the large body of research about the development of young children, promoting social and emotional development of children should be part of a broader strategy to improve the quality of early learning programs.

Research shows that children who enter kindergarten without adequate capacity to develop social relationships, to focus their attention on tasks, to effectively communicate their emotions or empathize with peers, or to solve social conflicts or problems are more likely to experience academic difficulties and peer rejection during their elementary school years (Hemmeter, et al., 2006).

SS/HS grantees have long suggested that an early childhood partner at the local community level is a critically important ally in implementing an SS/HS comprehensive plan. For this reason, we are proposing to require applicants to identify, as part of their pre-applications, an early childhood agency (as defined in this notice) along with the other required SS/HS partners—a local juvenile justice agency, a local law enforcement agency, and a local public mental health authority.

Under this proposed requirement, each applicant must identify, in its pre-application, each of the following as required SS/HS partners: An early childhood agency, a local juvenile justice agency, a local law enforcement agency, and a local public mental health authority (as these terms are defined in this notice).

Background: Traditionally SS/HS has required applicants to submit a memorandum of agreement (MOA) signed by the required SS/HS partners. The overall purpose of the MOA has been to demonstrate the support and commitment of the required SS/HS partners. We have learned from successful SS/HS grantees that key to the SS/HS partnership is the internal capacity and level of commitment of each of the required SS/HS partners. We also learned that some applicants have difficulty obtaining signatures from one or more required SS/HS partners on an MOA.

We propose to replace the requirement that an applicant include an MOA in its application with a requirement that an applicant include, as part of its pre-application, letters of commitment. We would require the letters of commitment provide evidence of the SS/HS partners' collective and individual capacity, commitment, leadership, and resources to conduct the community assessment and develop an SS/HS comprehensive plan if the applicant is invited to submit a full application.

Each applicant must include in its pre-application letters of commitment from each of the required SS/HS partners—an early childhood agency, a local juvenile justice agency, a local law enforcement agency, and a local public mental health authority (as these terms are defined in this notice). The applicant-LEA must also submit a letter of commitment. Each letter of commitment must be signed by the agency or authority's authorized representative (as defined in this notice). For consortium applicants, each member LEA must include a letter of commitment, and the corresponding required SS/HS partners for each member LEA must also include a letter of commitment.

Each letter of commitment must include information that (1) supports the selection of the agency or authority as a required SS/HS partner; (2) outlines the organizational capacity of the agency or authority and its commitment to the SS/HS project; (3) describes the resources available to support the pre-application process; (4) details past experience with collecting and using data for decision-making; (5) documents past experience with building relationships and engaging community members in child- and youth-focused programs; and (6) describes what the partner's role will be in conducting the community assessment and in developing an SS/HS comprehensive plan if the applicant is invited to submit a full application.

Background: As previously discussed in this notice, some applicants commented during the last SS/HS grant competition, that the amount of time provided applicants to complete the application period was not sufficient for applicants to conduct a thorough community assessment. The Federal partners agree and propose to require applicants to submit, as part of the pre-application, a community overview (as defined in this notice) rather than a thorough community assessment. The community overview would be based on readily available data and would not require a significant financial or time investment by an applicant or its partners.

Each applicant must include, as part of its pre-application, a community overview (as defined in this notice) on the community to be targeted and served by the proposed SS/HS project. The information in the community overview must be related to the five SS/HS elements, as described in this notice.

Background: As previously discussed, a common characteristic among SS/HS projects that have demonstrated successful long-term outcomes is that the projects used a collaborative community assessment and planning process when developing the SS/HS application. By engaging the required SS/HS partners and other community organizations, community members, and students and their families in the assessment process (i.e., the identification of issues and needs, including risk and protective factors of the students, their families, and the community), applicants have been able to achieve greater buy-in and support for the project's implementation and success.

SS/HS applicants have told us that time can be a restricting factor in conducting a comprehensive community assessment. By design, the pre-application process would require that an applicant describe only the process to be used to conduct a community assessment. Only applicants with the highest-scoring pre-applications would be required to conduct the community assessment, and additional time would be provided for those applicants to conduct the assessment.

Each applicant must include, as part of its pre-application, a description of how the SS/HS partners will engage community organizations, community members, as well as students and their families, in the (1) community assessment, (2) analysis of the data collected through the assessment, and (3) decision-making process to create a SS/HS comprehensive plan (as defined in this notice) if the applicant is invited to submit a full application.

Background: The SS/HS application process involves a wide range of individuals, organizations, local governments, and other community-based agencies. As the lead applicant and the potential grantee, it is important that the authorized representative of the applicant-LEA be knowledgeable and up to date on the details of the SS/HS application.

In the pre-application, each applicant must include a program-specific “statement of accuracy and veracity” assurance that has been signed by the LEA's authorized representative. The program-specific assurance must attest that the data, statements, and other information included in the pre-application are true, complete, and accurate and do not contain false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims.

Background: The Department proposes to limit eligibility to submit a full application to those applicants that scored highly during the pre-application phase of this competition. With this two-tiered application process, the Department will review a rank-order list of highest-scoring pre-applications and from that list will invite a select number of applicants to submit a full application. By implementing this process, the Department seeks to limit the number of applicants that are required to provide extensive information in their applications to those applicants that receive high scores after providing a lesser amount of information in a pre-application.

In order to be eligible to submit a full application for the SS/HS program, an eligible applicant must receive an invitation from the Department to submit a full application. The Department will make invitations based on the highest-scoring pre-applications.

Background: Consistent with the reasons provided in the background section for Proposed Requirement: Pre-application 2—Required SS/HS Partners, we are proposing to require applicants to identify an early childhood agency as one of their required SS/HS partners.

Under this proposed requirement, each applicant must identify, in its full application, each of the following as required SS/HS partners: an early childhood agency, a local juvenile justice agency, a local law enforcement agency, and a local public mental health authority (as these terms are defined in this notice).

Background: As previously described, we propose requiring pre-application applicants to submit letters of commitment from required SS/HS partners. We propose that full application applicants submit letters of commitment again, as part of the full application. The letters of commitment with the full application would reconfirm the commitment of each of the required partners and address any changes (such as changes in leadership, staffing, or other resources that may diminish or increase the capacity of the required partners to support the SS/HS comprehensive plan) made since submitting the pre-application.

Each applicant must include, in its full application, letters of commitment from each of the required SS/HS partners—an early childhood agency, a local juvenile justice agency, a local law enforcement agency, and a local public mental health authority (as defined in this notice). The applicant-LEA must also submit a letter of commitment. Each letter of commitment must be signed by the agency or authority's authorized representative (as defined in this notice). For consortium applicants, each member LEA must include a letter of commitment, and the corresponding required SS/HS partners for each member LEA must include a letter of commitment.

Each letter of commitment must include information that (1) supports the selection of the agency or authority as a required SS/HS partner; (2) outlines the organizational capacity of the agency or authority and its commitment to the SS/HS project; (3) describes the resources available to support the full application process; (4) details past experience with collecting and using data for decision-making; (5) documents past experience with building relationships and engaging community members in child- and youth-focused programs; and (6) describes the partner's role in conducting the community assessment and in developing an SS/HS comprehensive plan.

