[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29577-29582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12658]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Rate Adjustments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) owns, or has an interest
in, irrigation projects located on or associated with various Indian
reservations throughout the United States. We are required to establish
irrigation assessment rates to recover the costs to administer,
operate, maintain, and rehabilitate these projects. We are notifying
you that we have adjusted the irrigation assessment rates at several of
our irrigation projects and facilities to reflect current costs of
administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation.
DATES: Effective Date: The irrigation assessment rates shown in the
tables as final are effective as of January 1, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For details about a particular BIA
irrigation project or facility, please use the tables in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section to contact the regional or local
office where the project or facility is located.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Effect of this Notice
II. Responses to Comments on Proposed Rate Adjustments
III. Further Information on This Notice
IV. Administrative Requirements
I. Effect of This Notice
Does this notice affect me?
This notice affects you if you own or lease land within the
assessable acreage
[[Page 29578]]
of one of our irrigation projects, or if you have a carriage agreement
with one of our irrigation projects.
What irrigation assessments or charges are adjusted by this notice for
the 2010 season?
The rate table below contains the current, final rates for the 2010
season for all irrigation projects where we recover costs of
administering, operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating them. An
asterisk following the name of the project notes the irrigation
projects where the 2010 rates are different from the 2009 rates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Rate category Final 2009 rate Final 2010 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead Irrigation Project *............... Basic per acre--A............. $23.45 $23.45
Basic per acre--B............. 10.75 11.75
Minimum Charge per tract...... 65.00 65.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project................ Basic per acre................ 40.50 40.50
Minimum Charge per tract...... 30.00 30.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project--Minor Units... Basic per acre................ 21.00 21.00
Minimum Charge per tract...... 30.00 30.00
Fort Hall Irrigation Project--Michaud....... Basic per acre................ 41.50 41.50
Pressure per acre............. 58.00 58.00
Minimum Charge per tract...... 30.00 30.00
Wapato Irrigation Project--Toppenish/Simcoe Minimum Charge for per tract.. 15.00 15.00
Units.
Basic per acre................ 15.00 15.00
Wapato Irrigation Project--Ahtanum Units.... Minimum Charge per tract...... 15.00 15.00
Basic per acre................ 15.00 15.00
Wapato Irrigation Project--Satus Unit *..... Minimum Charge per tract...... 58.00 60.00
``A'' Basic per acre.......... 58.00 60.00
``B'' Basic per acre.......... 68.00 70.00
Wapato Irrigation Project--Additional Works Minimum Charge per tract...... 63.00 65.00
*.
Basic per acre................ 63.00 65.00
Wapato Irrigation Project--Water Rental *... Minimum Charge................ 70.00 72.00
Basic per acre................ 70.00 72.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Irrigation Project *.............. Basic-per acre................ 18.00 19.00
Crow Irrigation Project--Willow Creek O&M Basic-per acre................ 20.80 22.80
(includes Agency, Lodge Grass 1,
Lodge Grass 2, Reno, Upper Little
Horn, and Forty Mile Units) *.
Crow Irrigation Project--All Others Basic-per acre................ 20.50 22.50
(includes Bighorn, Soap Creek, and Pryor
Units) *.
Crow Irrigation Two Leggins Drainage Basic-per acre................ 2.00 2.00
District.
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project............. Basic-per acre................ 14.75 14.75
Fort Peck Irrigation Project *.............. Basic-per acre................ 24.00 24.70
Wind River Irrigation Project *............. Basic-per acre................ 18.00 20.00
Wind River Irrigation Project--LeClair Basic-per acre................ 19.00 27.00
District *.
Wind River Irrigation Project--CrowHeart Basic-per acre................ 18.00 14.00
Unit *.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine River Irrigation Project............... Minimum Charge per tract...... 50.00 50.00
Basic-per acre................ 15.00 15.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Irrigation Project *......... Basic per acre up to 5.75 acre- 51.00 52.50
feet.
Excess Water per acre-foot 17.00 17.00
over 5.75 acre-feet.
Duck Valley Irrigation Project.............. Basic per acre................ 5.30 5.30
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project (See Note Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre- 77.00 86.00
1) *. feet.
Excess Water per acre-foot 14.00 14.00
over 5.0 acre-feet.
