Federal Register Vol. 81, No.17,

Title: Community Eligibility Provision Characteristics Study (CEP).

Form Number: N/A.

OMB Number: Not yet assigned.

Expiration Date: Not yet determined.

Type of Request: New collection.

Abstract: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a clearance that will allow FNS to conduct the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) Characteristics Study. The objective of the study is to examine operational issues and perceived incentives and barriers for adopting CEP as well as the impacts on NSLP and SBP participation and per meal revenues.

Section 104(a) of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296) amended section 11(a)(1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(1) (the law) to provide an alternative to household applications for free and reduced-price meals in high poverty local education agencies (LEAs) and schools. This alternative is referred to as the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP).

To be eligible, LEAs and/or schools must meet a minimum level (40%) of identified students for free meals in the year prior to implementing the provision; agree to serve free lunches and breakfasts to all students; not collect free and reduced-price applications from households in participating schools, and agree to cover with non-Federal funds any costs of providing free meals to all students above amounts provided in Federal reimbursement.

Reimbursement is based on claiming percentages derived from the identified student percentage (ISP). The Identified Students are students certified for free meals through means other than individual household applications. The claiming percentages established for a school in the first year may be used for a period of up to four school years and may be increased if direct certification percentages rise in that school.

In accordance with the law, CEP was phased in over a period of several years. The provision was available to eligible LEAs and schools in three States (Illinois, Kentucky, and Michigan) selected by Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) for the school year (SY) 2011-12. An additional four States (the District of Columbia, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia) were added for SY 2012-13. FNS selected four more States (Florida, Georgia, Maryland, and Massachusetts) for SY 2013-14. CEP became available nationwide to all eligible LEAs and schools beginning July 1, 2014. As a result, in SY 2014-2015, approximately 14,000 schools in more than 2,000 LEAs serving more than 6.4 million children elected to participate in CEP.

A report was submitted to Congress that presented the results of an evaluation that examined the number of schools and LEAs that were eligible to receive special assistance payments under CEP, and described various attributes of those eligible schools and LEAs that elected or did not elect this provision. The evaluation also examined the impact of electing to receive special assistance payments under CEP on program participation, revenues, availability and type of school breakfast, LEA administrative costs, program integrity, and meal quality. The final report can be found on the FNS Web site (http://www.fns.usda.gov/community-eligibility-provision-evaluation). The Addendum describes the characteristics of LEAs and schools that participated in CEP in School Year 2013-14. It also describes how these characteristics differ for those high-poverty LEAs and schools that did not take up CEP.

With the expansion of CEP nationwide, the CEP Characteristics Study will include surveys of nationally representative samples of participating and eligible non-participating LEAs to obtain updated information on the characteristics of participating and non-participating districts and schools. The study will update information obtained in the Implementation Study component of the Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation. It will also examine CEP impacts on student participation and per meal revenue.

Affected Public: Respondent categories of affected public and the corresponding study participants will include: State Agency Child Nutrition Directors, CEP eligible SFAs with schools participating in the CEP and CEP eligible SFAs with no schools that elect to participate in the CEP.

Number of Respondents: 1,040 annually.

Frequency of Responses: Once per year.

Average Burden Hours per Response: 1.52 hours.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,308 hours. See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.

The Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the AD order on multilayered wood flooring from the PRC on December 8, 2011.1 On December 31, 2015, the Department received timely new shipper review requests from Keri Wood and Simite Wooden, respectively, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(c).2

In their submissions, Keri Wood and Simite Wooden stated that they are both the producers and exporters of the subject merchandise upon which their respective review requests were based.3 Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Keri Wood and Simite Wooden certified that they did not export multilayered wood flooring to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”).4 In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Keri Wood and Simite Wooden certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, they have never been affiliated with any producer or exporter that exported multilayered wood flooring to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation.5 As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Keri Wood and Simite Wooden also certified that their export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC.6

In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Keri Wood and Simite Wooden submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which each company first shipped multilayered wood flooring for export to the United States and the date on which the multilayered wood flooring was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption; (2) the volume of its first shipment; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.7

The Department conducted U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) database queries and confirmed that Keri Wood and Simite Wooden's shipments of subject merchandise had entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation of such entries had been properly suspended for antidumping duties. The Department also confirmed by examining CBP data that Keri Wood and Simite Wooden entries were made during the POR specified by the Department's regulations.8

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A), the POR for the new shipper reviews of Keri Wood and Simite Wooden is December 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b), and the information on the record, the Department finds that the requests submitted by Keri Wood and Simite Wooden meet the threshold requirements for initiation of new shipper reviews for the shipments of multilayered wood flooring from the PRC produced and exported by these companies.9 However, if the information supplied by Keri Wood and Simite Wooden is later found to be incorrect or insufficient during the course of this proceeding, the Department may rescind the review or apply adverse facts available pursuant to section 776 of the Act, depending upon the facts on record.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department will publish the notice of initiation of a new shipper review no later than the last day of the month following the anniversary or semiannual anniversary month of the order. The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of these new shipper reviews no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and the final results no later than 90 days from the issuance of the preliminary results.10

It is the Department's usual practice, in cases involving non-market economies, to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an AD rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of de jure and de facto absence of government control over the company's export activities. Accordingly, the Department will issue questionnaires to Keri Wood and Simite Wooden which will include a section requesting information with regard to these companies' export activities for separate rates purposes. The review of each exporter will proceed if the response provides sufficient indication that it is not subject to either de jure or de facto government control with respect to its export of subject merchandise.

We will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from Keri Wood and Simite Wooden, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Keri Wood and Simite Wooden claimed that they produced and exported the subject merchandise, the Department will apply the bonding privilege only for subject merchandise that the respondent both produced and exported. To assist in its analysis of the bona fides of Keri Wood and Simite Wooden sales, upon initiation of this new shipper review, the Department will require Keri Wood and Simite Wooden to submit on an ongoing basis complete transaction information concerning any sales of subject merchandise to the United States that were made subsequent to the POR.

Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in these new shipper reviews should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 19 CFR 351.306.

This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

Scope of the Order

The merchandise subject to the order is certain polyester staple fiber. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) numbers 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order remains dispositive.1

The Federal Government's rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Commerce. It is in the public interest to so license this invention, as Handix, LLC of Boulder, Colorado, has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the NOAA Technology Partnerships Office receives written evidence and argument which establishes the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

NOAA's Commercial Space Policy sets a broad framework for use of commercial space-based approaches by the agency to meet its observational requirements. Changes in the commercial space services arena are happening rapidly, yielding new technical and business approaches to building, launching, and operating satellites, and selling private satellite capabilities as services. NOAA is interested in exploring these emerging commercial capabilities to better understand how they might complement the agency's current offerings.

The draft policy was published on September 1, 2015 (80 FR 52745). The final policy establishes critical components for improved engagement with the commercial sector: Designating the Office of Space Commerce as a single point of entry for commercial providers thereby streamlining the process for easier engagement; establishes an open and transparent marketplace; defines guiding principles, implementation considerations, and strategic planning for potential commercial data buys; and establishes the possibility of demonstration projects, where appropriate, to test and evaluate new potential data sources, and provides an avenue to operational commercial data buys.

As demand for information about the changing state of our planet grows, NOAA strives to support and grow an observing enterprise that is flexible, responsive to evolving technologies, and economically sustainable. This policy will allow NOAA to seek solutions that meet these needs while also supporting and upholding the international data sharing commitments upon which we depend for global data and data products.

The National Guard Bureau notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/ The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on December 15, 2015, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, DD Form 2345, OMB Control Number 0704-0207.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 8,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 8,000.

Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 2,666.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to serve as a basis for certifying enterprises of individuals to have access to DoD export-controlled militarily critical technical data subject to the provisions of 32 CFR 250. Enterprises and individuals that need access to unclassified DoD-controlled military critical technical data must certify on DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, that data will be used only in ways that will inhibit unauthorized access and maintain the protection afforded by U.S. export control laws. The information collected is disclosed only to the extent consistent with prudent business practices, current regulations, and statutory requirements and is so indicated on the DD Form 2345.

Affected Public: Business or other for profit, Not-for-profit institutions, individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected]. Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5115; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Contractor Legal Management Requirements; (3) Type of Review: extension; (4) Purpose: the information collection to be extended has been and will be used to form the basis for DOE actions on requests from the contractors for reimbursement of litigation and other legal expenses. The information collected related to annual legal budget, staffing and resource plans, and initiation or settlement of defensive or offensive litigation is and will be similarly used; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 45; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 154; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1150; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: 0.

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.

Purpose of the Deactivation and Decommissioning (D&D)/Facility Subcommittee: The mission of the D&D/Facilities Subcommittee is to evaluate and make recommendations on DOE's planning and implementation of future D&D cleanup at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP).

Purpose of the Environmental Remediation Subcommittee: The mission of the Environmental Remediation Subcommittee is to evaluate and make recommendations on DOE's approach to remedial alternatives associated with burial grounds, groundwater treatment, and soils remediation located on the PGDP site. The Subcommittee will facilitate public participation in providing feedback to DOE on these decisions considering human health and the environment. DOE complex-wide concerns and impacts related to DOE's missions will also be considered.

Purpose of the Community Engagement Subcommittee: The mission of the Community Engagement Subcommittee is to make recommendations regarding the short and long term vision for preserving and archiving the role of the PGDP in the community and the nation that represents the communities' interest.

Public Participation: The Paducah CAB's Committees welcome the attendance of the public at their 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 Jennifer Woodard as soon as possible in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Committees either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Jennifer Woodard at the telephone number listed above. Requests must be received as soon as possible 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. The Paducah CAB's Committees will hear public comments pertaining to its scope (clean-up standards and environmental restoration; waste management and disposition; stabilization and disposition of non-stockpile nuclear materials; excess facilities; future land use and long-term stewardship; risk assessment and management; and clean-up science and technology activities). Comments outside of the scope may be submitted via written statement as directed above.

Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Jennifer Woodard at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://www.pgdpcab.energy.gov/2016Meetings.html.

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 Topics (agenda topics may change up to the day of the meeting; please contact Robert L. Pence for the most current agenda):

Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Idaho National Laboratory, 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 Robert L. Pence 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 presentations pertaining to agenda items should contact Robert L. Pence at the address or telephone number listed above. The request 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 Robert L. Pence, Federal Coordinator, at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://inlcab.energy.gov/pages/meetings.php.

This information collection request contains:

(1) OMB No.: 1905-0186;

(2) Information Collection Request Title: Generic Clearance for Questionnaire Testing, Evaluation, and Research;

(3) Type of Request: Renewal;

(4) Purpose: The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is planning to request a three-year approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to utilize qualitative and quantitative methodologies to pretest questionnaires and validate the quality of the data collected on EIA forms. This authority would allow EIA to conduct pretest surveys, pilot surveys, respondent debriefings, cognitive interviews, usability interviews, and focus groups. Through the use of these methodologies, EIA will improve the quality of data being collected for measuring market activity and assessing supply conditions in energy markets, reduce or minimize respondent burden, increase agency efficiency, and improve responsiveness to the public. This authority also improves EIA's ability to collect relevant and timely information that meets the data needs of EIA's customers.

(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,000;

(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 2,000;

(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 2,000;

(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: There are no additional costs associated with these survey methods other than the burden hours. The information is maintained in the normal course of business. The cost of burden hours to the respondents is estimated to be $144,040 (2,000 burden hours times $72.02 per hour), which represents a reduction of 1,006 burden hours from the prior renewal of this collection. Therefore, other than the cost of burden hours, EIA estimates that there are no additional costs for generating, maintaining and providing the information.