In addition, the letters of commitment included in the full application must include a description of any changes (since submitting the pre-application) in leadership, staffing, or other resources that may diminish or increase the capacity of the required partners to support the SS/HS comprehensive plan.

Background: Beginning in 2007, SS/HS applicants have been required to submit a “logic model” as part of their applications. The logic model is a graphic representation, by each SS/HS element, of key information included in the comprehensive plan narrative. Many applicants have stated that constructing the logic model helped organize and conceptualize the SS/HS comprehensive plan.

Additionally, we believe that requiring a logic model has helped applicants and reviewers to compare the identified community's needs and gaps with: (1) Goals and objectives; (2) proposed activities, curricula, programs, and services; (3) partners' roles; and (4) outcome measures. In addition, the logic model has helped applicants and reviewers to evaluate the extent to which the applicant's goals; objectives; proposed activities, curricula, programs, and services; partners' roles; and outcome measures were appropriate and reasonable.

Each applicant must include a logic model with its full application. The logic model must represent the SS/HS comprehensive plan in a chart format, by element, that depicts: (1) The needs and gaps identified in the community assessment; (2) goals that are responsive to the identified needs and gaps; (3) goal-related objectives that are specific, measurable, appropriate, and timely; (4) activities, curricula, programs, and services that are responsive to the identified needs and gaps and are appropriate for the population to be served; (5) each required partner's role and evidence of its strong commitment to the project; and (6) process and outcome measures that will adequately evaluate the project and provide data for continuous improvement of the project.

Background: A proposed requirement of the pre-application is a plan for conducting a collaborative community assessment and a description of how the SS/HS partners would engage community organizations, community members, students, and their families in the analysis of data and in the design of the SS/HS comprehensive plan, if invited to submit a full application. Because invited applicants will have additional time to conduct the community assessment and prepare the full application, we believe it would be appropriate to require them to provide a more detailed description of the community assessment process and findings from the assessment at this stage of the application process.

Each applicant must include, as part of its full application, a description of the collaborative community assessment process used to design the SS/HS comprehensive plan. The description must explain how the required SS/HS partners engaged community organizations, community members, and students and their families in the community assessment, analysis of the data collected through the assessment, and decision-making process used to prepare the full application.

Background: As previously stated in this notice, the SS/HS application process involves a broad array of individuals, organizations, local governments, and other community-based agencies. As the lead applicant and the potential grantee, it is important that the authorized representative of the applicant-LEA be knowledgeable and up to date on the details of the SS/HS application. Accordingly, we propose requiring that each applicant include, in its full application, a statement attesting to the manner in which the grant application was developed and the veracity of the data included in the application.

In the full application, each applicant must include a program-specific “statement of accuracy and veracity” assurance that has been signed by the LEA's authorized representative. The program-specific assurance must attest that the data, statements, and other information included in the application are true, complete, and accurate and do not contain false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims. The assurance must also attest that the collaborative process was carried out, as described in the pre-application, or, if there were changes, describe how the community assessment process differed from the process described in the pre-application.

Background: In the most recent SS/HS competitions, the Department used student enrollment data to establish maximum annual grant award amounts, as follows: $2,250,000 for an LEA with at least 35,000 students; $1,500,000 for an LEA with at least 5,000 students, but fewer than 35,000 students; and $750,000 for an LEA with fewer than 5,000 students. Several small, rural, and Tribal LEAs stated that it is erroneous to assume smaller LEAs require less funding to implement an SS/HS comprehensive plan and argued that costs associated with serving their student populations are as much or more than the costs of providing services in larger, more densely populated areas (due in part to, for example, distance, lack of municipal infrastructure, and limited service providers).

We, therefore, are proposing to increase the award amounts available to smaller LEAs.

Applicants may request no more funding than the established maximum amount. Based on student enrollment data for the participating LEAs, the request for funding in a full application must not exceed the following maximum amounts for any of the project's four 12-month budget periods:

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda: The main meeting presentation will be on the results of the Study to Re-examine Options for Downblending Uranium-233 in Building 3019 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Oak Ridge, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Patricia J. Halsey at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the agenda item should contact Patricia J. Halsey at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Patricia J. Halsey at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/minutes.htm.

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

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 estimates 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.

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. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES .

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

Affected entities: Potential respondents affected by these voluntary collection activities will be members of the general public who have purchased and used insect repellent products.

Title: Use of Surveys in Developing Improved Labeling for Insect Repellent Products.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2425.01, OMB Control No. 2070-new.

ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity. An Agency 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: EPA intends to initiate a new voluntary information collection, a one-time Internet survey, for consumer research. The goals of the Internet survey are to (1) identify the types of information that users of insect repellents want on the label of an insect repellent and (2) test four versions of efficacy marks, a graphic that could be placed on the front label of an insect repellent, that would standardize the presentation of information on how long the insect repellent repels ticks and mosquitoes. For the first efficacy mark viewed, participants would provide information on their understanding of the efficacy mark, just as if they came across the mark on a product label with no prior explanation of what the mark could mean. Participants would rate all of the efficacy marks for understandability and usefulness, and then indicate a preferred choice. EPA would use this information to formulate decisions and policies affecting future labeling of insect repellents. The ultimate goal of this activity is to help the consumer to effectively use the information on the label to select the insect repellent product most likely to meet their needs and readily understand label instructions regarding safe product use. This is a voluntary survey. One survey would be conducted over the life of the ICR.

The collected information could be used to revise insect repellent product labels and to create other user friendly consumer information materials. By enabling consumers to make better choices in regard to purchasing and using products intended to protect their health, EPA will more effectively carry out its mandate to protect the public from unreasonable risks to human health. If any individuals or organizations in possession of survey data that are similar to the survey activity that EPA wishes to initiate and if the individual or organization is willing to publicly share the methodology used, the results and underlying raw data, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 3,000.

Frequency of response: One time.

Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: On-line survey of approximately 15 minute duration.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 750 hours.

Estimated total annual costs: $15,675. There is no cost for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0863.

Title: Satellite Delivery of Network Signals to Unserved Households for Purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Act.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 848 respondents; 250,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.50 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is the Satellite Home Viewer Act, 17 U.S.C. 119.

Total Annual Burden: 125,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: On November 23, 2010, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology, released a Report and Order, Measurement Standards for Digital Television Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, ET Docket No. 06-94; FCC 10-195. The Report and Order adopted rules establishing measurement procedures for determining the strength of a digital broadcast television (DTV) signal at any specific location. These procedures will be used for determining whether households are eligible to receive distant DTV network signals retransmitted by satellite carriers, pursuant to the provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 (STELA). This Report and Order implements DTV signal measurement procedures proposed in the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SHVERA NPRM) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (STELA FNRPM) in this proceeding with minor modifications.

Therefore, the information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are as follows:

47 CFR 73.686(e) describes the procedures for measuring the field strength of digital television signals. These procedures will be used to determine whether a household is eligible to receive a distant digital network signal from a satellite television provider, largely rely on existing, proven methods the Commission has already established for measuring analog television signal strength at any individual location, as set forth in Section 73.686(d) of the existing rules, but include modifications as necessary to accommodate the inherent differences between analog and digital TV signals. The new digital signal measurement procedures include provisions for the location of the measurement antenna, antenna height, signal measurement method, antenna orientation and polarization, and data recording.