Basic per acre up to 5.0 acre- 77.00 86.00
feet (Ranch 5).
San Carlos Irrigation Project (Joint Works) Basic per acre................ 21.00 21.00
(See Note 2).
San Carlos Irrigation Project (Indian Works) Basic per acre................ 57.00 57.00
Uintah Irrigation Project................... Basic per acre................ 15.00 15.00
Minimum Bill.................. 25.00 25.00
Walker River Irrigation Project *........... Basic per acre, Indian........ 16.00 19.00
Basic per acre, non-Indian.... 16.00 19.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Notes irrigation projects where rates have been adjusted.
Note 1--The O&M rate for the Fort Yuma Irrigation Project has two components. The first component is
the O&M rate established by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the owner and operator of the Project. The BOR
rate for 2010 is $79.00/acre. The second component is for the O&M rate established by BIA to cover
administrative costs including billing and collections for the Project. The 2010 BIA rate remains unchanged at
$7.00/acre. The rates shown include the 2010 Reclamation rate and the 2010 BIA rate.
Note 2--The 2010 rate was established by final notice published in the Federal Register on April 22,
2009 (Vol. 74, No. 76, page 18398).
[[Page 29579]]
When will BIA publish irrigation assessments or charges for the 2011
season?
We published some proposed rates for the 2011 season in the Federal
Register on October 23, 2009 (74 FR 54848), and we will publish other
proposed 2011 rates in the near future. We will publish the 2011 season
final rates in the Federal Register after considering any comments that
we receive on our proposals. (We have already published final rates for
the 2011 season for the San Carlos Irrigation Project (74 FR 40227).)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final
Project name Rate category Final 2009 rate Final 2010 rate 2011
rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Carlos Irrigation Project (Joint Basic per acre............ $21.00 $21.00 $25.0
Works) (See Note 3). 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 3-The 2011 rate was established by final notice published in the Federal Register on August 11,
2009 (Vol. 74, No. 153, page 40227).
Has a Notice of Proposed Rate Adjustment been published?
Yes. A Notice of Proposed Rate Adjustment was published in the
Federal Register on October 23, 2009 (74 FR 54846) to propose
adjustments to the irrigation assessment rates at several BIA
irrigation projects. The public and interested parties were provided an
opportunity to submit written comments during the 60-day period that
ended December 22, 2009.
Did the BIA defer or change any proposed rate increases?
No.
II. Responses to Comments on Proposed Rate Adjustments
Did the BIA receive any comments on the proposed irrigation assessment
rate adjustments?
BIA received written comments related to the proposed rate
adjustments for the Crow Irrigation Project and the Wapato Irrigation
Project.
What issues were of concern to the commenters?
Commenters raised concerns specific to the Crow Irrigation Project
about the following issues: (1) Opposition to the $2.00 rate increase
for 2010; (2) opposition to the amount of the operation and maintenance
(O&M) budget spent on administration and salaries versus maintenance
projects; (3) lack of supervision and direction during the irrigation
season; (4) opposition to the hiring of additional project employees;
(5) efficiencies of contracting with private entities to perform O&M;
and (6) impact of rate increases on the local agricultural economy and
individual land owners.
Commenters raised concerns specific to the Wapato Irrigation
Project on the proposed rates about one or more of the following
issues: (1) Objection that the underlying O&M charges are inconsistent
with the Yakama Nation's litigation position in the pending appeals ;
and (2) assertion concerning BIA's responsibility to manage land that
is designated for irrigation water delivery.
The following comments are specific to the Crow Irrigation Project: How
does the BIA respond to the opposition to the $2.00 rate increase for
2010?
The proposed 2010 O&M budget for the Crow Irrigation Project budget
was prepared in accordance with BIA financial guidelines. The BIA
considers the following when determining an irrigation project's
budget: project personnel costs; materials and supplies; vehicle and
equipment repairs; equipment; capitalization expenses; acquisition
expenses; rehabilitation costs; maintenance of a reserve fund for
contingencies or emergencies; and other expenses that are determined to
be necessary to operate and maintain an irrigation project. The
proposed 2010 O&M budget for the Crow Irrigation Project contains
increased amounts in staffing, contracts, and materials in an effort to
address increasing project rehabilitation needs. These increased budget
amounts support the rate increase of $2.00.