1. Access to Confidential Business Information

Under EPA Contract No. EP-W-10-055, ERG, Incorporated will assist the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR), Resource Conservation and Sustainability Division (RCSD) in developing the Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures Report to analyze the composition and amounts of the United States' Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and other wastes, and how these materials are recycled, combusted, and landfilled. The methodology used in this report is a “top-down” materials flow approach to estimate the size of the waste stream data. This report may typically involve one or more of the following statutes: CAA, CWA, RCRA, TSCA, FIFRA, EPCRA and the SDWA. Some of the data collected voluntarily from industry, may be claimed by industry to contain trade secrets or CBI. In accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, ORCR has established policies and procedures for handling information collected from industry, under the authority of RCRA, including RCRA Confidential Business Information Security Manuals.

ERG, Incorporated shall protect from unauthorized disclosure all information designated as confidential and shall abide by all RCRA CBI requirements, including procedures outlined in the RCRA CBI Security Manual.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued regulations (40 CFR part 2, subpart B) that outline business confidentiality provisions for the Agency and require all EPA Offices that receive information designated by the submitter as CBI to abide by these provisions. ERG, Incorporated will be authorized to have access to RCRA CBI under the EPA “Contractor Requirements for the Control and Security of RCRA Confidential Business Information Security Manual.”

EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of RCRA that ERG, Incorporated under the contract may have access to RCRA CBI. Access to RCRA CBI under this contract will take place at ERG's Chantilly, Virginia and Prairie View, Kansas offices, and when necessary, EPA Headquarters only. Contractor personnel at each location will be required to sign non-disclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to confidential information.

Docket: Supporting documents, including the ICR that explains in detail the information collection activities and the related burden and cost estimates that are summarized in this document, are available in the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January 31, 2016. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 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 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 developed the Partner of the Year Awards to recognize Safer Choice stakeholders who have furthered the goals of Safer Choice through active and exemplary participation in and promotion of the Safer Choice program. Making the mission of the Safer Choice program known to the widest possible audience, through its safer product label and in other forms of communication, is critical to fully realizing the program's goals of protecting human health and the environment, promoting a sustainable economy, and creating green jobs, especially in the small business sector.

The Partner of the Year Awards will be an annual event, with recognition for Safer Choice stakeholder organizations from five broad categories: (1) Formulators/product manufacturers (of both consumer and institutional/industrial (I/I) products), (2) purchasers and distributors, (3) retailers, (4) supporters (e.g., non-governmental organizations, including environmental and health advocates, trade associations, academia, sports teams, and others), and (5) innovators (e.g., chemical manufacturers, technology developers, and others). Within these categories and based on the criteria, EPA may elect to give additional awards in the subcategories of “small business” and “sustained excellence.” This information collection activity addresses the reporting burden associated with completing the application to EPA for recognition in the Partner of the Year Awards program.

Responses to this information collection are voluntary. Respondents may claim all or part of a response confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR are establishments engaged in the production, use, and/or advancement of safer chemicals, that have furthered the goals of EPA's Safer Chemical program through active and exemplary participation in and promotion of the program, and that wish to receive recognition for their achievements.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 50.

Frequency of response: Annual.

Estimated total burden: 750 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Estimated total costs: $45,486 (per year), includes no annualized capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease of 900 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB.

This decrease reflects the experience of EPA's Safer Choice program since OMB first approved this information collection. The Safer Choice program conducted its first Partner of the Year Awards in 2015, at which time EPA had received applications from 35 respondents. Based upon revised estimates, EPA has reduced the estimated number of respondents from 110 to 50, with a corresponding decrease in the associated burden. This change is an adjustment.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Abstract: These emission guidelines apply to small municipal waste combustors (MWCs) constructed on or before August 30, 1999, that combust greater than 35 tons per day (tpd) but less than 250 tpd of municipal solid waste. The emission guidelines regulate organics (dioxin/furans), metals (cadmium, lead, mercury, and particulate matter), and acid gases (hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides). The emission guidelines require initial reports, semiannual reports, and annual reports. Owners or operators also are required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Owners or operators subject to these regulations are required to maintain records of measurements and reports for at least five years.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Small municipal waste combustion units.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB).

Estimated number of respondents: 23 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually and annually.

Total estimated burden: 102,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $11,200,000 (per year), includes $1,040,000 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the respondent burden from the most recently approved ICR. The increase in respondent labor hour is caused by a change in assumption; in this ICR, we assume all existing sources will take some time each year to re-familiarize themselves with the rule requirements. There is also a small increase in the total O&M cost due to rounding of all calculated values to three significant digits.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Abstract: These standards apply to the area source NESHAP for chemical manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV). There are nine area source categories in the chemical manufacturing sector: Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides Manufacturing, Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production, Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, Industrial Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Inorganic Pigments Manufacturing, Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing, Plastic Materials and Resins Manufacturing, Pharmaceutical Production, and Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing. The requirements apply to process vents, storage tanks, equipment leaks, wastewater systems, transfer operations, and heat exchange systems at affected sources in each area source category and are combined in one subpart. The standards are based on EPA's determination of generally available control technology (GACT) or management practices for each area source category.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Chemical manufacturing area source facilities.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV).

Estimated number of respondents: 498 (total).

Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.

Total estimated burden: 9,590 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $2,220,000 (per year), includes $1,250,000 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the respondent burden and number of responses from the most recently approved ICR. The decrease occurred because the rule has been in effect for three years, and the burden associated with initial compliance (e.g. initial performance tests and notification reports) differ from the burden for ongoing compliance (e.g. submittal of semiannual reports). However, there is an adjustment increase in the total capital and O&M cost. This is primarily due to two reasons: (1) The previous ICR presented capital costs as annualized costs over 15 years, rather than one-time costs; and (2) the total number of sources with O&M cost (i.e. maintain systems and monitors) has increased now that the rule is fully implemented.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Under section 18 of the FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. The Texas Department of Agriculture has requested the EPA Administrator to issue a repeat specific exemption for the use of sulfoxaflor on sorghum to control sugarcane aphid. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request.

As part of this request, the applicant asserts that an emergency situation exists based on unusually high populations of sugarcane aphid (Melanaphis sacchari), which can cause direct plant death from aphid feeding as well as indirect damage and harvesting problems from the aphid honeydew residue in Texas sorghum fields. Based on information provided by the states in previous submissions, sugarcane aphid is either a new pest or new biotype of M. sacchari. Currently, there are no registered insecticides or any economically or environmentally feasible alternative control practices available to adequately control this non-routine pest infestation. The state has asserted that without the use of sulfoxaflor, uncontrolled aphid infestations are likely to result in significant economic losses.

The applicant proposes to make no more than two applications at a rate of 0.75-1.5 ounces of product (0.023-0.047 lb a.i.) per acre or a seasonal maximum application rate of 3.0 ounces of product (0.094 lb a.i.) per acre per year, resulting in the use of 70,314 gallons of product. A maximum of 3,000,000 acres of sorghum fields (grain and forage) may be treated in Texas. Applications would potentially be made through November 30, 2016.

This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 do not expressly require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing a use of a pesticide that has been subject to a judicial vacatur, however, EPA considers public notice appropriate in this instance. Accordingly, this notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application.

The Agency, will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the Texas Department of Agriculture.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has requested the EPA Administrator to issue specific exemptions for the uses of oxytetracycline calcium, oxytetracycline hydrochloride, and streptomycin sulfate on citrus to control Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus, the bacteria which causes HLB, also referred to as citrus greening disease. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of the requests.

As part of the requests, the applicant states that Florida's citrus production will be seriously jeopardized if HLB cannot be adequately controlled. The disease has been known in China for more than 100 years, and is considered to be the most serious disease of citrus worldwide, affecting all citrus species and their hybrids. Since the discovery of HLB in Florida in 2005, it has rapidly spread to all 34 commercial production areas in the state, and the applicant claims that the severity of HLB far exceeds that of any previously known citrus disease. HLB causes decreases in fruit yield and quality, and infected trees decline and eventually die, even when producers incorporate all management options currently available. Thus far, efforts to control the disease have focused on removal of diseased trees, nutritional support, and rigorous efforts to control the Asian citrus psyllid (the vector of the HLB bacteria). However, research over the past several years on use of agricultural antimicrobial agents has shown promise for suppressing the disease and improving tree health. The applicant is now requesting use of three antimicrobials, oxytetracycline calcium, oxytetracycline hydrochloride, and streptomycin sulfate, and indicates that the recent research suggests that multiple bactericide applications will be necessary to improve tree health and suppress the effects of HLB disease year-long on infected citrus trees. The HLB disease has caused significant economic losses as well as losses of jobs related to citrus production. The applicant states that millions of trees have been lost in both commercial and residential citrus, and the long-term viability of Florida's citrus production is threatened if the disease cannot be effectively managed.

The proposed application method for all three materials is foliar spray using ground application equipment. The applicant proposes to make up to three applications of streptomycin sulfate at a rate of 0.45 lb. per acre on up to 388,534 acres of citrus, for a maximum use of 520,540 lbs. of streptomycin sulfate. The applicant also proposes up to eight applications of oxytetracycline calcium at a rate of 0.255 lb. per acre on up to 388,534 acres of citrus for a maximum of 762,309 lbs. Additionally, the applicant proposes up to three applications of oxytetracycline hydrochloride at a rate of 0.27 lb. per acre on up to 388,534 acres of citrus, for a maximum use of 314,712 lbs. Applications are proposed statewide in citrus production areas.

This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 allow publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption if the Administrator determines that publication of a notice of receipt is appropriate. The application proposes use of three pesticides which are also used as human and animal antibiotic drugs, and therefore this notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application.

The Agency will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific exemptions requested by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Abstract: The EPA's diesel fuel regulations under 40 CFR part 80, subpart I, are applicable to highway (“motor vehicle” or “MV”) diesel fuel and non-road, locomotive and marine diesel fuel (NRLM) and heating oil (HO). Most of the information collected under this ICR is used to evaluate compliance with the requirements of the regulations. Since virtually all MV diesel fuel was required to meet a 15 part per million (ppm) standard as of June 1, 2010, very little reporting related to MV diesel fuel remains. However, reporting related to NRLM and HO will continue throughout the course of this proposed ICR renewal. The activities associated with this ICR include: Registration (all parties have registered; updates to existing registrations are still possible); compliance reports (mostly covering NRLM and HO; updates to prior compliance reports for MV diesel are still possible); research and development (R&D) exemptions; generation and retention of quality assurance (QA) records; foreign refiner recordkeeping and reporting; placement of PTD codes (a typically automated process, to indicate the presence of dye in tax-exempt fuel and/or sulfur content). This ICR renewal contains provisions related to qualification of laboratories on performance-based test methods. Virtually all applications have already been received from laboratories and acted upon by EPA.

Form Numbers: EPA Forms 5900-351, 5900-333, 5900-352, 5900-323, 5900-324, 5900-325, 5900-326, 5900-327, 5900-328, 5900-329, 5900-350, and 420-B-14-066a.

Respondents/affected entities: Refiners, importers, testing labs.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 80).

Estimated number of respondents: 5753 (total).

Frequency of response: Yearly and semiannually.

Total estimated burden: 11,078 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $1,118,878 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 7,872 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This is due to the decreased number of reports required.