Therefore, satellite and broadcast industries making field strength measurements shall maintain written records and include the following information: (a) A list of calibrated equipment used in the field strength survey, which for each instrument specifies the manufacturer, type, serial number and rated accuracy, and the date of the most recent calibration by the manufacturer or by a laboratory. Include complete details of any instrument not of standard manufacture; (b) A detailed description of the calibration of the measuring equipment, including field strength meters, measuring antenna, and connecting cable; (c) For each spot at the measuring site, all factors which may affect the recorded field, such as topography, height and types of vegetation, buildings, obstacles, weather, and other local features; (d) A description of where the cluster measurements were made; (e) Time and date of the measurements and signature of the person making the measurements; (f) For each channel being measured, a list of the measured value of field strength (in units of dBμ after adjustment for line loss and antenna factor) of the five readings made during the cluster measurement process, with the median value highlighted.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Clinical Pharmacogenomics: Premarketing Evaluation in Early Phase Clinical Studies.” Pharmacogenomics (PGx) broadly refers to the study of variations of DNA and RNA characteristics and their relation to drug exposure and/or response. Drug exposure refers to either the administered dose or levels in a body tissue or fluid ( e.g., blood, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid). Drug response results from the interplay of pharmacokinetics ( e.g., drug absorption, metabolism, and excretion), and pharmacodynamics ( i.e., all of the effects of the drug on various physiologic and pathologic processes, including effectiveness and adverse effects). Genetic variations can also influence the exposure-response (E/R) relationship of drugs. PGx studies can enhance the understanding of interindividual differences in the efficacy and safety of investigational drugs.

Drug development is commonly described as going through “phases” (21 CFR 312.21). The first two phases collect information about safety and dosing, so that the larger, later (phase 3) studies (the adequate and well-controlled studies needed to support marketing approval) can gather the additional information about effectiveness and safety that is needed to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide an adequate basis for physician labeling. Much of the genomic information collected and assessed during the early phases is often described as “exploratory.” Phase 2 studies that suggest genomic influences can lead to phase 3 trials that incorporate findings into prespecified hypotheses, such as enriching the study with genomically defined individuals, determining dose based on demonstrated variability in earlier studies, and defining a priori hypothesis testing of a primary endpoint in a genomic subset.

PGx information obtained from genomic investigations during the course of drug development (and from postmarketing studies) can improve the effectiveness and safety of drugs by identifying patients at high risk for a serious adverse event or absence of benefit; improving the benefit/risk relationship of drugs by using genomic tests to identify patients most likely to respond, or unable to respond to a drug; and by helping to select optimal doses based on genotype-driven differences in PK (pharmacodynamics) and/or PD (pharmacodynamics) of a drug. An important prerequisite to successful use of genetic information in drug development is appropriate collection and storage of DNA samples from all clinical trials, both exploratory and the adequate and well-controlled studies intended to support effectiveness and safety.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on conducting pharmacogenomic studies in early phase clinical studies. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirement of the applicable statutes and regulations.

This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 201.57 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management ( see ADDRESSES ) either electronic or written comments regarding this document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances , or http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances, or http://www.regulations.gov .

I. Background

In the Federal Register of December 20, 2010 (75 FR 79383), FDA published a notice with a 60-day comment period to request comments from stakeholders on strategies to address the prevalence of animal drug products marketed in the United States without approval or other legal marketing status. The notice expressed FDA's interest in receiving comments on strategies that utilize FDA's existing regulatory framework for addressing this issue as well as on novel strategies not currently employed by the Agency.

The Agency has received requests for a 60-day extension of the comment period. The requests conveyed concern that the current 60-day comment period does not allow respondents sufficient time to address fully the many important issues FDA raised in the notice.

FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period for the notice for 60 days, until April 19, 2011. The Agency believes that a 60-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying the Agency's consideration of these important issues.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management ( see ADDRESSES ) either electronic or written comments regarding this document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Former Grantee of Record: Kaleida Health, University of Rochester; and Winthrop University are the three former grantees.

Original Period of Grant Support is from: September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2014.

Replacement awardees: The Research Foundation of SUNY and the New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation are the replacement awardees.

Period of Replacement Awards: The period of support for the replacement awards is January 1, 2011, to August 31, 2011.

Amount of Replacement Awards is as follows:

Kaleida Health d.b.a. the Western New York Poison Center (H4BHS15474) will transfer $78,720 to the Research Foundation of SUNY d.b.a. the Upstate New York Poison Center (H4BHS15475);

University of Rochester d.b.a. the Ruth A. Lawrence Poison and Drug Information Center (H4BHS15476) will transfer approximately $78,820 to the Research Foundation of SUNY d.b.a. the Upstate New York Poison Center (H4BHS15475); and

Winthrop University d.b.a. the Long Island Regional Poison and Drug Information Center (H4BHS15478) will transfer $230,397 to the New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation d.b.a. the New York City Poison Control Center (H4BHS15477).

The poison centers operated by the Research Foundation of SUNY and the New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation currently provide poison center services to the citizens of New York, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. These services include telephone treatment advice and consultation about toxic exposures for both the public and health care professionals and toxico and public health surveillance. Educators at the centers provide public education about poison prevention and clinical toxicology training for many different healthcare professionals. The centers also offer programs to help clinicians better manage poisoning and overdose cases that end up in a healthcare facility.

These centers have the capacity to provide poison control service to the areas formerly served by Kaleida Health, University of Rochester, and Winthrop University, ensuring access to critical poison emergency treatment and poison prevention information statewide, and to fulfill the expectations of the original funded application. These replacement grants will also ensure that there is no delay or gap in poison center services.

The State of New York has determined that the Research Foundation of SUNY and the New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation are the best qualified grantees for this award. On December 13, 2010, the State provided HRSA with a letter designating the two centers as the official poison centers of New York and assigning them specific service areas.

In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration , No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

The Rural Housing and Economic Development program was authorized by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1999. The competition was announced in the Federal Register (FR Doc. E9-10186) on May 4, 2009. Applications were rated and selected for funding on the basis of selection criteria contained in that notice.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this the Rural Housing and Economic Development program is 14.250. The Rural Housing and Economic Development Program is designed to build capacity at the State and local level for rural housing and economic development and to support innovative housing and economic development activities in rural areas. Eligible applicants are local rural non-profit organizations, community development corporations, Federally recognized Indian Tribes, State housing finance agencies, and State community and/or economic development agencies. The funds made available under this program were awarded competitively, through a selection process conducted by HUD. Prior to the rating and ranking of this year's applications, Youthbuild McLean County in Bloomington, Illinois, for the Fiscal year 2009 competition, was awarded a total of $300,000.00 as a result of funding errors during the previous year's funding. For the Fiscal year 2009 competition, a total of $25,030,464.75 was awarded to 86 projects nationwide.

In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987. 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the grantees and amounts of the awards in Appendix A to this document.

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to work with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. As part of this, we are charged with implementing statues including the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. These statutes prohibit taking of Federally listed species, migratory birds and eagles unless otherwise authorized.

Increased energy demands and the nationwide goal to increase energy production from renewable sources have intensified the development of energy facilities, including wind energy. The Service supports renewable energy development that is compatible with fish and wildlife conservation.