How does the BIA respond to the opposition to the amount of O&M budget
spent on administration and salaries versus maintenance projects?
The proposed 2010 O&M budget for the Crow Irrigation Project is an
increase of approximately three percent (3%) over the 2009 O&M budget.
Administrative salaries have been held steady from 2009 to 2010 at
approximately 28% to 29% of the entire budget. In 2009 the amount
budgeted for maintenance contracts and materials was 16% of the budget
total and in 2010 that amount was increased to 32% of the budget total.
The BIA is committed to working with local stakeholders in the
development of other cost-saving options. Examples of cost-saving
options include stakeholder contracts or agreements for selected O&M
functions within the project boundaries.
How does the BIA respond to the lack of supervision and direction
during the irrigation season?
At the end of the 2008 irrigation season, the Crow Irrigation
Supervisory Project Engineer vacated to take a new position. In early
March 2009, the BIA advertised for new Crow Irrigation Supervisory
Project Engineer. Later that month, the BIA entered into negotiations
with the Crow Tribe in response to its request to contract all of the
O&M functions of the Crow Irrigation Project for the 2009 season. These
contract negotiations resulted in cancellation of the Project Engineer
vacancy announcement. The Crow Tribe subsequently canceled its request
for contracting options, and the supervisory position went unfilled in
the 2009 irrigation season. Currently, BIA is pursuing a stakeholder
cooperative agreement for O&M activities for the 2010 season. The
extent of O&M cooperative agreements will help BIA determine the type
of supervision required at the Crow Irrigation Project for 2010.
How does the BIA respond to opposition to the hiring of additional
project employees?
In July 2008, the BIA conducted a program review of the Crow
Irrigation Project and found, ``the number of equipment operators and
irrigation system operators is insufficient. This reduces the amount of
control the project has over water deliveries. Most if not all repair
work is reactionary versus planned.'' (2008 Program Review, Crow
Irrigation Project, page 8). In the follow-up Corrective Action Plan,
the Project and Regional staff agreed to increase staff to fill vacant
positions and/or pursue stakeholder agreements to increase the level of
maintenance activities. The final decision on hiring additional field
staff for 2010 is dependent on the development of
[[Page 29580]]
stakeholder agreements. Likewise, the timing of a new Project Engineer
is also dependent on the development of stakeholder agreements.
How does the BIA respond to the efficiencies of contracting with
private entities to perform O&M?
The BIA agrees with the potential for efficiency increases through
contracting options. The BIA continues to encourage stakeholder
cooperative agreements for selected O&M activities for the 2010 season.
How does the BIA respond to how rate increases impact the local
agricultural economy and individual land owners?
The BIA's projects are important economic contributors to the local
communities they serve. These projects contribute millions of dollars
in crop value annually. Historically, the BIA tempered irrigation rate
increases to demonstrate sensitivity to the economic impact on water
users. This past practice resulted in a rate deficiency at some
irrigation projects. The BIA does not have discretionary funds to
subsidize irrigation projects. Funding to operate and maintain these
projects needs to come from revenues from the water users served by
those projects.
The BIA's irrigation program has been the subject of several Office
of Inspector General (OIG) and U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) audits. In the most recent OIG audit, No. 96-I-641, March 1996,
the OIG concluded:
Operation and maintenance revenues were insufficient to maintain
the projects, and some projects had deteriorated to the extent that
their continued capability to deliver water was in doubt. This
occurred because operation and maintenance rates were not based on
the full cost of delivering irrigation water, including the costs of
systematically rehabilitating and replacing project facilities and
equipment, and because project personnel did not seek regular rate
increases to cover the full cost of project operation.
.A previous OIG audit performed on one of the BIA's largest irrigation
projects, the Wapato Indian Irrigation Project, No. 95-I-1402,
September 1995, reached the same conclusion.
To address the issues noted in these audits, the BIA must
systematically review and evaluate irrigation assessment rates and
adjust them, when necessary, to reflect the full costs to operate and
perform all appropriate maintenance on the irrigation project or
facility infrastructure to ensure safe and reliable operation. If this
review and adjustment is not accomplished, a rate deficiency can
accumulate over time. Rate deficiencies force the BIA to raise
irrigation assessment rates in larger increments over shorter periods
of time than would have been otherwise necessary.