The PCPID acts in an advisory capacity to the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on a broad range of topics relating to programs, services and support for individuals with intellectual disabilities. The PCPID executive order stipulates that the Committee shall: (1) Provide such advice concerning intellectual disabilities as the President or the Secretary of Health and Human Services may request; and (2) provide advice to the President concerning the following for people with intellectual disabilities: (A) Expansion of educational opportunities; (B) promotion of homeownership; (C) assurance of workplace integration; (D) improvement of transportation options; (E) expansion of full access to community living; and (F) increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies.

Agenda: The Committee Members will discuss preparation of the PCPID 2016 Report to the President, including its contents and format, and related data collection and analysis required to complete the writing of the Report in the following focus areas:

Family engagement early on in the process to support high expectations for students with disabilities.

Federal policies and enforcement strategies to end segregation in schools and other aspects of community living beyond graduation.

Transition as a critical area for pathways to higher education and career development.

Self-determination/Supported decision-making from early childhood throughout the individual's lifespan.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

The statutory authority to collect this information is provided under sections 351 and 361 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262 and 264) and the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that apply to drugs (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.). The PHS guideline recommends procedures to diminish the risk of transmission of infectious agents to the xenotransplantation product recipient and to the general public. The PHS guideline is intended to address public health issues raised by xenotransplantation, through identification of general principles of prevention and control of infectious diseases associated with xenotransplantation that may pose a hazard to the public health. The collection of information described in this guideline is intended to provide general guidance on the following topics: (1) The development of xenotransplantation clinical protocols; (2) the preparation of submissions to FDA; and (3) the conduct of xenotransplantation clinical trials. Also, the collection of information will help ensure that the sponsor maintains important information in a cross-referenced system that links the relevant records of the xenotransplantation product recipient, xenotransplantation product, source animal(s), animal procurement center, and significant nosocomial exposures. The PHS guideline describes an occupational health service program for the protection of health care workers involved in xenotransplantation procedures, caring for xenotransplantation product recipients, and performing associated laboratory testing. The PHS guideline is intended to protect the public health and to help ensure the safety of using xenotransplantation products in humans by preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of infectious diseases associated with xenotransplantation.

The PHS guideline also recommends that certain specimens and records be maintained for 50 years beyond the date of the xenotransplantation. These include: (1) Records linking each xenotransplantation product recipient with relevant health records of the source animal, herd or colony, and the specific organ, tissue, or cell type included in or used in the manufacture of the product (section 3.2.7.1); (2) aliquots of serum samples from randomly selected animal and specific disease investigations (section 3.4.3.1); (3) source animal biological specimens designated for PHS use (section 3.7.1); animal health records (section 3.7.2), including necropsy results (section 3.6.4); and (4) recipients' biological specimens (section 4.1.2). The retention period is intended to assist health care practitioners and officials in surveillance and in tracking the source of an infection, disease, or illness that might emerge in the recipient, the source animal, or the animal herd or colony after a xenotransplantation.

The recommendation for maintaining records for 50 years is based on clinical experience with several human viruses that have presented problems in human to human transplantation and are therefore thought to share certain characteristics with viruses that may pose potential risks in xenotransplantation. These characteristics include long latency periods and the ability to establish persistent infections. Several also share the possibility of transmission among individuals through intimate contact with human body fluids. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and human T-lymphotropic virus are human retroviruses. Retroviruses contain ribonucleic acid that is reverse-transcribed into deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) using an enzyme provided by the virus and the human cell machinery. That viral DNA can then be integrated into the human cellular DNA. Both viruses establish persistent infections and have long latency periods before the onset of disease; 10 years and 40 to 60 years, respectively. The human hepatitis viruses are not retroviruses, but several share with HIV the characteristic that they can be transmitted through body fluids, can establish persistent infections, and have long latency periods, e.g., approximately 30 years for hepatitis C.

In addition, the PHS guideline recommends that a record system be developed that allows easy, accurate, and rapid linkage of information among the specimen archive, the recipient's medical records, and the records of the source animal for 50 years. The development of such a record system is a one-time burden. Such a system is intended to cross-reference and locate relevant records of recipients, products, source animals, animal procurement centers, and nosocomial exposures.

Respondents to this collection of information are the sponsors of clinical studies of investigational xenotransplantation products under investigational new drug applications (INDs) and xenotransplantation product procurement centers, referred to as source animal facilities. There are an estimated three respondents who are sponsors of INDs that include protocols for xenotransplantation in humans and five clinical centers doing xenotransplantation procedures. Other respondents for this collection of information are an estimated four source animal facilities which provide source xenotransplantation product material to sponsors for use in human xenotransplantation procedures. These four source animal facilities keep medical records of the herds/colonies as well as the medical records of the individual source animal(s). The burden estimates are based on FDA's records of xenotransplantation-related INDs and estimates of time required to complete the various reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosure tasks described in the PHS guideline.

FDA is requesting an extension of OMB approval for the following reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosure recommendations in the PHS guideline:

In the Federal Register of October 5, 2015 (80 FR 60153), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. FDA received one comment from the public. The comment was supportive of the extended recordkeeping requirements in case it would be necessary to track the source of any long-term developing infections as result of xenotransplantation.

FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as follows:

Because of the potential risk for cross-species transmission of pathogenic persistent virus, the guideline recommends that health records be retained for 50 years. Since these records are medical records, the retention of such records for up to 50 years is not information subject to the PRA (5 CFR 1320.3(h)(5)). Also, because of the limited number of clinical studies with small patient populations, the number of records is expected to be insignificant at this time.

Information collections in this guideline not included in tables 1 through 6 can be found under existing regulations and approved under the OMB control numbers as follows: (1) “Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals,” 21 CFR 211.1 through 211.208, approved under OMB control number 0910-0139; (2) “Investigational New Drug Application,” 21 CFR 312.1 through 312.160, approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; and (3) information included in a biologics license application, 21 CFR 601.2, approved under OMB control number 0910-0338. (Although it is possible that a xenotransplantation product may not be regulated as a biological product (e.g., it may be regulated as a medical device), FDA believes, based on its knowledge and experience with xenotransplantation, that any xenotransplantation product subject to FDA regulation within the next 3 years will most likely be regulated as a biological product.) However, FDA recognized that some of the information collections go beyond approved collections; assessments for these burdens are included in tables 1 through 6.

In table 7, FDA identifies those collections of information activities that are already encompassed by existing regulations or are consistent with voluntary standards which reflect industry's usual and customary business practice.

I. Background

In the Federal Register of December 31, 2015, FDA published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals ('Emerging Signals'),” with a 60-day comment period to request comments on the Agency's policy for notifying the public about medical device “emerging signals.”

FDA is extending the comment period for the publication notification of “emerging signals” for 30 days, until March 29, 2016. The Agency believes that a 30-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals ('Emerging Signals')” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1500027 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

I. Background

This notice announces a meeting on the HHS-operated risk adjustment program to discuss potential improvements to the HHS risk adjustment methodology for the 2018 benefit year and beyond. This meeting will focus on the permanent risk adjustment program under section 1343 of the Affordable Care Act when HHS is operating a risk adjustment program on behalf of a State (referred to as the HHS-operated risk adjustment program).

We are committed to stakeholder engagement in developing the detailed processes of the HHS-operated risk adjustment program. The purpose of this meeting is to share information with issuers, States, and interested parties about the risk adjustment methodology, offer an opportunity for these stakeholders to comment on key elements of the risk adjustment methodology, and discuss potential improvements to the HHS risk adjustment methodology for the 2018 benefit year and beyond.

In the January 11, 2016 Federal Register (81 FR 1193), we published a notice announcing a March 25, 2016 meeting on the HHS-operated risk adjustment program. In this notice, we are notifying interested parties we are rescheduling the meeting to March 31, 2016. The agenda for the March 31, 2016 meeting will include the following:

• The HHS-operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Conference will share information with stakeholders including issuers, States, and interested parties about the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology and gather feedback on a White Paper on the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology that will be issued in advance of this meeting.

• The HHS-operated Risk Adjustment Methodology Conference will focus on an overview of the HHS-operated risk adjustment methodology and other international risk adjustment models, what we have learned from the 2014 benefit year of the risk adjustment program and specific areas of potential refinements to the methodology.

The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. There are capabilities for remote access. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by the date listed in the DATES section, and register using the information in the “REGISTRATION” section.

The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by using the instructions in the “REGISTRATION” section of this notice by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice.

This meeting will be held in a Federal government building; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. We recommend that confirmed registrants arrive reasonably early, but no earlier than 45 minutes prior to the start of the meeting, to allow additional time to clear security. Security measures include the following:

• Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.

• Inspection of vehicle's interior and exterior (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.

• Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means of all persons brought entering the building. We note that all items brought into CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.

All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first floor levels in the Central Building.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for renewal of the information collection described in Section A.

Title of Information Collection: “Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally-Owned Residential Properties and Housing Receiving Federal Assistance”.

OMB Approval Number: 2539-0009.

Type of Request: Renewal with some changes due to program changes.

Form Number: N/A.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: provision of a pamphlet on lead poisoning prevention to tenants and purchasers, provision of a notice to occupants on the results of hazard evaluation and hazard reduction activities, special reporting requirements for a child with an environmental intervention blood lead level residing in the unit, and record keeping and periodic summary reporting requirements.

Respondents: residential property owners, housing agencies, Federal grantees, tribally designated housing entities or participating jurisdictions.

The revised hour burden estimates are presented in the table below. In that table, the $15.36 hourly cost per response reflects the weighted average of cases, first, in which the respondent is simply giving someone a pamphlet, putting something in a file, or retrieving something from a file, and sending summary information from it to the Department, valued at $10.61 per hour; and second, processing notices as above as well as providing information in cases of lead-poisoned children, valued at $16.97 per hour. (These labor rates have been escalated by 3% from 2013 based on the Census Bureau's constant quality housing construction price index, since the work is in the housing trades.)

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

(1) 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) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to these questions.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

Title of Information Collection: Requisition for Disbursement of Sections 202 & 811 Capital Advance/Loan Funds.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0187.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Form Number: HUD-92403-CA & HUD-92403-EH.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Owner entities submit requisitions to HUD during construction to obtain Section 202/811 capital advance/loan funds. This collection helps to identify the owner, project, type of disbursement, items covered, name of the depository, and account number.

Respondents (i.e. affected public): Affected public.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 112.

Estimated Number of Responses: 224.

Frequency of Response: 4.

Average Hours per Response: 1.

Total Estimated Burden: 112.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

(1) 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) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

This Native American policy is available at http://www.fws.gov/policy/510fw1.html, which is within part 510 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, the part titled “Working with Native American Tribes.” The purpose of the policy is to articulate principles and serve as a framework for government-to-government relationships and interactions between the Service and federally recognized tribes to conserve fish and wildlife and protect cultural resources. The policy includes guidance on:

• The relationship between the Service and federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANC) corporations,

• Service employee responsibilities,

• Government-to-government consultation and relations,

• Communication,

• Co-management and collaborative management,

• Tribal access to Service lands and Service-managed resources for cultural and religious practices,

• Tribal cultural use of plants and animals,

• Law enforcement,

• Training and education,

• Capacity building and funding, and

• Guidance for implementing and monitoring the policy.

This policy is not meant to stand on its own. To effectively implement this policy, the Service will update its U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tribal Consultation Handbook, establish an Alaska Regional Native American policy, and develop training so that Service employees will be better able to perform duties related to this policy.

We recognize that when the Service and tribes work together on resource matters, our longstanding relationship is strengthened and resources are better served. This policy provides guidance on recognition of tribal sovereign status, Service responsibilities, and opportunities for the Service and tribes to work together toward natural and cultural resource conservation and access. The purpose of this policy is to provide Service employees with guidance when working with tribes and ANCs.