These draft Guidelines provide recommendations that are intended to:

(1) Promote compliance with relevant wildlife laws and statutes;

(2) Encourage scientifically rigorous survey, monitoring, assessment, and research designs proportionate to the risk to affected species;

(3) Produce potentially comparable data across the Nation;

(4) Avoid, minimize, and/or compensate for potential adverse effects on fish, wildlife and their habitats; and,

(5) Improve the ability to predict and resolve effects locally, regionally, and nationally.

The Service encourages project proponents to use the process described in these draft voluntary Land-based Wind Energy Guidelines (draft Guidelines) to address risks to fish and wildlife resources. The Service anticipates that these draft Guidelines, when used in concert with the appropriate regulatory tools and other existing policies, will provide the best practical approach for conservation of species of Federal trust responsibility. The Service will initiate a peer review of the draft Guidelines during the public comment period.

In July 2003, the Service released for public comment a set of voluntary, interim guidelines for land-based, wind energy projects to assist developers in avoiding, minimizing and/or compensating for effects to fish, wildlife, and their habitats related to land-based, wind energy facilities. Following a 2-year public comment period, and receipt of 25 public comments for the record, in March 2007, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) established the Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee (Committee) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appx 2). The Committee submitted final recommendations to the Secretary on March 4, 2010. The Service appreciates all the time and effort that members of the Committee devoted to developing their recommendations. The Service convened an internal working group representing several Service programs to review the Committee Recommendations and used the Recommendations as a basis to develop the Service's draft wind energy Guidelines.

The draft voluntary Guidelines describe the information needed to identify, assess, mitigate, and monitor the potential adverse effects of wind energy projects on fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats, using a consistent and predictable approach, while providing flexibility to accommodate the unique circumstances of each project. The framework within the draft Guidelines is intended to standardize methods and metrics, resulting in greater consistency of information, and aid in understanding future effects of these projects. The framework also helps developers understand how to avoid or minimize effects to certain species, which is important for compliance with a number of laws, including: the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703-711), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA or Eagle Act; 16 U.S.C. 668-668d), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

The levels of surveying, monitoring, assessing, and collecting other information will vary among different wind-energy projects due to the diverse geographic, climatological, and ecological features of potential wind development sites. Founded upon a “tiered approach” for assessing potential effects to fish, wildlife, and their habitats, the guidelines are intended to promote: Compliance with relevant laws and statutes; the use of scientifically rigorous survey, monitoring, assessment and research designs proportionate to the potential risk to affected species; the accumulation of comparable data across the landscape; the identification of trends and patterns of effects; and, ultimately the improved ability to predict and resolve effects locally, regionally and nationally.

These draft Guidelines are not intended nor shall they be construed to limit or preclude the Service from exercising its authority under any law, statute, or regulation; to limit or preclude the Service from taking enforcement action against any individual, company, or agency; or to relieve any individual, company, or agency of its obligations to comply with any applicable Federal, State, Tribal, or local laws, statutes, or regulations. The methods described in the draft Guidelines are intended to provide information for assessment of effects, as well as information to guide the creation of avoidance, minimization, and compensatory measures. Developers that use and follow the draft Guidelines also demonstrate a good-faith effort to develop and operate projects consistent with the intent of local, Tribal, State, and Federal laws. The Service will regard such voluntary adherence and communication as evidence of due care with respect to avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating significant adverse impacts to species protected under the MBTA and BGEPA.

The responsibility of the Service is to protect and conserve fish, wildlife, and their habitat (fish and wildlife). With the development of these draft Guidelines, the Service is providing a clear and readily usable path for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife. Although voluntary, the Service hopes developers will utilize the final Guidelines to reduce the impacts wind energy facilities can have on fish and wildlife, while enabling the Nation to increase its renewable energy portfolio. The Guidelines encourage the wind industry to coordinate early and often with the Service to avoid, minimize, and/or compensate for potential adverse effects on fish, wildlife and their habitats.

As the Service developed these draft Guidelines based on the Committee Recommendations it modified, accentuated, and reduced some sections. The Department has co-equal responsibilities to promote sustainable renewable energy development and conserve wildlife. In the draft Guidelines, the Service addresses issues of utmost importance to meet our conservation goals and conform to statutes, regulations, and policies. The following is an overview of some of the differences between the Recommendations and the draft Guidelines.

Study Duration and Intensity: The Committee Recommendations did not mention specific study duration. The draft Guidelines recommend 3 years for pre-construction studies and 2 years minimum for post-construction studies because these timelines should be of sufficient duration and intensity to ensure adequate data are collected to accurately characterize wildlife use of the area.

Decision Process: The Committee Recommendations noted that the developer makes key decisions. The draft Guidelines recommend that the developer coordinate early and often with the Service when making decisions about when and whether to proceed to the next tier to gain joint understanding of data analysis and project planning.

Implementation: The Committee recommended that the Service delay implementation of the Guidelines for 24 months to account for projects that are in planning or under construction and to have an opportunity for Service and wind industry personnel to learn about them. The draft Guidelines accommodate projects that are in various stages of development, from early planning to operational. The Service has committed to developing and providing training to practitioners on the final Guidelines to assure uniform interpretation.

Adverse Effect: The Committee Recommendations use a threshold of “significant adverse effect” for those impacts that need to be studied or addressed. The draft Guidelines removed “significant” from the phrase. Because the Service intends to use the term in a manner similar to that described in the Committee Recommendations, the inclusion of the word “significant” would be redundant.

Use of Project Descriptors and Other Terms: The Committee Recommendations used the terms “area of interest,” “project area,” “project site,” “species of concern, and species of fragmentation concern.” The draft Guidelines modified the terms to be consistent with Service practices and policies. The terms are now “area of influence, project site, extent of direct effects, extent of indirect effects, affected species, and species sensitive to habitat fragmentation.”

Adaptive Management: The Committee Recommendations used Adaptive Management concepts from a variety of sources. The Service uses the Department of the Interior Adaptive Management Handbook.

Noise: The Committee Recommendations do not include a discussion of noise impacts to wildlife. The draft Guidelines include a discussion on noise and incorporates noise in the tier questions based on comments and recommendations received from other Federal agencies.

Habitat Fragmentation: The Committee Recommendations include an extensive discussion on the effects of habitat fragmentation on sage grouse and prairie chickens. The draft Guidelines expanded the discussion to include habitat loss and degradation and moved the sage-grouse-specific discussion to the Service Wind Energy Web site. Extensive species-specific references were moved to the Web site to focus on process.

Tiers 4 and 5: The Committee Recommendations separate post-construction fatality studies into Tier 4 and habitat studies into Tier 5. The draft Guidelines expanded Tier 4 to assure comprehensive fatality monitoring (Tier 4a) and monitoring other effects, including habitat (Tier 4b). We also included in Tier 5 research to address gaps in knowledge, evaluate the effectiveness of best management practices, address questions that exist across multiple projects, and as a component of an adaptive management program.

Mitigation: The Committee Recommendations included a brief discussion of general mitigation considerations. The draft Guidelines include an expanded discussion on mitigation under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act because mitigation may be an important component of site planning for many projects.

Conflict Resolution: The Committee Recommendations identified a specific individual in the Headquarters Office to respond to conflicts. The draft Guidelines modified this to the standard chain of command for the Service because Service policies call for resolving issues at the lowest appropriate level.