The following comments are specific to the Wapato Irrigation Project:
How does BIA respond to concerns that the operation and maintenance
charges reflected in the 2010 rates conflict with the Yakama Nation's
position in pending appeals of these charges?
The Yakama Nation, which is served by the Wapato Irrigation
Project, has an administrative appeal regarding the BIA charging the
irrigation operation and maintenance on trust lands. Because this is a
legal issue currently being appealed and does not specifically target
the rate change, it will not be discussed in this notice.
How does the BIA respond to comments regarding the BIA's trust
responsibility to enhance idle tracts to make them productive?
As stated in the answer to the preceding question, the BIA has no
trust obligation to operate and maintain irrigation projects. See,
e.g., Grey v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 285 (1990), aff'd, 935 F.2d 281
(Fed. Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1057 (1992). This means the
BIA has no obligation to enhance idle tracks of land. However,
recognizing the potential benefits to projects from such enhancements,
the updated Irrigation O&M regulations (25 CFR part 171.610) provide
for an incentive to potential lessees who want to lease project land
that is not being farmed (idle land). The lessee is eligible to enter
into an incentive agreement with BIA. Under such an incentive
agreement, BIA is able to waive operation and maintenance (O&M) fees
for up to three years while improvements are made to bring lands that
are currently idle back into production. This feature provides benefits
to landowners, who can more readily lease their lands; to lessees, who
experience reduced costs associated with bringing lands back into
production through reduced or waived O&M assessments; and to the
projects, which realize a more stable and productive land base.
III. Further Information on this Notice
Where can I get information on the regulatory and legal citations in
this notice?
You can contact the appropriate office(s) stated in the tables for
the irrigation project that serves you, or you can use the Internet
site for the Government Printing Office at http://www.gpo.gov.
What authorizes you to issue this notice?
Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of
the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and the Act of August 14, 1914 (38 Stat.
583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The Secretary has in turn delegated this authority
to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs under Part 209, Chapter
8.1A, of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual.
Who can I contact for further information?
The following tables are the regional and project/agency contacts
for our irrigation facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Name Project/Agency Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Speaks, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest
Regional Office, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4169,
Telephone: (503) 231-6702.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead Irrigation Project....... Chuck Courville, Superintendent,
Flathead Agency Irrigation
Division, P.O. Box 40, Pablo, MT
59855-0040, Telephone: (406) 675-
2700.
Fort Hall Irrigation Project...... Eric J. LaPointe, Superintendent,
Dean Fox, Deputy Superintendent,
Daniel Harelson, Irrigation Project
Engineer, Fort Hall Agency, P.O.
Box 220, Fort Hall, ID 83203-0220,
Telephone: (208) 238-1992.
Wapato Irrigation Project......... Pierce Harrison, Project
Administrator, Wapato Irrigation
Project, P.O. Box 220, Wapato, WA
98951-0220, Telephone: (509) 877-
3155.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29581]]
Rocky Mountain Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Parisian, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky Mountain
Regional Office, 316 North 26th Street, Billings, Montana 59101,
Telephone: (406) 247-7943.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Irrigation Project...... Stephen Pollock, Superintendent, Ted
Hall, Irrigation Project Manager,
Box 880, Browning, MT 59417,
Telephones: (406) 338-7544,
Superintendent, (406) 338-7519,
Irrigation Project Manager.
Crow Irrigation Project........... Judy Gray, Superintendent, Vacant,
Irrigation Project Manager, P.O.
Box 69, Crow Agency, MT 59022,
Telephones: (406) 638-2672,
Superintendent, (406) 638-2863,
Irrigation Project Manager.
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project... Jim Montes, Acting Superintendent,
Vacant, Irrigation Project Manager,
(Project operations & management
contracted by the Tribes), R.R.1,
Box 980, Harlem, MT 59526,
Telephones: (406) 353-2901,
Superintendent, (406) 353-2905,
Irrigation Project Manager.
Fort Peck Irrigation Project...... Florence White Eagle,
Superintendent, P.O. Box 637,
Poplar, MT 59255, Vacant,
Irrigation Manager, 602 6th Avenue
North, Wolf Point, MT 59201,
Telephones: (406) 768-5312,
Superintendent, (406) 653-1752,
Irrigation Manager.