Section 1 of this policy recognizes the unique relationship that Federal governmental agencies have with federally recognized tribes and the U.S. Government's trust responsibility toward those tribes. It explains that while this is a nationwide policy, the Service maintains flexibility for Service Regions and programs to work more specifically with the tribes and ANCs in their Regions.

Section 2 recognizes tribes' sovereign authority over their members and territory, the tribes' rights to self-govern, and that government-to-government communication may occur at various levels within the Service and the tribes.

Section 3 describes communication, consultation, and information sharing among the Service, tribes, and ANCs.

Section 4 sets out a range of collaborative management and co-management opportunities where tribes, Alaska Native Organizations (ANO), the Service, and others have shared responsibility.

Section 5 recognizes that, for meaningful cultural and religious practices, tribal members may need to access Service lands and to use plants and animals for which the Service has management responsibility.

Section 6 recognizes tribal law enforcement responsibilities for managing Indian lands and tribal resources and encourages cooperative law enforcement between the Service and tribes.

Section 7 invites tribal governments to work with the Service to develop and present training for Service employees. It also makes available Service technical experts to help tribes develop technical expertise, supports tribal self-determination, encourages cross-training of Service and tribal personnel, and supports Native American professional development.

Section 8 establishes monitoring and implementation guidance for the policy.

Section 9 describes the policy's scope and limitations.

Exhibit 1 includes the definitions of terms we use in the policy.

Exhibit 2 describes the responsibilities of employees at all levels of the Service to carry out this policy.

Exhibit 3 lists the authorities under which the Service is able to take the actions we describe in the policy.

On June 28, 1994, the Service first enacted its Native American Policy to guide our government-to-government relations with federally recognized tribal governments in conserving fish and wildlife resources and to “help accomplish its mission and concurrently to participate in fulfilling the Federal Government's and Department of the Interior's trust responsibilities to assist Native Americans in protecting, conserving, and utilizing their reserved, treaty guaranteed, or statutorily identified trust assets.”

In July 2013, the Service convened a Native American Policy Team (team) to review and update the policy. The team is comprised of Service representatives from the Regions and programs. We also invited all federally recognized tribal governments across the United States to nominate representatives to serve on the team. A total of 16 self-nominated tribal representatives from all of the major Regions across the country joined the team to provide input and tribal perspective.

Although Service and tribal team members took part in writing the draft, full agreement was not possible on every issue and some differences remain. Understanding those issues, tribal representatives continued to participate in an effort to improve the policy.

In November 2014, the Service invited federally recognized tribal governments in each of its Regions and ANCs to consult on a government-to-government basis. The Service provided an early working draft of the updated policy for their review and input. A total of 23 of the tribal representatives submitted written comments to further develop and refine the draft updated policy.

From December 2014 to April 2015, the Service held 24 consultation meetings and webinars within the Regions and nationally. Representatives from approximately 100 tribes attended these meetings. In March 2015, the Service revised the working draft of the updated policy and distributed it for internal Service review throughout all levels, Regions, and programs within the agency. We incorporated feedback from the internal Service review and additional comments received from tribal governments into a draft that we published in the Federal Register.

On August 3, 2015, we announced the availability of a draft of this policy in a Federal Register notice (80 FR 46043) and requested public comments by September 2, 2015. The Service reopened the comment period for an additional 30 days in a Federal Register document published on September 21, 2015 (80 FR 57014). The second comment period closed on October 21, 2015.

We received approximately 34 comment letters on the draft policy. The comments were from Federal and State government agencies, tribes, ANCs, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals. Most of the comments addressed specific elements, while some comments were more general. We considered all of the information and recommendations for improvement included in the comments and made appropriate changes to the draft policy. We also made some additions and clarifications to the policy that were not addressed in the public comments, but were discovered through internal briefings and reviews during the policy revision period. The following summarizes our responses to public comments received.

Many of these topics are related to one another, and it is sometimes difficult to categorize each into one discrete area of the policy that it addresses. We have grouped similar comments together to help readers understand our rationale.

Many commenters were pleased with many aspects of the new policy. Several commenters noted that the policy was “clearly the product of a careful and deliberative effort to involve tribes' input and integrate their concerns.” Several commenters noted that the Native American Policy Team that worked for 21/2 years on this policy was formed at the earliest stages of policy consideration and consisted of tribal members and Service employees who worked very closely together on all aspects of the policy. One specific commenter stated that tribes and ANCs “applaud[ed] FWS for its extensive efforts working with representatives from tribes across the country to put together this new policy.”

Tribes and ANCs commented that FWS's recognition of the importance of sharing the traditional knowledge, experience, and perspectives of Native Americans will ultimately lead to better management of shared fish, wildlife, and cultural resources. Tribes and ANCs supported the Service's recognition of the need for flexibility to allow for regional diversity. Tribes stated that they appreciate that the Service did not group them together with other stakeholders, but instead treats them as sovereign governments. Tribes appreciate that the Service took tribal comments from a pre-public comment period and incorporated them into the published draft. Several commenters commended the Service for incorporating the table of responsibilities, which describes specific responsibilities for Service employees.

Commenters support the promotion of cultural competency awareness within the Service. Likewise, they support that the draft policy makes a clear and honest reference to Service limitations with respect to protecting sensitive tribal information from public release (e.g., via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests).

ANCs stated that they support and appreciate the Service's inclusion and acknowledgement of ANCs as significant stakeholders that require policies guiding and encouraging the Service's interaction with them.

The following categorizes comments by policy section, followed by comments on the content of the three exhibits, and finally those comments received specific to Alaska.

1. As a “consultation policy” this has shortcomings. Response: This is not a “consultation policy.” Consultation is a part of this policy, which covers more than consultation.

2. The draft policy repeatedly uses multiple qualifiers in the text such as, “to the extent practicable,” “not inconsistent with essential Service functions,” “as necessary or appropriate,” and “as resources and priorities allow.” The repeated use of these qualifiers appears to vest discretion in the individual Service official or staffer as to whether or not, at any given point, consultation will occur. Response: This is not meant to undermine the Service's responsibility to consult with tribes and ANCs. The Service understands the importance of and our responsibility for working with tribes. However, we cannot promise more than we can deliver. The Service must act within the authorities Congress has given us, and we can only perform as much work as the resources supplied by Congress will allow.

1. Some commenters objected to the qualifier that this policy applies to those whose official duties may affect tribal interests, and not to all employees. Response: While most employees have responsibilities that may affect tribes, some employees may have completely unrelated jobs, such as employee payroll or janitorial services for Service properties. Even so, the Service will try to deliver some degree of tribal training to all employees through regular internal Service training. The Service will ensure that all employees will be aware of their responsibilities under this policy.

2. The Service should show how tribal input was considered and incorporated into final decisions. Response: Implementation will include Regional teams that are better able to communicate with the tribes in their area. There is no one-size-fits-all for all Service programs. Many times, tribes are present throughout the process and will have ongoing dialogue concerning how their comments have been included in decisionmaking.

1. This section of the policy should be first. In the existing 1994 policy, sovereignty is the very first principle. In this revised draft, it is relegated to subheading 5. The placement of this guiding principle diminishes what was once highlighted. Response: We have moved this section up from section 5 to section 2 and have moved what were preceding sections into exhibits.

2. The policy needs to make clear that the Service cannot make decisions or take actions that impact or diminish treaty-reserved rights of tribes and incorporate the principles that serve as the foundation for Secretary's Order 3206. Response: In section 3, the policy states that communication with tribes will begin early in the planning process. We will continue to develop relationships and communicate with tribes at the appropriate levels.

3. The Service should implement a consensus-based process with the tribes to identify treaty and trust obligations and to develop programs and actions to meet those obligations. Response: The Service looks for opportunities to consult and collaborate with tribes as is stated throughout the policy. We understand that the tribal consultation process goes beyond the requirements of public involvement. We discuss this in section 4.

4. The policy should support development and implementation of agreements with tribes or regional tribal groups to reflect needs tailored to capabilities. Response: The Service will form Regional tribal-Service implementation teams to collaboratively address issues that arise on a more local level.

5. We received several comments relating to the fact that some Indian tribes have delegated a portion of their authority to inter-tribal agencies. Commenters stated that the Service should acknowledge that delegation and, if allowed by that delegation, provide those agencies with relevant technical and policy-related information. They also stated that the Service should develop cooperative relationships with those agencies to carry out the programmatic goals of the Service and to better serve Indian tribes. Other commenters raised concerns that the Service should be aware that each tribe in an inter-tribal agency may not have delegated full authority on an issue. Another commenter explained that tribal consortia provide a powerful opportunity for the Service to “get the word out” to affected tribes. Response: Tribes have delegated varying ranges of authority to inter-tribal organizations acting for them. The policy cannot address each specific delegation, and so we address this issue in section 2 as follows: “We will consult with inter-tribal organizations to the degree that tribes have authorized such an organization to consult on the tribe's behalf.” During implementation, we plan to reach out to these groups and the tribes whom they represent when forming regional implementation teams. The Service will continue to engage consortia to contact tribes, get the word out, and become involved in other programs.

6. Several commenters asked that we revise language to limit this section to where there are “federally recognized tribal rights.” Response: We have not adopted this comment. The Service exercises due care where our actions affect the exercise of tribal rights.

1. Substitute “strive to the greatest extent possible to incorporate” instead of “consider” traditional knowledge. Response: The language in the policy clearly states that the Service will “consider” traditional knowledge, which means that we will take it seriously and truly consider the traditional knowledge shared.

2. Several commenters raised concern that tribal members may not be free to share information on specific cultural locations, practices, or actions that could be useful to the Service, and asked the Service to accommodate that privacy. Response: We understand there may be limitations on tribal members' abilities to share information with us. They may not be able to share any information, or they may be able to share information only if we keep that information confidential. The Service respects that tribes, ANCs, or tribal members may not be able to share information that could be disclosed to the public if required by FOIA. As the policy states, we will work collaboratively to protect confidential information and protect disclosure when possible. If the Service relies on any such information as a basis for agency action to protect resources, however, that information will become an agency record subject to FOIA and must be released unless it falls under an exemption. This potential disclosure must be balanced with the fact that if we are unaware of this information, we cannot use it as a basis to protect those cultural resources or practices.

3. One commenter shared that certain tribes require consultation to occur on those tribes' reservations, and that the Service should state that they will consult with each tribe according to those requirements. In addition, many tribes require a two-tiered process where technical staff discuss management issues and elevate policy discussions to formal government-to-government consultation when necessary. Response: The Service understands that each tribe may have its own requirements and standards for interacting with Federal agencies at both the government-to-government level and on technical issues. In developing relationships with tribes in their areas, Service employees will better understand and appropriately meet with tribal governments. The table of responsibilities in Exhibit 2 anticipates coordination at all levels.

4. One commenter stated that to ensure that the Service is engaging with ANCs and tribes in a meaningful way that fulfills its consultation obligations, we should establish firm guidelines for what actions the agency will take when preparing for a consultation, including information on how much notice we must give tribes and ANCs before a consultation occurs, what information is provided to these groups in advance of consultation, and how the Service will incorporate comments gathered at consultations into the official record and decisionmaking process. Response: While this policy discusses a wide range of consultation and engagement possibilities, how to carry out proper consultation is beyond its scope. The “how to” is covered in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tribal Consultation Handbook and will be a topic of ongoing training.