Legal White Paper: The Committee Recommendations included a Legal White Paper that discussed statutes, as well as various options such as “bird letters,” migratory bird permits, conservation banking and other ideas. The draft Guidelines include a discussion of the Service's legal authorities and statutes.

The Service has established a public Web site that will provide support to developers and stakeholders as they use the draft Guidelines. Information on the Web site will be reviewed periodically to ensure that it remains current and applicable. The Web site currently includes: the Committee Recommendations, the Service's 2003 interim wind guidelines, and supporting documents for the draft Guidelines. Future additions to the Web site will include: recommendations on risk assessment tools, survey and monitoring protocols, research designs, applicable policies and regulations, best management practices, best available technologies, recommendations for reducing adverse effects; map-based risk-assessment products, information on buffers and noise effects, and other pertinent literature.

The Web site is still being developed, but the Service welcomes public review and comment of its progress: visit http://www.fws.gov/windenergy to review and comment. We also welcome comments on how to improve the applicability of this Web site.

We request comments on the draft Guidelines. We are particularly seeking comments regarding the cost effectiveness of these draft Guidelines for all wind turbines, including community scale operations. All comments we receive by the date specified above in DATES will be considered during preparation of the final guidelines. We prefer to receive comments via e-mail, but you may alternately submit your comments by any one of the other methods mentioned above. If you submit your comment by e-mail, please include “Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines Comments” in the subject line of your message, and your full name and return U.S. mailing address in the body of your message. Please note that e-mail address windenergy@fws.gov will be closed when the public comment period closes. We will take into consideration the relevant comments, suggestions, or objections that we receive by the comment due date indicated above in DATES . These comments, suggestions, or objections, and any additional information we received, may lead us to adopt final guidelines that differ from these draft Guidelines. Comments merely stating support of or opposition to the draft Guidelines without providing supporting data or rationale are not as helpful.

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. You can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

As published elsewhere in today's Federal Register , the Service is simultaneously soliciting comments on the draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance.

The BIE seeking approval for an information collection that would allow it to collect information regarding individuals' qualifications to serve on the Federal advisory committee known as the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children. This information collection would require persons interested in being nominated to serve on the Advisory Board to provide information regarding their qualifications. A Membership Nomination Form would also be part of the information collection.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. ) requires the BIE to establish an Advisory Board on Exceptional Education. See 20 U.S.C 1411(h)(6). Advisory Board members shall serve staggered terms of 2 years or 3 years from the date of their appointment. This Advisory Board is currently in operation; this information collection will allow the BIE to better manage the nomination process for future appointments to the Advisory Board.

The BIE requests that you send your comments on this collection to the location listed in the ADDRESSES section. Your comments should address: (a) The necessity of the information collection for the proper performance of the agencies, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents, such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Please note that an agency may not sponsor or conduct, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number.

It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the ADDRESSES section during the hours of 9 a.m.—5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday except for legal holidays. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address or other personally identifiable information, be advised that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made public at any time. While you may request that we withhold your personally identifiable information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

OMB Control Number: 1076-NEW.

Title: Solicitation of Nominations for the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children.

Brief Description of Collection: Submission of this information allows the BIE to review the qualifications of individuals seeking nomination to the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. The information collection includes a Membership Nomination Form and requests information on qualifications, experience, and expertise on the education of Indian children with disabilities. Response is required to obtain a benefit.

Type of Review: Proposed information collection.

Respondents: Individuals.

Number of Respondents: 30 per year, on average.

Total Number of Responses: 30 per year, on average.

Frequency of Response: Once.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 30 hours.

This Notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.

A proclamation was issued according with Section 7 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 986; 25 U.S.C. 467), for the land described below. The land was proclaimed to be an addition to the Bay Mills Indian Reservation and part of the Bay Mills Indian Community of Michigan for the exclusive use of Indians on that Reservation who are entitled to reside at the Reservation by enrollment or Tribal membership.

On July 21, 2009, the Department of the Interior published notice of the Secretary of the Interior's (Secretary) proposal to withdraw (proposed withdrawal) approximately 1 million acres of National Forest System lands and public lands in northern Arizona from location and entry under the Mining Law of 1872, (30 U.S.C. 22-54) (Mining Law), subject to valid existing rights. The purpose of the withdrawal, if determined to be appropriate, would be to protect the Grand Canyon watershed from adverse effects of locatable hardrock mineral exploration and mining.

Under section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), publication of the Federal Register notice of the proposed withdrawal had the effect of segregating the lands involved for up to 2 years from the location and entry of new mining claims, subject to valid existing rights, during which time the BLM will complete an analysis of the proposed withdrawal. The notice temporarily segregated the following described lands:

For more detailed information, refer to the map dated September 17, 2010, posted on the Internet at http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/mining/timeout.html. This map is also on file at the Arizona Strip District Office at the address below and can be viewed there upon request.

The Northern Arizona Proposed Withdrawal Draft EIS, now available for public review, has been prepared in accordance with NEPA.

Copies of the Northern Arizona Proposed Withdrawal Draft EIS are available in the BLM Arizona Strip District Office, 345 East Riverside Dr., St. George, Utah 84790.

Copies can also be found at:

In addition, the EIS can be viewed at libraries in the following locations:

You may also access the document on the Internet at:

http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/mining/timeout.html

The Proposed Action analyzed in the Draft EIS is the withdrawal of 1,010,776 acres near Grand Canyon National Park from location and entry under the Mining Law for a period of 20 years, subject to valid existing rights. The lands included in the proposed action include those managed by the BLM and managed by the U.S. Forest Service and are located within portions of the Grand Canyon watershed. These lands contain significant environmental and cultural resources, including the nearby iconic Grand Canyon National Park, as well as substantial uranium deposits. The importance of the management of these resources has generated much public and Congressional interest. Public scoping for this project began on August 26, 2009 (74 FR 43152-43153), with publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register , and closed on October 30, 2009. During that time 83,525 comment letters were received. Important issues identified during scoping include:

• Change in geologic conditions and availability of uranium resources;

• Dewatering of perched aquifers and changes in water availability in deep

aquifers;

• Contamination of both ground and surface water;

• Effects to endangered, threatened, and special status plants and animal

species;

• Visual intrusions to Grand Canyon National Park visitors;

• Noise disruptions to Grand Canyon National Park visitors;

• Effects to cultural resources and Traditional Cultural Properties;

• Potential public health effects due to exposure to uranium; and

• Effects to the local, regional, or national economy.

The Draft EIS analyzes the potential effects of the alternatives on resources within, and in the vicinity of, the potential withdrawal areas as well as within, and in the vicinity of, the Grand Canyon National Park. Analyses have been conducted for potential effects to air quality, geology and minerals, ground and surface water resources, soil resources, vegetation resources, fish and wildlife in general, special status plant and animal species including those listed as threatened or endangered, visual resources, soundscapes, cultural resources, American Indian resources, wilderness, recreation, social, and economic conditions.

Thirteen agencies and two American Indian Tribes have entered into Cooperating Agency agreements with the BLM, including the U.S. Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest; the National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the U.S. Geological Survey; the Arizona Game and Fish Department; the Arizona Geological Survey; the Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources; the Arizona State Lands Department; the Hualapai Tribe; the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians; Coconino County, Arizona; Mohave County, Arizona; Kane County, Utah; San Juan County, Utah; and Washington County, Utah.