Wind River Irrigation Project..... Ed Lone Fight, Superintendent,
Sheridan Nicholas, Irrigation
Project Engineer, P.O. Box 158,
Fort Washakie, WY 82514,
Telephones: (307) 332-7810,
Superintendent, (307) 332-2596,
Irrigation Project Manager.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
William T. Walker, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Southwest Regional Office, 1001 Indian School Road, Albuquerque, New
Mexico 87104, Telephone: (505) 563-3100.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine River Irrigation Project..... John Waconda, Superintendent,
Vacant, Irrigation Engineer, P.O.
Box 315, Ignacio, CO 81137-0315,
Telephones: (970) 563-4511,
Superintendent, (970) 563-9484,
Irrigation Engineer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacant, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional
Office, 2600 N, Central Avenue, 4th Floor Mailroom, Phoenix, Arizona
85004, Telephone: (602) 379-6600.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Irrigation Project. Janice Staudte, Superintendent, Ted
Henry, Irrigation Project Manager,
12124 1st Avenue, Parker, AZ 85344,
Telephone: (928) 669-7111.
Duck Valley Irrigation Project.... Joseph McDade, Superintendent, 1555
Shoshone Circle, Elko, NV 89801,
Telephone: (775) 738-5165.
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project...... Marlene Walker, Acting
Superintendent, P.O. Box 11000,
Yuma, AZ 85366, Telephone: (520)
782-1202.
San Carlos Irrigation Project Bryan Bowker, Project Manager,
Joint Works. Clarence Begay, Irrigation Manager,
P.O. Box 250, Coolidge, AZ 85228,
Telephone: (520) 723-6215.
San Carlos Irrigation Project Cecilia Martinez, Superintendent,
Indian Works. Joe Revak, Supervisory General
Engineer, Pima Agency, Land
Operations, P.O. Box 8, Sacaton, AZ
85247, Telephone: (520) 562-3326,
Telephone: (520) 562-3372.
Uintah Irrigation Project......... Daniel Picard, Superintendent, Dale
Thomas, Irrigation Manager, P.O.
Box 130, Fort Duchesne, UT 84026,
Telephone: (435) 722-4300,
Telephone: (435) 722-4341.
Walker River Irrigation Project... Athena Brown, Superintendent, 311 E.
Washington Street, Carson City, NV
89701, Telephone: (775) 887-3500.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Administrative Requirements
Consultation and Coordination With Tribal Governments (Executive Order
13175)
To fulfill its consultation responsibility to tribes and tribal
organizations, BIA communicates, coordinates, and consults on a
continuing basis with these entities on issues related to water
delivery, water availability, and costs of administration, operation,
maintenance, and rehabilitation of projects that concern them. This is
accomplished at the individual irrigation project by project, agency,
and regional representatives, as appropriate, in accordance with local
protocol and procedures. This notice is one component of our overall
coordination and consultation process to provide notice to these
entities when we adjust irrigation assessment rates.
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211)
The rate adjustments will have no adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases,
and increase use of foreign supplies) as this rate adjustment is
implemented. This is a notice for rate adjustments at BIA-owned and
operated irrigation projects, except for the Fort Yuma Irrigation
Project. The Fort Yuma Irrigation Project is owned and operated by the
Bureau of Reclamation with a portion serving the Fort Yuma Reservation.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)
These rate adjustments are not a significant regulatory action and
do not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
These rate adjustments are not a rule for the purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act because they establish ``a rule of
particular applicability relating to rates.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
These rate adjustments do not impose an unfunded mandate on State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private
sector, of more than $130 million per year. The rule does not have a
significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector. Therefore, the Department of the Interior
(Department) is not required to prepare a statement containing the
information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.).
[[Page 29582]]
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not
have significant ``takings'' implications. The rate adjustments do not
deprive the public, state, or local governments of rights or property.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not
have significant Federalism effects because they will not affect the
States, the relationship between the national government and the
States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among various
levels of government.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
In issuing this rule, the Department has taken the necessary steps
to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as
required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These rate adjustments do not affect the collections of information
which have been approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995. The OMB Control Number is 1076-0141 and expires December
31, 2012.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370(d)).
Information Quality Act
In developing this notice, we did not conduct or use a study,
experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).
Dated: May 17, 2010.
Larry Echo Hawk,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2010-12658 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P