5. If the Service is to request full cooperation and assistance regarding shared information, the final draft must include strong language to protect tribal information, Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), site-specific information, and any information deemed sensitive by the tribes, as being totally protected and not subject to FOIA requests. Response: The Service will coordinate with tribes individually on this issue. We strive to balance our responsibility to the American public to release all information on which we base our decisions with respect for tribal concerns about keeping information confidential. While we will work with tribes to help protect sensitive cultural information, as a Federal agency, the Service is subject to the FOIA and has no discretion to protect from disclosure tribal information that does not qualify under any of FOIA's statutory exemptions.

6. We received many comments voicing concerns about treaty rights. One commenter believed that the language in the policy gives excessive discretion to Service staff to limit the exercise of treaty rights. Response: Throughout the policy, we recognize tribal treaty rights. Where treaty rights exist, employees do not have the discretion to allow or disallow their exercise. Where there are disagreements as to interpretation of how far those treaty rights reach, the Service will communicate with the affected tribe or tribes, but we must continue to carry out our activities as required by law.

7. Other commenters, while recognizing that not all tribes have treaty rights, were concerned that the policy does not specifically support the rights of tribal members to use fish and wildlife resources on Service lands. Response: There are numerous statements about recognition of tribal treaty rights in the policy. Where treaty rights exist that extend to Service lands, such as fishing rights, those are recognized in the policy.

1. The Service should assist and facilitate tribal participation in co-management venues where there are areas of jurisdictional overlap amongst multiple government interests. Response: Where the Service is involved in resource management, we will engage all of the governmental parties involved. There are areas where the Service might not have such authority, particularly where States manage wildlife, so we may not have resources involved in such a jurisdiction.

2. Several commenters asked us to add language stating that tribes are the primary natural resource managers on Indian lands, and that tribes are co-managers for shared resources off-reservation for treaty-reserved resources. Response: The first part of this statement goes beyond the scope of this policy. The second part of this statement is too broad a concept and does not apply in all situations, so we did not include it as part of the policy.

3. Several commenters stated that the 1994 policy had stronger language in certain areas, in particular about our participation in fulfilling the Federal Government's and the Department of the Interior's trust responsibilities to assist Native Americans in protecting, conserving, and using tribal reserved, treaty-guaranteed, or statutorily identified trust assets. Response: We revised the language of the first and fifth paragraphs in section 1 to address these concerns.

4. Several commenters discussed reserved rights on non-reservation lands. Some stated that the policy should reflect that various Indian tribes enjoy reserved rights on non-reservation lands, which allows those tribes to harvest natural resources pursuant to tribal law. One stated that the draft policy should reflect the obligation that the Service has, when considering actions affecting those lands and their natural resources, to meaningfully involve affected Indian tribes and their delegated inter-tribal agencies, where applicable. Other commenters asked for language clarifying that tribal members who are exercising tribal reserved rights have access to Service-managed or controlled lands for fishing and harvesting resources pursuant to tribal law or a memorandum of agreement between the tribe and Service. Response: Section 2 states that we will exercise due care where our actions affect the exercise of tribal rights. We work on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning management of tribal trust resources and Indian tribal treaty and other rights. In addition, where a tribe has developed an agreement with the Service, the tribe can carry out these activities in accordance with the agreement. Not all Service lands are open to all such uses.

5. One commenter stated that the policy needs to include stronger language regarding the use of tribal partners in assuming direct management over Service lands near reservations or where they have a significant interest on the landscape. Response: Congress has not given us the authority to give tribes management authority over Service lands. Management of Service lands is an inherently Federal function.

6. Several commenters voiced concern that tribes should not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of species, and to consider whether conservation measures on non-tribal lands and regulating non-Indian activities can achieve those goals. In addition, they stated that the policy needs to reinforce the principle message of Secretary's Order 3206 and clearly place the burden of proof on the Service to demonstrate a designation of critical habitat is required within a reservation. Response: The Service acts as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Secretary's Order 3206. We added language from our ESA section 4(b)(2) policy to this policy as follows: “We will always consider exclusions of tribal lands under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA before finalizing a designation of critical habitat. We will also give great weight to tribal concerns in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.”

7. One commenter requested a stronger statement in the policy requiring that system directors, managers, and staff accommodate requests by tribes to access system lands in a manner consistent with other members of the public or State governments. For example, if a particular refuge permits State big game hunts, then tribes should be able to access those same lands for hunting purposes. Response: This is too broad of a request to address in the policy. In short, not all tribes have treaty-reserved hunting and gathering rights. In certain geographic areas, tribes retain those treaty rights, but the rights might not extend to carrying out those activities on a refuge. We will work with tribes in the geographic area where hunting is authorized on a refuge.

8. One commenter was concerned that the administration of various wildlife laws cuts against the tribes, like the administration of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) for furbearing mammals, where the Service requires a tribe to meet an unrealistic standard before it can continue its traditional practices of making cultural use of harvested animals. The resource management section needs to make it clear to Service employees that it expects its employees to treat tribes with respect and equity when they are making decisions about gathering of subsistence foods and natural resources. Response: The policy stresses respect and coordination with tribes. Issues surrounding native rights to hunt and gather on non-Indian lands vary. These issues will be addressed in training. In addition, we will have an Alaska policy to address subsistence issues in Alaska.

9. We received comments stating that while the policy talks about management and conservation of resources, it does not clearly reflect tribal “use” of resources. Response: We had addressed this in many places in the draft policy, including in the opening paragraph, in statements about Alaska subsistence uses, in the section on using cultural resources, and in the definition of “Fish and wildlife and cultural resource management.” To address this comment, we have added “use” of resources in two additional places—in the definitions of co-management and collaborative management.

10. Several commenters stated that the policy must consider other governmental jurisdiction and interests, especially where litigation or laws recognize States as the primary managers of the resources, especially on ceded territories. Response: With respect to developing agreements to manage and conserve resources, we added a reference to “States and other co-managers.” The policy also recognizes State jurisdiction under both the Indian lands and non-Indian lands subsections of section 4.

11. Some commenters believed that the Service's role in managing non-Indian lands is limited to federally owned lands, and then only where such uses have been established by Federal law or adjudication. Response: The Service's jurisdiction goes beyond federally owned non-Indian lands, particularly when the Service manages ESA-listed species, eagles, and other migratory birds. Further, tribal rights need not have been formally adjudicated to be valid; therefore, we have not altered this language in the policy.

12. Several commenters asked that we clarify “where there is a legal basis for such use” when talking about tribal members using fish and wildlife resources on non-Indian lands. Response: Clarifying this term would require a very lengthy section that would, at a minimum, include reviewing treaties, statutes, and case law from around the country, which goes beyond the scope of this policy.

13. Commenters noted that the language in the Non-Indian Lands section might allow Service employees to participate in matters that are strictly between States and tribes. Response: We have added the phrase, “and where Service jurisdiction is involved” to this paragraph. In addition, the definition of fish and wildlife resources encompasses only those that the Service is responsible for managing and conserving.

14. Commenters asked that we clarify the role the Service would play if there are disagreements between tribal governments and State or local resource management agencies. Response: Section 4 states, “certain tribal governments and State governments may have shared responsibilities to co-manage fish and wildlife resources. In such cases, we will consult and collaborate with tribal governments and affected State or local resource management agencies to help meet the objectives of all parties while honoring the Federal trust responsibility.”

1. Some commenters found it offensive that the Service would prioritize scientific investigation over a tribe's religious, ceremonial, or cultural needs. Response: In 1975, Interior Secretary Morton recognized Indians' “legitimate interest in expressing their cultural and religious way of life, and at the same time, share the responsibility to conserve wildlife resources including federally protected birds.” The Attorney General's 2012 policy tiers from the Morton policy and recognizes that the tribes and the United States share an interest in and responsibility for protecting wildlife resources: “It is a federal priority to prosecute those who violate federal laws by engaging in commercial activities involving federally protected birds, bird feathers, and remains. . . . The Department of Justice is committed to robust enforcement of federal laws protecting birds while respecting tribal interests in the use of eagle feathers and other federally protected birds, bird feathers, and other bird parts for cultural and religious purposes” (Attorney General Holder policy, October 12, 2012).

2. Several commenters asked that the policy include use of natural resources within the section on cultural resources. Response: While tribal members may not distinguish between natural and cultural resources, the Service follows a separate set of laws in each area. We address use of natural resources in section 4.

3. One commenter stated that tribes need to be provided timely notification when any actions are proposed on their ancestral homelands, so that they can make early, informed decisions on when and how to become involved. Response: The policy states, “The Service will meaningfully involve tribal governments in our actions when we or the tribal government determine the actions may affect their cultural or religious interest . . .”

4. Several commenters pointed out that while many instances of the words “may” and “should” were strengthened from an earlier draft of the policy, a few remaining “shoulds” could still be strengthened to make them absolute requirements. Response: Where the Service is able to state that it will act, it so stated. We do not, however, want to make representations that we are unable to perform.

5. One commenter asked that we delete “expression” and replace it with “practices” when talking about religion. Response: Based on respectful discussion within the tribal-Service policy team, we have kept the term “expression.”

1. Several commenters wrote asking for support for formal agreements, such as cross-deputation. Response: We have explained that the Service will work with tribes to the limits of the law. At this time, however, Federal law does not allow the Service to cross-deputize tribal officers.

2. Some commenters stated that they were concerned that Service officers should not assume that State or Federal law applies to Indian tribal members without first consulting the Indian tribes that may have jurisdiction in a particular area. In cases where Service officers determine that there have been possible violations committed by Indian tribal members, those officers should immediately contact tribal law enforcement to determine whether the members' tribe has jurisdiction. Response: In cases where Service officers determine that there have been possible violations of Federal law committed by tribal members, officers have a responsibility to investigate such violations. Service law enforcement officers are trained on the topics of Federal, State, and tribal jurisdictions. In situations where a question of tribal rights arises in the course of an investigation, the Service has a review process in place to determine whether or not to pursue a case. Service law enforcement officers are committed to working cooperatively with tribal game-enforcement authorities whenever they can in pursuing specific investigations. We also have added language in section 6 that the Service will provide its law enforcement staff additional cross-cultural training.

1. Several commenters asked that the Service commit to helping tribes receive a consistent level of funding to sustain ongoing tribal wildlife management projects. Several also asked that we make educating tribal staff an affirmative priority. Response: The Service funds tribal wildlife projects through several funding mechanisms. We do not, however, have the resources to commit to set levels of funding. The Service is able to act only within the constraints of its available resources.

2. Several commenters focused on training for tribal members by asking the Service to facilitate training opportunities, promote its training facilities (e.g., at the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC)), and provide scholarships and funding to assist in the development of staff in areas of need. In addition, several commenters were concerned with language that stated that the Service would carry out certain functions, such as providing technical assistance, “as resources and priorities allow.” These commenters believe that these activities are a priority and were concerned that they not be left to the discretion of individual offices. Response: The Service offers many kinds of training in many locations. We include tribal members in many of our training courses, including those at NCTC. We cannot make representations that we can fund all desired activities that we may not have the resources to support.

3. Commenters encouraged the Service to provide joint training to increase awareness and understanding for implementation of the policy for tribal and Service staff to ensure they both receive consistent information and to foster collaborative learning and strong working relationships. Response: We agree. We have added language to section 8 that we will form both national and Regional tribal-Service teams to assess the priorities for training and other priorities in each area. Also, we have added language to section 8 as follows: “The Service will encourage and support joint training with tribes to promote common understanding about implementing the policy within the context of Region-specific circumstances.” Section 7 states: “The Service will provide tribal governments and their staff access to our fish and wildlife resource training programs in the same manner that we provide access to other government agencies. In addition, we plan to work with tribes to develop, conduct, and attend joint training programs to increase awareness and sensitivity and to cross-train our employees and tribal staff on each other's responsibilities for resource stewardship.”