Please note that public comments and information submitted, including names, street addresses, and e-mail addresses of persons who submit comments, will be available for public review and disclosure at the Arizona Strip District Office address given above during regular business hours (7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.

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 us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Nevada. Topics for discussion will include, but are not limited to: District Manager's reports on current program of work, Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act Round 12 review of R12 proposals and RAC-hosted public comment, landscape approach/land health assessment processes, impacts to proposed wind energy projects in eagle habitat, BLM wildlands policy, geothermal program review, Salt Wells Energy Projects Draft Environmental Impact Statement, field tour of ENEL Geothermal Power Plant at Salt Wells (Churchill County), Nevada Historic Marker Dedication for Pony Express Trail at ENEL Plant, LiDAR (Optical Remote-Sensing Technology) Virtual Tour of Hidden Cave, Hidden Cave and Grimes Point archaeological field tour, proposed Winnemucca Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement, drought issues related to springs/water sources for wild horses, livestock and wildlife, tour of new Black Rock NCA facility in Gerlach, Ruby Pipeline field visit, Trego Hot Springs field visit, and other topics that may be raised by RAC members.

The final agendas with any additions/corrections to agenda topics, locations, field trips and meeting times, will be posted on the BLM Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/res/resource_advisory/sierra_front-northwestern.html, and sent to the media at least 14 days before the meeting. Individuals who need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, or who wish to receive a copy of each agenda, should contact Mark Struble at 775-885-6107 no later than one week before the start of each meeting.

If a protest of this dependent resurvey is received prior to the date of the official filing, the official filing will be stayed pending consideration of the merits of the protest. This particular plat will not be officially filed until after all protests have been accepted or dismissed and become final.

Consistent with Federal laws, regulations, and National Park Service policies, the Final GMP/EIS describes and analyzes the environmental impact of four alternatives (A-D) to guide the development and future management of the National Historical Park. Alternative A (Continuation of Current Management) focuses on sites owned, managed, and interpreted by Key Partners, with the NPS providing technical assistance and national visibility. This alternative provides a baseline evaluation of the existing resource conditions, facilities, and management at Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park.

Under Alternative B, visitors would experience the park at sites owned by the Key Partners and through electronic media and NPS ranger led tours and programs. Visitors would access the park via auto-touring routes, and a few non-motorized trails located primarily on Key Partner properties. The primary role NPS would be to provide interpretive programs and technical assistance. The Key Partners would have the primary responsibility for land and resource protection. There would be increased coordination among the NPS and Key Partners, with the NPS serving as a coordinator for land and resource protection.

Under Alternative C, visitors would experience the park at a NPS-developed and managed visitor center and at visitor focal areas owned and managed by the NPS and the Key Partners. The NPS and the Key Partners would coordinate interpretive programs at these sites. Visitors would access the park via auto-touring routes and a system of non-motorized trails that provides opportunities for interpretation. The NPS and the Key Partners would develop a coordinated land protection plan focused on protection of key historic sites that would become focal areas. The NPS and the Key Partners would develop formal agreements to undertake special projects and general park management.

Alternative D is the NPS preferred alternative. Under this alternative, visitors would experience the park at a NPS-developed and managed visitor center and at visitor focal areas owned and managed by the NPS and the Key Partners. The NPS and the Key Partners would coordinate interpretive programs at these sites. Visitors would access the park via auto-touring routes and an extensive system of non-motorized trails that provides opportunities for interpretation and recreation, that connect focal areas, and tie to communities and resources outside the park. The NPS and the Key Partners would develop a coordinated land protection plan focused on protection of cultural landscapes, sensitive natural resource areas, and lands providing connections between NPS and Key Partner properties.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO. The human remains were removed from an unknown location in Wyoming.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Denver Museum of Nature & Science professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California; Duckwater Shoshone Tribe of the Duckwater Reservation, Nevada; Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (Four constituent bands: Battle Mountain Band; Elko Band; South Fork Band and Wells Band); Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; and Yomba Shoshone Tribe of the Yomba Reservation, Nevada (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

Between 1867 and 1870, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were obtained from an unknown location, possibly near Ft. Fetterman, in Wyoming. In 1982, the human remains were donated to the Denver Museum by Linda Stebbins and Mark Andrews, who obtained them from Charles D. Cobb. The human remains were accessioned into the collections (A1224.3 (CUI 22)). The remains consist of 10 inches of black human hair and scalp. The edge of the scalp has been perforated and laced with sinew. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

• Based on non-destructive physical analysis and catalogue records, the human remains are determined to be Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California; Duckwater Shoshone Tribe of the Duckwater Reservation, Nevada; Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; and Yomba Shoshone Tribe of the Yomba Reservation, Nevada.

• Multiple lines of evidence, including treaties, Acts of Congress, and Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California; Duckwater Shoshone Tribe of the Duckwater Reservation, Nevada; Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; and Yomba Shoshone Tribe of the Yomba Reservation, Nevada.

• Other credible lines of evidence, including consultation with Tribal representatives, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian Tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian Tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact Dr. Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370-6378, before March 21, 2011. Disposition of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Denver Museum of Nature & Science is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO. The human remains were removed from Brewster County, TX.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Denver Museum of Nature & Science professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Comanche Nation of Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

In 1940, George McFadden removed human remains representing a minimum of two individuals from a burial context at an unknown cave site in the Big Bend Rio Grande Area, Brewster County, TX. At an unknown date, Carl Fisher purchased the remains from the son-in-law of George McFadden. In 1983, the remains were donated to the Denver Museum and accessioned into the collections (A1463.87, A1463.101A-C, and A1463.113 (CUI 57); and A1463.111A-C and A1463.113 (CUI 58)). The remains consist of various pieces of human hair. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

• Based on non-destructive physical analysis and catalogue records, the human remains are determined to be Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.

• Multiple lines of evidence, including treaties, Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, consultation, and other credible lines of evidence indicate that the Native American human remains were removed from the aboriginal land of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas.

Representatives of any Indian Tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian Tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact Dr. Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370-6378, before March 21, 2011. Disposition of the human remains to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas, may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Denver Museum of Nature & Science is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO. The human remains were removed from an unknown location in the Great Plains.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Denver Museum of Nature & Science professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California; Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Duckwater Shoshone Tribe of the Duckwater Reservation, Nevada; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina; Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Louisiana; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Mississippi; Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Osage Nation, Oklahoma; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations); Seneca Nation of New York; Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (Four constituent bands: Battle Mountain Band; Elko Band; South Fork Band and Wells Band); Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; Wyandotte Nation, Oklahoma; Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

In 1959, Francis and Mary Crane purchased human remains representing a minimum of one individual from Kohlberg's Antiques and Indian Arts, in Denver, CO. In 1972, the human remains were donated by Mr. and Mrs. Crane and accessioned into the collections (AC.4224 (CUI 21)). The remains include a scalp lock with black hair, approximately 16 inches long, and one quarter of an inch wide. The upper end of the scalp lock is covered with sinew, yellow dyed deerskin, and tufts of red feather. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1956, Francis and Mary Crane purchased human remains representing a minimum of one individual from Kohlberg's Antiques and Indian Arts. The remains were reportedly a part of the George A. Cuneo Collection of Southwestern and Plains Indian objects collected in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1983, the human remains were donated by Mr. and Mrs. Crane and accessioned into the collections (AC.35D (CUI 23)). The remains include seven inches of black and grey hair and scalp with traces of red pigment and a row of perforations along one edge of it. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Officials of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science have determined that:

• Based on non-destructive physical analysis and catalogue records, the human remains are Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California; Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana; Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California; Duckwater Shoshone Tribe of the Duckwater Reservation, Nevada; Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Osage Nation, Oklahoma; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

• Multiple lines of evidence, including treaties, Acts of Congress, and Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California; Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Duckwater Shoshone Tribe of the Duckwater Reservation, Nevada; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina; Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Louisiana; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kaw Nation, Oklahoma; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Mississippi; Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Osage Nation, Oklahoma; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations); Seneca Nation of New York; Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Shawnee Tribe, Oklahoma; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; Wyandotte Nation, Oklahoma; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

• Other credible lines of evidence, including consultation with Tribal representatives, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana; Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Fond du Lac Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Mille Lacs Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Osage Nation, Oklahoma; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian Tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian Tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact Dr. Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370-6378 by March 21, 2011. Disposition of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Denver Museum of Nature & Science is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO. The human remains were removed from an unknown location in Colorado.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Denver Museum of Nature & Science professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California; Duckwater Shoshone Tribe of the Duckwater Reservation, Nevada; Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes); Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (Four constituent bands: Battle Mountain Band; Elko Band; South Fork Band and Wells Band); Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; Yomba Shoshone Tribe of the Yomba Reservation, Nevada; Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

At an unknown date, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from a burial context at an unknown location in Colorado. In 1975, the human remains were accessioned into the collections (A1986.1 (CUI 14)). The remains include fragmentary cranial remains of one adult of indeterminate sex. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

• Based on non-destructive physical analysis and catalogue records, the human remains are determined to be Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), that a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.

• According to final judgment of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California; Duckwater Shoshone Tribe of the Duckwater Reservation, Nevada; Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; and Yomba Shoshone Tribe of the Yomba Reservation, Nevada.

• Multiple lines of evidence, including treaties, Acts of Congress, and Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California; Duckwater Shoshone Tribe of the Duckwater Reservation, Nevada; Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California; Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; and Yomba Shoshone Tribe of the Yomba Reservation, Nevada.

• Other credible lines of evidence, including consultation with Tribal representatives, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation of Idaho; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1),t the disposition of the human remains is to The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian Tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian Tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact Dr. Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370-6378, before March 21, 2011. Disposition of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Denver Museum of Nature & Science is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Adams, Crowley, Huerfano, Jefferson, Kiowa, Las Animas and Weld Counties, CO.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects from eastern Colorado was made by the Denver Museum of Nature & Science professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico, & Utah; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

In 1925, human remains representing a minimum of seven individuals were removed from a burial context on Comanche Creek, 15 miles east of Strasburg, in Adams County, CO, by Robert Landburg. In 1935, Mr. Landburg donated the human remains and they were accessioned into the collections (A1984.1 (CUI 1), A1984.2 (CUI 2), A1984.3 (CUI 3), A1984.4 (CUI 4), A1984.5, (CUI 5), A1984.6 (CUI 6), and A1984.7 (CUI 7)). Catalogue records suggested a possible cultural affiliation of Cheyenne or Arapaho. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are two non-human bones (DMNS catalogue numbers A1984.6 and A1984.7).

In 1941, human remains representing a minimum of two individuals were donated and accessioned into the collections (A90.1 (CUI 10) and A90.3 (CUI 8)). Catalogue records indicate that the remains were donated by a person with the name Haynes and may have been removed from a burial context near Ft. Lupton, in Weld County, CO. In addition, catalogue records suggested a possible cultural affiliation of Cheyenne or Arapaho. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1972, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were donated to the museum by Kelley Jackson and accessioned into the collections (A148.1 (CUI 11)). The remains were reportedly found by Mr. Jackson's grandchildren and friends in a dry creek bed near Eads, in Kiowa County, CO. Catalogue records suggested a possible cultural affiliation of Plains Indians. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Between 1970 and 1974, human remains representing a minimum of two individuals were removed from a burial context in an arroyo near Kim, in Las Animas County, CO, by Corwin Brown. In 1975, the human remains were donated to the museum and accessioned into the collections (A1982.1 (CUI 12) and A1982.3 (CUI 13)). Remains include two adults (one female) with associated bone beads. Catalogue records suggested a possible cultural affiliation of Ute, Jicarilla Apache, Cheyenne or Arapaho. No known individuals were identified. The 73 associated funerary objects are tubular rabbit bone beads (DMNS catalogue number A1982.2).

In 1984, the remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from a burial context that was exposed by erosion at the Gregory-Allen Site, Crowley County, CO. The excavation was performed by the Denver Museum of Nature & Science Department of Anthropology and the remains were accessioned into the collections (A1983.1 (CUI 16)). Remains include one adult female in a flexed position and buried face down. Catalogue records suggest that nearby artifacts (not associated with the burial or donated to the museum) indicate occupation by peoples of the Cody Complex, which dates to about 9,000 years before present. Catalogue records also indicated a possible cultural affiliation of Cheyenne, Ute or Arapaho. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1943, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were donated to the museum by A.H. Chatin and accessioned into the collections (A1996.1 (CUI 17)). The remains were reportedly removed from a burial context near Walsenburg, in Huerfano County, CO. The remains were removed from one of several rectangular stone structures on a hillside, sitting knees drawn up, facing northeast and with a slab metate standing at one side (metate not included with donation of remains). The remains were sent to Dr. Clyde Kluckhohn, Harvard University, “for examination and comparison with known series,” which was published in Southwestern Lore in September 1943. Catalogue records suggested a possible cultural affiliation of Jicarilla Apache or Ute. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1975, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from a burial context during quarrying operations in Golden Gate Canyon, in Jefferson County, CO. In 1988, the remains were donated to the museum by the University of Colorado-Denver and accessioned into the collections (A1608.1 (CUI 18)). The remains were studied by Paul R. Nickens while in the possession of the University of Colorado-Denver and published in the Plains Anthropologist in 1977. The publication suggests that the remains date to the Woodland Period (A.D. 700-1000). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

• Based on non-destructive physical analysis and catalogue records, the human remains are determined to be Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.

• According to final judgment of the Indian Claims Commission, the lands from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana.

• Multiple lines of evidence, including treaties, Acts of Congress, and Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana.

• Other credible lines of evidence, including consultation with Tribal representatives, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of 15 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 75 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects is to The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian Tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary objects or any other Indian Tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact Dr. Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370-6378, before March 21, 2011. Disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Denver Museum of Nature & Science is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO. The human remains were removed from an unknown location in South Dakota.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Denver Museum of Nature & Science professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

At an unknown date, human remains representing a minimum of two individuals were removed from a burial context at an unknown location in South Dakota. In 1972, the remains were found in the collections in a box marked “South Dakota” and were accessioned into the collections (A1992.1 (CUI 19) and A1992.2 (CUI 20)). No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

• Based on non-destructive physical analysis and catalogue records, the human remains are determined to be Native American.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.

• According to the final judgment of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

• Multiple lines of evidence, including treaties, Acts of Congress, and Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

• Finally, other credible lines of evidence, including consultation with Tribal representatives, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Crow Tribe of Montana; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains is to The Tribes.

Representatives of any Indian Tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains or any other Indian Tribe that believes it satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1) should contact Dr. Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO 80205, telephone (303) 370-6378, before March 21, 2011. Disposition of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed after that date if no additional requestors come forward.

The Denver Museum of Nature & Science is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [ see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSM has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information contained in a series of technical evaluation customer surveys. OSM is requesting a 3-year term of approval for the information collection activity.

An agency 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. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029-0114.

As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a Federal Register notice soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68376). No comments were received. This notice provides the public with an additional 30 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:

Title: Technical Evaluation Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0114.

Summary: The series of surveys are needed to ensure that technical assistance activities, technology transfer activities and technical forums are useful for those who participate or receive the assistance. Specifically, representatives from State and Tribal regulatory and reclamation authorities are the primary respondents, although representatives of industry, environmental or citizen groups, or the public, may be recipients of the assistance or may participate in these forums. These surveys will be the primary means through which OSM evaluates its performance in meeting the performance goals outlined in its annual plans developed pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Frequency of Collection: Once.

Description of Respondents: Individuals who request information or assistance, although generally States and Tribal employees.

Total Annual Responses: 500.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 42.

Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burdens on respondents, such as use of automated means of collections of the information, to the addresses listed under ADDRESSES . Please refer to the appropriate OMB control number in all correspondence.

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 us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Background. —In October 2007, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order covering certain welded large diameter line pipe from Mexico would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. On April 21, 2008, six months after completion of the Commission's review, the Mexican producer Tuberias Procarsa, S.A. de C.V. (“Procarsa”) attempted to file with the Commission a revised foreign producers' questionnaire response which sought to revise certain aspects of its originally reported capacity, production, and shipment data. On April 24, 2008, the Commission rejected the submission on the grounds that it was untimely filed.

On November 21, 2007, the domestic producer United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) filed a request for review of the Commission's determination by a binational panel under Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The parties completed briefing in the proceeding in 2008 and 2009. The Panel held a hearing in the proceeding on July 22, 2010.

On January 18, 2011, the Panel issued an opinion in the matter. In its opinion, the Panel affirmed the Commission's reliance on the existence of differing conditions of competition for Mexico and Japan when deciding not to exercise its discretion to cumulate the subject imports from those countries. The Panel also held that U.S. Steel was barred from raising in this proceeding “arguments regarding the asserted discrepancy between the questionnaire responses and the staff's finding that the Mexican producers reported theoretical capacity,” finding that U.S. Steel failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before the Commission. Panel Opinion at 25.

Nonetheless, the Panel remanded the Commission's determination so that the Commission could take into account Procarsa's revised foreign producers' questionnaire response and re-consider its cumulation and likely injury analysis for Mexico in light of the revised response. Specifically, the Panel indicated that the Commission should consider the revised data in light of its potential impact on the Commission's analysis of the Mexican industry's home market orientation, its capacity trends, and the presence of Mexican imports in the U.S. market. The Panel noted that the revised data did not affect the Commission's finding concerning Procarsa's product range during the period.

Participation in the proceeding. —Only those persons who were interested parties that participated in the review ( i.e., persons listed on the Commission Secretary's service list) and also parties to the NAFTA panel proceeding may participate in the remand proceeding. Such persons need not make any additional filings with the Commission to participate in the remand proceeding, unless they are adding new individuals to the list of persons entitled to receive business proprietary information under administrative protective order. Business proprietary information (“BPI”) referred to during the remand proceeding will be governed, as appropriate, by the administrative protective order issued in the review.

Written Submissions. —The Commission is reopening the record in this proceeding for the sole purpose of accepting Procarsa's revised foreign producers' questionnaire response into the record. It will not otherwise accept the submission of new factual information for the record. The Commission will permit the parties to file comments concerning the new factual information submitted on the record during the remand proceeding. Those comments should be limited solely to the issue of whether and how the data contained in Procarsa's revised foreign producer's questionnaire will affect the Commission's cumulation and likely injury findings for Mexico, including its findings relating to the Mexican industry's home market orientation, its capacity trends, and the presence of Mexican imports in the U.S. market. The parties may not use this opportunity to comment on any other issue, including any “asserted discrepancy between the questionnaire responses and the staff's finding that the Mexican producers reported theoretical capacity.” Panel Opinion at 25.

The comments must be based solely on the information in the Commission's record. The Commission will reject submissions containing additional factual information or arguments pertaining to issues other than those on which the Panel has remanded this matter. The deadline for filing comments is March 8, 2011. Comments shall be limited to no more than twenty (20) double-spaced and single-sided pages of textual material.

All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002).

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to this proceeding must be served on all other such parties, and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.

The applications received are as follows:

1. Applicant; Permit Application No. 2011-023. Joseph Levy, Department of Geology, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751.

Take and Import into the USA. The applicant plans to enter the Garwood Valley to collect algal mats from sediment outcrops where exposed, and from the surface of ponds. The applicant also plans to collect mummified Crabeater seal skin samples in Garwood Valley. Skin samples will be less than 20g each. The goal of the project is to define the rate of geomorphic change in Garwood Valley in response to changing climate conditions. The geomorphic record will be reconstructed over the past 1- = 2-kyr to infer past climate-driven landscape alteration at the end of the LGM and examine the current episode of landscape changes, including assessing the thermal equilibrium of buried massive ice. The past and current geomorphic changes will be used as a guide for predicting landscape response in the Dry Valleys should the >130 km 2 of ice-cored terrain in the valleys also begin to melt. Paired measurements of 14  C (from algal mats) and U/Th age (from carbon layers bracketing the algal mats), as well as 14  C ages with OSL ages (for near-surface mats), these seal 14  C dates will provide a correction factor for dealing with carbon input of certain provenance. The presence of multiple mats/carbonate beds/seals in Garwood Valley sediments will permit characterization of “old” carbon input over time into the sedimentary system.

Garwood Valley, Dry Valleys.

January 1, 2011 to February 1, 2014.

TSTF-423, Revision 1, is applicable to all BWR plants. Licensees opting to apply for this TS change are responsible for reviewing the NRC staff's model SE, referencing the applicable technical justifications, and providing any necessary plant-specific information. The NRC will process each amendment application responding to this NOA according to applicable NRC rules and procedures.

The proposed models do not prevent licensees from requesting an alternate approach or proposing changes other than those proposed in TSTF-423, Revision 1. However, significant deviations from the approach recommended in this notice or the inclusion of additional changes to the license require additional NRC staff review. This may increase the time and resources needed for the review or result in NRC staff rejection of the license amendment request (LAR). Licensees desiring significant deviations or additional changes should instead submit an LAR that does not claim to adopt TSTF-423, Revision 1.

On February 9, 2011, at 76 FR 7235, NRC published a document announcing the availability of a proposed Revision 1 to Standard Review Plan for public comment. In that publication, on page 7235 second Colum, under the section titled SUMMARY first paragraph, replace the last two sentences with “Since then, the NRC staff has made substantial changes to that guidance and it is being re-noticed for comments. A redline document comparing the two versions can be found under ADAMS Accession No. ML110100212.”