4. One commenter asked that the Service re-evaluate the Tribal Wildlife Grant (TWG) funding program and explore other options for providing stable, long-term funding to tribes like the Service currently provides to States. Response: Re-evaluating such programs goes beyond the scope of this policy.

5. Several commenters asked for stronger language regarding recruitment of Native Americans. Response: Both sections 6 and 7 address this issue. The policy encourages qualified Native Americans to apply for Service jobs. It additionally states that, “[w]e will collaborate with tribal governments to recruit Native Americans for Service law enforcement positions . . .”

6. We received many comments about the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA; 25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) and how it applies to the Service.

One commenter stated that the Service should first come out with a national policy regarding annual funding agreements (AFA) at national wildlife refuges before entering into any ISDEAA contracts at refuges. Response: That is beyond the scope of this policy.

Other commenters stated that multi-year funding agreements for refuge management are not statutorily authorized, and that 15 U.S.C. 458cc does not authorize multi-year funding agreements. Response: The Service will consider the full range of contracts and grants that are available to tribes within applicable law. Multi-year agreements do not authorize multi-year funding. Funding is allocated through AFAs. Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 100.146 allows an agency to negotiate a self-governance funding agreement with a performance period that exceeds 1 year.

Another commenter stated that they believed that all information about AFAs should be made available under FOIA requests. Should there be an AFA, the Service must maintain records that it will be able to produce upon public request. Response: All documents in the Service's custody and control are subject to FOIA. Tribes are not subject to FOIA.

One commenter stated that refuge management should not be available to tribes under an AFA where the Service has not finalized a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), and that the Service cannot contract inherently Federal functions. Response: Refuge management has been identified as an inherently Federal function and is not available to tribes under an AFA.

7. Under the subsection on Professional Development, include a commitment to implement and expand tribal internship opportunities and programs for Native American students at colleges, universities, tribal colleges, and other institutions to provide expanded opportunities for Native American students to gain experience in wildlife resource management. Response: At this time, making this additional commitment in response to this request goes beyond the scope of the Service's resources.

8. Add language committing the Service to strategize with tribes about possible funding opportunities that would be available through statutory amendments to existing programs. Response: The Service in not authorized to pursue statutory amendments on behalf of tribes.

9. Several commenters asked that the policy clarify that when offering assistance to tribes, the Service should limit its offer of expertise to the fish and wildlife resources defined by the policy. These commenters stated that the Service may not be qualified to review and assess tribal conservation measures for species under State jurisdiction without State involvement. Also, where there are instances of court-established processes for developing species management plans, Service involvement might be inappropriate. Response: We added the following language: “Service involvement may be limited where litigation or other court actions have established a specific process for the development of species management plans and tribal codes.”

1. Several commenters hoped to see operational plans within the policy. They stated that the policy should contain more detail and directly address how it will be implemented. They stated that the policy seems to be a framework that needs to be transformed into operational plans for local level implementation. Response: The policy becomes operational through the table of employee responsibilities. In addition, the Service has a tribal consultation handbook that we will be updating. We added additional language to section 8 calling for national and Regional teams comprised of both Service and tribal representatives to implement the policy in a way that is meaningful at a more localized level. The policy also calls for training at all levels of the Service.

2. Commenters recommended that the Service establish a tribal committee that would monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the policy and make recommendations to improve its implementation. Commenters asked that we require Regional and field offices to carry out training for staff and leadership on the culture and legal rights of Indian tribes in their areas, with invitations extended to those Indian tribes and tribal agencies to assist in the planning and execution of those trainings. Response: We have added language to section 8 that describes how we will form both national and Regional tribal-Service teams to assess the priorities for training and other priorities in each area. We have also added the following language to section 8: “The Service will encourage and support joint training with tribes to promote common understanding about implementing the policy within the context of Region-specific circumstances.” Implementation will continue through tribal-Service teams that will address training and other needs in each area. These teams will nurture strong collaborative working relationships that will address communication, training, implementation, and monitoring.

3. One commenter stated that there should be a clear process for recourse if tribal consultation is denied or mishandled by Service officials and staff. Response: Section 8 addresses the manner by which the Service will address disagreements regarding the implementation of this policy.

Several commenters were concerned that some of the language from the 1994 policy that clarified State wildlife agencies' roles and authorities was missing from the draft. Response: We have recognized State authority throughout the policy and have added the following, “Nothing in this policy may be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of States to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations.”

1. Several commenters stated that the definition for “Indian lands” should include land held in fee by an Indian or a tribe, or land owned by an ANC. Response: The tribal-U.S. relationship is a political one. We cannot extend the legal protections of trust land to non-trust land through this policy. For ANCs, we plan to develop an Alaska regional policy that addresses the issue further.

2. Several commenters asked that we include a definition of “trust responsibility.” Response: We have taken language describing the contours of the trust responsibility from Secretary's Order 3335 and inserted it into the first section of the policy.

3. Several commenters pointed out that in Alaska, co-management can take place between the Service and non-governmental entities, and that our proposed co-management definition did not include these situations. Other commenters asked that we make the definition more restrictive by including entities that have authority “legally established by federal law or adjudication.” Response: We have changed the definition of “co-management” as follows: “two or more entities, each having legally established management responsibilities, working collaboratively to achieve mutually agreed upon, compatible objectives to protect, conserve, use, enhance, or restore natural and cultural resources.” We have also added a definition for “collaborative management” as follows: “two or more entities working together to actively protect, conserve, use, enhance, or restore natural and cultural resources.” We believe these clarifications will cover management scenarios both in Alaska and throughout the country.

4. Several commenters asked for clarity in the definition of fish and wildlife resources, stating that many fish and wildlife species found on refuges are managed under State rather than Federal authority. These commenters recommended that we state that the Service's responsibility is limited to the purpose for which the refuge was designated and to federally managed species. Response: The Service has responsibility for all resources within refuge boundaries. We enter into agreements with States and other entities for co-management and cooperative management, where appropriate.

5. Many commenters objected to the definition of “sacred site” and offered alternative definitions. One commenter asked that we use the term “sacred place” and offered a definition. Another commenter stated that it would be more appropriate to use a definition they offered for “cultural landscapes,” which the National Park Service had used. Response: We understand that this definition may not fit tribal concepts of sacred sites. We will address these concerns during training. We continue to use this definition, which we took directly from Executive Order 13007 and the Departmental Manual at 512 DM 3. Concern about accessing cultural sites is further discussed in section 8 under the Access for Cultural, Archeological, and Historic Resources, and Indian Sacred Sites subsection.

6. One commenter stated that it was unclear whether the “sacred site” definition would require a prior identification of sacred sites. Response: We have clarified the language, changing the tense to clarify that that a tribe does not need to identify a sacred site prior to the inception of the project under discussion. The tribe does need to identify the site to us in order for us to consider its sensitivity in our planning or review of the project. While a sacred site may exist to a tribe, we cannot consider a sacred site that we do not know about. In addition to the definition, the subsection on access addresses the need to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of sacred sites and to accommodate Indians' access to and use of sacred sites.

1. Some commenters recommended moving this section farther back in the document, perhaps including it as an appendix to highlight the importance of the policy rather than the roles of various Federal positions. Response: We agree and have moved the table into an exhibit. The use of exhibits is consistent with other Service Manual policies.

2. Several commenters asked that the policy identify the Service officials who have responsibility to liaison with non-tribal governments, agencies, or other entities. Response: This policy is focused on working with Native Americans, so this request is beyond its scope.

1. Many commenters asked that we list each treaty in which the United States and tribes have recognized reserved rights to natural resources. Some commenters noted that we mention treaties quite a bit, without recognizing that many tribes do not have treaties. Some commenters asked that we include particular statutes through which Congress has stated the United States' legal relationship with tribes. Response: We are unable to add references to all the treaties and statutes that refer to individual tribes. They are too numerous to list in this document. Many tribes have several treaties or statutes, or both, with some overturning or modifying earlier citations. Individual treaties and statutes are more appropriately addressed through training at the local level.

2. Several commenters recommended we include the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) to the authorities section. Response: We have added the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

3. The authorities section should include the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Energy, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding Interagency Coordination and Collaboration for the Protection of Indian Sacred Sites, December 6, 2012. Response: We have added this MOU to the exhibit.

1. We received several comments that focused on concerns specific to Alaska. Many commenters stated that while ANCs are not tribal governments and are not treated as sovereigns, the United States has a responsibility to consult with ANCs on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order 13175. They recommended that we include the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199) in the authorities section. In addition, several commenters noted that, while the Service has stated that it will adopt an Alaska regional policy, the national policy must also address the Service's relationship with ANCs. Commenters pointed out that many national level proposals and plans have a substantial and direct impact on ANCs and other Alaska Native entities, so ANCs should be considered on the national level. Response: We have adopted these comments. We have added authorities about consultation with ANCs to the authorities exhibit. We have included the requirement to consult with ANCs in sections 1 and 3 of the policy. In addition, the Alaska Region (Region 7) is in the process of drafting an Alaska-specific policy. Also in response to these comments, we have added a definition of Alaska Native Corporation to the definitions exhibit.

2. Commenters from Alaska voiced concern that because the term “inter-tribal organization” is undefined, this provision might be interpreted as a limit on the agency's ability to consult with any group that is not a tribe or authorized by a tribe to consult on its behalf. Response: We have broadened the scope of “Alaska Native Organization (ANO)” to include a broad array of organizations that represent Alaska Natives, including, but not limited to, ANOs under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

3. Commenters asked that the training and professional development opportunities anticipated by the Service for tribal governments should be extended to ANCs. Some stated that ANCs are valuable sources of traditional knowledge, have significant interests in receiving technical information, and asked that these policy provisions be expanded to include them. Response: We will consult with ANCs on the same basis as we consult with tribes, and we will also work with ANCs in all areas permissible by law.

4. Some commenters believe that under ISDEAA, ANCs have the same status as tribes for the provision of many contract services. Response: ANCs are entitled to contract under title I of the ISDEAA. With respect to title IV self-governance funding agreements, 25 U.S.C. 458bb establishes that tribes are eligible to participate in the Department's Tribal Self-Governance Program. The regulations for the Program also allow consortia, defined as “an organization of Indian tribes that is authorized by those tribes to participate in self-governance.”

Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate a cultural item in the possession of Binghamton University that meets the definition of sacred object under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

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

During the middle to late 1960s, the Anthropology Department at Binghamton University acquired a False Face mask made by an artist from the Six Nations, in Ontario, Canada. A typed index card accompanying the mask reads: “Broken Nose, Seneca Nation, Snapping Turtle Clan, Six Nations Reservation—Ontario.” The mask is carved wood with a black face with a red mouth, with a hole on one side (right side, facing out), and a pointed chin. The mask face has holes in the nose and metal eye inlays surrounding center eyeholes. The face is framed with yellow hair, and there are carved lines on the face.

On March 11, 2003, Binghamton University hosted a consultation meeting for federally recognized tribes to review NAGPRA summaries as part of the process of determining cultural affiliation. A group of traditional representatives from the Cayuga Nation; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (previously listed as the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York); Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York); and the Tuscarora Nation, met privately after the open consultation. In January of 2013, letters were sent to Seneca representatives asking for comments or claims on the mask. On September 22, 2015, Scott Abrams, Acting Director of the Seneca Nation of Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Officer contacted Binghamton University and formally requested repatriation of the Seneca mask. Binghamton University asked other Seneca representatives if they agreed. No comments were received.

Officials of Binghamton University have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the one cultural item described above is a specific ceremonial object needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred object and the Seneca Nation.

Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the sacred object should contact Nina M. Versaggi, Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000, telephone (607) 777-4786, before February 26, 2016. Repatriation of the sacred object to the Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York) Tribal Historic Preservation Office may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.

Binghamton University is responsible for notifying the Cayuga Nation; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Oneida Nation of New York; Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin; Onondaga Nation; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (previously listed as the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York); Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York); Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York); and Tuscarora Nation 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 and associated funerary objects in the physical custody of the Fowler Museum at UCLA and under the control of the California Department of Transportation. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, CA.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). 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 was made by the Fowler Museum at UCLA professional staff in consultation with representatives of Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, and the following nonfederally recognized Indian groups: Barbareno Chumash Council; Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians; Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation; Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians; Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California Tribe; Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council; Northern Chumash Tribe; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Ti'at Society; and the Traditional Council of Pimu.

In 1966 and 1967, human remains representing at minimum, 108 individuals were removed from Xucu (CA-SBA-1) in Santa Barbara County, CA. Excavations were undertaken by a UCLA field course directed by Patrick Finnerty for the State Division of Highways prior to construction of Highway 101. This work continued in 1967, in addition to excavations led by Gary Stickel within an adjacent cemetery. Both sets of collections were curated upon completion of analysis as provided in the permits. Not all of the 1966 burials were curated at UCLA, and their current location is unknown. Radiocarbon dates have occupation from 5500 B.C. through Spanish contact periods. In 1966, formal burials and fragmentary human remains were discovered and removed for curation. The total minimum number of individuals represented are 28, identified as 16 adults (1 male, 1 female, and 14 unidentified), 2 sub-adults, 2 juvenile, and 3 infants. Another 5 individuals were too fragmentary to identify age or sex. In 1967, 43 burials were formally identified, however several where left in-situ after recording them. In addition, fragmentary human remains were recovered. In total, a minimum number of 80 individuals can be identified as 60 adults, 3 sub-adults, 12 juveniles, 3 infants, and 2 perinatal. In addition 21 were identifiable as male and 11 as female. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified for the burials found in 1966. The 726 associated funerary objects excavated in 1967 included 19 pieces and 1 bag of asphaltum fragments; 20 pieces of worked bone; 189 pieces and 3 bags of unmodified animal bone; 1 piece of charcoal; 12 pieces of hematite; 14 pieces of limonite; 1 fragment of a paper candlewick; 2 bags of soil samples; 1 wood fragment; 123 pieces and 2 bags of unmodified shell; 2 asphaltum plugged abalone shells; 22 shell beads; 7 bowl/mortar fragments; 167 groundstone tools and fragments; 139 chipped stone tools and flakes; and 1 steatite pipe.

In 1969-1970, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Kasil (CA-SBA-87) in Santa Barbara County, CA. Excavations by G. James West occurred at the request of the Division of Highways as a salvage project undertaken prior to highway construction on Highway 101. Collections were accessioned at UCLA as they returned from the field. The village dates from A.D. 300 to 1500. Human remains consist of a single burial representing an adult male. The burial was disturbed when a bulldozer cut a trench on the upper terrace. Further investigation of the trench failed to show the exact burial location. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

From 1961 to 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from Rincon Point (CA-SBA-119) in Santa Barbara County, CA. Excavations in 1961 and 1962 were led by Patrick Finnerty while still in high school. Most of the human remains and artifacts have not been located, however at least some of three burials and objects have been found and curated at the Fowler Museum at UCLA. In 1963, excavations were directed by Keith Johnson with the UCLA Archaeological Survey preliminary as a salvage excavation due to the re-location of U.S. Highway 101 which would pass through the site. The collection was curated at UCLA upon completion of the field work. The site dates from 1735 to 1320 B.C. The human remains consist of a single burial with a minimum of two individuals: A sub-adult male and an adult, sex unknown. The three relocated burials represent a minimum of three individuals, one adult male, one juvenile, and one adult with undetermined sex. No known individuals were identified. The 16 associated funerary objects include 8 sandstone mortar fragments from a 1962 burial and 2 shell fragments, 1 bone hairpin, 3 biface, 1 unmodified animal bone, and 1 serpentine pendant from a 1963 burial.

In 1968 and 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, 16 individuals were removed from Pitas Point (CA-VEN-27) in Ventura County, CA. Excavations were conducted by a University of California Archaeological Survey crew under the direction of Chester King. The excavation was part of a salvage project for the realignment of Highway 101, and took place on land owned by Caltrans. This collection was curated at UCLA after analysis was complete. Analysis of the artifacts places the site occupation to A.D. 1000-1550. Three formal burials and fragmentary human remains recovered from midden contexts include 13 adults (2 male, 1 female, and 10 unidentified), 1 juvenile, and 1 infant. One fragmentary remain could not be aged or sex determined. No known individuals were identified. The 50 associated funerary objects include 2 bags and 6 pieces of unmodified animal bone, 2 worked bone fragments, 1 bag of charcoal, 6 bags of asphaltum, 1 bag and 2 individual tarring pebbles, 5 bags of unmodified shell, 1 shell fishhook fragment, 1 shell bead fragment, 21 chipped stone flakes and tools, 1 fire cracked rock, and 1 pestle.

The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through tribal consultation to be within the traditional territory of the Chumash people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Chumash people.

The Chumash territory, anthropologically defined first on the basis of linguistic similarities, and subsequently on broadly shared material and cultural traits, reaches from San Luis Obispo to Malibu on the coast, inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, to the edge of the San Fernando Valley, and includes the four Northern Channel Islands. At the southern and southeastern boundaries of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva languages and beliefs systems. At the northern boundary of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash and Salinan groups. The sites in this notice are located in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties and fall within the geographical area identified as Chumash. Some tribal consultants state that these areas were the responsibility of regional leaders, who were themselves organized into a pan-regional association of both political power and ceremonial knowledge. Further, these indigenous areas are identified by some tribal consultants to be relational with clans or associations of traditional practitioners of specific kinds of indigenous medicinal and ceremonial practices. Some tribal consultants identified these clans as existing in the pre-contact period and identified some clans as also existing in the present day. Other tribal consultants do not recognize present-day geographical divisions to be related to clans of traditional practitioners. However, they do state that Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva territories were and are occupied by socially distinct, yet interrelated, groups which have been characterized by anthropologists. Ethnographic evidence suggests that the social and political organization of the pre-contact Channel Islands were primarily at the village level, with a hereditary chief, in addition to many other specialists who wielded power.

The associated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva people. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 10,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Chumash people, specifically the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Officials of the California Department of Transportation have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 130 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 792 objects described in this notice 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 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Tina Biorn, California Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 942874 MS 27, Sacramento, CA 94271-0001, telephone (916) 653-0013, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, may proceed.

The California Department of Transportation is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, 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. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the California Department of Transportation that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

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

In February 1997, 4,280 burial objects were removed from CA-LAN-2233 in Los Angeles County, CA. The California Department of Transportation initiated an emergency recovery effort of burials in the path of construction to improve State Route 126. An archeologist had previously found a burial on an adjacent private property and notified the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as construction began. During staff efforts to locate the burial, evidence of additional burials were found. Staff terminated the exploratory effort and came back with a crew consisting of trained osteologists from the Archaeological Research Center, California State University, Sacramento, and Caltrans staff, under the direction of Dr. Georgie Waugh, to recover the burials. In August 1997, six more burials were found during highway construction and additional recovery excavations were conducted by Dr. Phillip Walker and students of University of California (UC) Santa Barbara. Over the course of the project, a total of 45 burials were located and transported to UC Santa Barbara for analysis. All human remains and non-artifactual and artifactual grave associated items identified were reburied as directed by the Most Likely Descendant designated by the California Native American Heritage Commission. Recent consultations resulted in the identification of additional funerary objects because of their proximity to the burials. The unassociated funerary objects are 1 stone core, 1,415 pieces of stone debitage, 3 pieces of modified bone, 2,828 pieces of unmodified faunal bone, 1 soil sample, 6 bags of charcoal samples, and 24 fragments and 2 bags of seed/nut pieces. Two components were identified: An earlier Millingstone adaptation that occurred at least prior to 2000 years ago, and perhaps as early as 3000-4000 years ago, and a later component securely dated to at least 2000 to 1630 years ago. The burials are associated with this later component.

In 1966 and 1967, 502 burial items were removed from Xucu (CA-SBA-1) in Santa Barbara County, CA. Excavations were undertaken by a UCLA field course directed by Patrick Finnerty for the State Division of Highways prior to construction of Highway 101. This work continued in 1967, in addition to excavations led by Gary Stickel within an adjacent cemetery. Both sets of collections were curated upon completion of analysis as provided in the permits. Not all of the 1966 burials were curated at UCLA, and their current location is unknown. Radiocarbon dates have occupation from 5500 B.C. through Spanish contact periods. In 1966, formal burials and fragmentary human remains were discovered and removed for curation. While the catalog lists some associated funerary objects for “Burial 1, 2, 3, and 5,” none of the formal burials have been located, and therefore all burial objects are recorded as unassociated funerary objects. The total number of objects from these features is 328, which includes 280 fragments and 3 bags of unmodified animal bones, 1 worked bone, 1 atlatl, 1 core, 10 flakes, 26 fragments and 1 bag of unmodified shell, 1 stone fragment, 1 hammerstone, 1 mortar fragment, 1 net weight, and 1 spire-lopped shell bead. The 1967 excavations derive from a cemetery context. In addition to the burials there were also many features found directly above or close to the burials, but not in direct association. The total number of objects from these features is 174, which include 67 unmodified animal bone, 12 unmodified shell fragments, 1 discoidal, 14 chipped stone tools and flakes, 72 groundstone tools and fragments, and 8 mortar fragments.

From 1961-1963, two burial objects were removed from Rincon Point (CA-SBA-119) in Santa Barbara County, CA. Excavations in 1961 and 1962 were led by Patrick Finnerty, while still in high school. Most of the human remains and artifacts have not been located, however, at least some of three burials and objects have been found and curated at the Fowler Museum at UCLA. The site dates from 1735-1320 B.C. A few of the burial objects associated with the 1961 field season have been curated at UCLA. Since the associated human remains have not been located, these objects are included here as unassociated funerary objects. They are one abrading stone and one megathura shell ornament.

The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through tribal consultation to be within the traditional territory of the Chumash people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Chumash people.

The Chumash territory, anthropologically defined first on the basis of linguistic similarities, and subsequently on broadly shared material and cultural traits, reaches from San Luis Obispo to Malibu on the coast, inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, to the edge of the San Fernando Valley, and includes the four Northern Channel Islands. At the southern and southeastern boundaries of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva languages and beliefs systems. At the northern boundary of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash and Salinan groups. The sites in this notice are located in the northwestern Los Angeles County and Santa Barbara County and fall within the geographical area identified as Chumash. Some tribal consultants state that these areas were the responsibility of regional leaders, who were themselves organized into a pan-regional association of both political power and ceremonial knowledge. Further, these indigenous areas are identified by some tribal consultants to be relational with clans or associations of traditional practitioners of specific kinds of indigenous medicinal and ceremonial practices. Some tribal consultants identified these clans as existing in the pre-contact period and identified some clans as also existing in the present day. Other tribal consultants do not recognize present-day geographical divisions to be related to clans of traditional practitioners. However, they do state that Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva territories were and are occupied by socially distinct, yet interrelated, groups which have been characterized by anthropologists. Ethnographic evidence suggests that the social and political organization of the pre-contact Channel Islands were primarily at the village level, with a hereditary chief, in addition to many other specialists who wielded power.

The unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva people. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 10,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Chumash people, specifically Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Officials of the California Department of Transportation have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 4,784 cultural items 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 and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Tina Biorn, California Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 942874 MS 27, Sacramento, CA 94271-0001, telephone 916-653-0013, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, may proceed.

The California Department of Transportation is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, 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 and associated funerary objects under the control of the San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from various locations in the La Jolla area of San Diego, San Diego County, CA.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C 3003(d)(3). 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 was made by the San Diego Museum of Man professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Campo Indian Reservation, California; Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California: (Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Barona Reservation, California; Viejas (Baron Long) Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Viejas Reservation, California); Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, California; Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, California (previously listed as the Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Santa Ysabel Reservation); Inaja Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Inaja and Cosmit Reservation, California; Jamul Indian Village of California; La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian Reservation, California; Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation, California; Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande Indian Reservation, California; San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California; and the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, hereafter referred to as “The Tribes.”

Between 1925 and 1929, human remains representing, at minimum, 15 individuals were recovered by Malcom J. Rogers from CA-SDI-39 and CA-SDI-18307 (W-1 and W-2). At an unknown date prior to 1941, Rogers transferred this collection to the San Diego Museum of Man. No known individuals were identified. The 3 associated funerary objects are 1 lot of 11 faunal remains and 2 olivella shell beads.

In 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were recovered in a salvage operation from CA-SDI-18307 (W-2). This individual was collected by Rose Tyson on behalf of the San Diego Museum of Man. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Between 1929 to 1945, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were recovered from CA-SDI-4670 (W-5) by Malcolm J. Rogers on behalf of the San Diego Museum of Man as a part of salvage archeology operations. The 4 associated funerary objects are 1 metate, 1 mano, 1 scraper/plane, and 1 lot of olivella shell beads.

On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were removed from an unknown location. These human remains lack specific information on the date of collection/donation, name of the collector, or collection documentation beyond their association with CA-SDI-4670 (W-5). No known individuals were identified. The 2 associated funerary objects are 1 stone fragment and 1 shell.

In 1943, human remains representing, at minimum, 32 individuals were recovered from CA-SDI-525 (W-9) by Malcolm J. Rogers on behalf of the San Diego Museum of Man as a part of salvage archeology operations conducted during World War II Army construction. No known individuals were identified. The 12 associated funerary objects include 3 utilized flakes, 4 olivella shell beads, 2 olivella shells, 1 lot of olivella shell beads, 1 core tool, and 1 protothaca shell.

Between 1958 and 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were collected from CA-SDI-525 (W-9) by Carl L. Hubbs, G. Shumway, J. Moriarity, and C. Warren during the home construction of two Scripps Estate Association Lots. In 1972, these remains were donated to the San Diego Museum of Man by Carl Hubbs. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Between 1929 and 1952, human remains representing, at minimum, 8 individuals were recovered from CA-SDI-4669 (W-12) by Malcolm J. Rogers during numerous recoveries due to construction on the William H. Black Estate. These collections were either recovered on behalf of the San Diego Museum of Man or transferred by Rogers to the Museum of Man prior to 1953. No known individuals were identified. The 5 associated funerary objects are 4 metates and 1 mano.

In 1948, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were collected from CA-SDI-4669 (W-12) during San Diego Museum of Man field work. No known individuals were identified. The 55 associated funerary objects are 4 battered stones, 4 utilized flakes, 6 stones, 1 core tools, 2 bone awls, 1 ring stone, 24 flakes, and 13 shells.

In 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected from CA-SDI-4669 (W-12) by Carr Tuthill on behalf of the San Diego Museum of Man due to construction on the William H. Black Estate. No known individuals were identified. The 1 associated funerary object is 1 lot of stone beads.

These five sites were originally identified by Malcolm J. Rogers and designated as: W-1 (CA-SDI-39) and W-2 (CA-SDI-18307), known as the Spindrift/La Jolla Shores sites; W-5 (CA-SDI-4670) known as the Middle Midden; W-9 (CA-SDI-525), later named the Cemetery; and W-12 (CA-SDI-4669) known as Skeleton Hill. Excavations from these sites were conducted by Rogers, as well as other individuals, including San Diego Museum of Man staff. Many of these excavations occurred while Rogers was employed by the San Diego Museum of Man. These five sites are all located within well-known and documented aboriginal territories of the Kumeyaay Nation. Based on archeological evidence, geographic location, ethnographic information, and oral history evidence, these remains have been identified as Native American.

Officials of the San Diego Museum of Man have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 66 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 82 associated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Kumeyaay Nation, as represented by The Tribes.

Lineal descendants and representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Ben Garcia, Deputy Director, San Diego Museum of Man, 1350 El Prado, San Diego, CA 92101, telephone (619) 239-2001 ext. 17, email [email protected], February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Tribes may proceed.

The San Diego Museum of Man 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. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the California Department of Parks and Recreation that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

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

In 1954, two burial objects were removed from Arroyo Sequit (CA-LAN-52) in Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were conducted by Clement Meighan as a UCLA Department of Anthropology and Sociology field school to salvage information from portions of the site that were to be lost due to highway widening. This collection was curated at UCLA after analysis was complete. The excavations were located on lands belonging to the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Arroyo Sequit is also recorded as the village of Lisiqshi with a radiocarbon date of A.D. 610 ±100, placing occupation in the Late Period through Spanish contact. The excavation notes indicate that an adult female burial was excavated (Burial 1). The human remains from this burial were not curated at UCLA and notes indicate the human remains were donated to Freddie Curtis in 1958. The current location of these human remains is unknown to UCLA. The two objects, a projectile point and a flake scraper associated with Burial 1, are present in the collection. Because the human remains are not at UCLA, these objects are considered unassociated funerary objects under NAGPRA.

In 1970 and 1971, 8,475 cultural items were removed from Humaliwu (CA-LAN-264) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. Nelson N. Leonard obtained permission to have a UCLA Anthropology field course conduct research, which included excavation of the historic cemetery on California Department of Parks and Recreation property. Collections were accessioned at UCLA as they returned from the field. The village dates from A.D. 550-1805. Excavations included the village's historic cemetery, and while all items identified as being associated with a particular burial were included in a separate Notice of Inventory Completion, excavators further identified objects recovered from the cemetery in general. In consultation with descendent communities, all items from the cemetery were requested for repatriation and are included as unassociated funerary objects. The unassociated funerary objects are 191 lumps, plugs, and fragments, 30 bags of asphaltum fragments many with basketry, wood, and fabric impressions, 698 pieces and 19 bags of unmodified animal bone, 14 pieces of worked bone, 1 ceramic fragment, 7 bags of charcoal, 1 bag of clay fragments with basketry impression, 1 adobe fragment, 3 glass bottle fragments, 1 worked glass piece, 1 cordage fragment, 24 whole and fragmented unmodified shells, 214 worked shell objects, 3 asphaltum plugged shell dishes, 2 steatite pendants, 1 elbow pipe, 1 soil sample bag, 6,524 individual stone, shell, and glass beads, 72 pieces of ochre, 10 bags and 9 wood fragments, 26 metal objects, 4 bullet shells, 1 bag of iron fragments, 1 column sample bag, 6 soapstone comals, 94 stone bowl fragments, 3 tarring pebbles, 414 chipped stone flakes and tools, 36 ground stone tools, and 63 stone fragments.

The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through tribal consultation to be within the traditional territory of the Chumash people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Chumash people.

The Chumash territory, anthropologically defined first on the basis of linguistic similarities, and subsequently on broadly shared material and cultural traits, reaches from San Luis Obispo to Malibu on the coast, inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, to the edge of the San Fernando Valley, and includes the four Northern Channel Islands. At the southern and southeastern boundaries of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva languages and beliefs systems. At the northern boundary of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash and Salinan groups. The sites in this notice are located in northwestern Los Angeles County and fall within the geographical area identified as Chumash. Some tribal consultants state that these areas were the responsibility of regional leaders, who were themselves organized into a pan-regional association of both political power and ceremonial knowledge. Further, these indigenous areas are identified by some tribal consultants to be relational with clans or associations of traditional practitioners of specific kinds of indigenous medicinal and ceremonial practices. Some tribal consultants identified these clans as existing in the pre-contact period and identified some clans as also existing in the present day. Other tribal consultants do not recognize present-day geographical divisions to be related to clans of traditional practitioners. However, they do state that Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva territories were and are occupied by socially distinct, yet interrelated, groups which have been characterized by anthropologists. Ethnographic evidence suggests that the social and political organization of the pre-contact Channel Islands were primarily at the village level, with a hereditary chief, in addition to many other specialists who wielded power.

The unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 10,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Chumash people, specifically the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Officials of the California Department of Parks and Recreation have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 8,477 cultural items described in this notice 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 and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Leslie Hartzell, Ph.D., NAGPRA Coordinator, Cultural Resources Division Chief, California State Parks, P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296-0001, telephone (916) 653-9946, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, may proceed.

The California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, 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 and associated funerary objects in the physical custody of the Fowler Museum at UCLA and under the control of the California Department of Transportation. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Los Angeles County, CA.

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 was made by the Fowler Museum at UCLA professional staff in consultation with representatives of Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California; San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation); and the following nonfederally recognized Indian groups: Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians; Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California Tribe; Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Ti'at Society; and the Traditional Council of Pimu.

In 1945, 1963, 1967, and 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were removed from Big Tujunga Wash (CA-LAN-167) in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated in 1963 by Jay Ruby of the UCLA Archaeological Survey. The excavation was carried out as a salvage project after a dragline digging operation for a sewer line exposed and damaged one burial within the highway right-of-way. The human remains from this burial were recovered at that time. Subsequent review of the collection also identified fragmentary remains from midden contexts. A second burial, excavated from the site sometime between 1945-1951, by Edwin Walker of the Southwest Museum, was included along with the 1963 collection under Accession Number 501 and is included here. In all, a minimum of four adults, an infant, and a juvenile are represented. Sex was unable to be determined for any of the human remains. Nelson N. Leonard led a second project during the summers of 1967 and 1968 as mitigation for the building of the Foothill Freeway over the site. From the 1967-68 project, a juvenile human molar was identified. Ruby dated the site to A.D. 435 to 1800. No known individuals were identified. The 14 associated funerary objects are animal bones recovered in proximity to the burial recovered in 1945.

In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from the Hammack Street site in Los Angeles County, CA (CA-LAN-194). The site was excavated by Chester King of the University of California Davis Anthropology Department for the California Department of Transportation. The project was designed for mitigation of impacts to the site from freeway construction for the Marina Freeway. The collection was curated at UCLA after analysis. Site CA-LAN-194 dates to the historic period based on the artifact analyses. The human remains consists of three human bone removed from midden contexts representing at least three individuals. No age or sex could be determined due to their fragmentary nature. No known individuals were identified. Collection documentation does not indicate any burials or associated funerary objects.

The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through tribal consultation to be within the traditional territory of the Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people.

Linguistic and ethnohistoric evidence shows that these Takic-speaking peoples moved into the San Fernando Valley and greater Los Angeles area by at least 3000 B.C. These groups have a common heritage, but began to diverge after arrival. Analysis of historical records from missions in the Greater Los Angeles area shows that at the time of mission recruitment, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the occupants of the area were descended from the populations living in the area since 3000 B.C.

The associated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 5,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people. However, the Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people currently lack federal recognition within a single unified tribe.

At the time of the excavation and removal of these human remains and associated funerary objects, the land from which the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed was not the tribal land of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. In 2014 and 2015, the Fowler Museum at UCLA consulted with Indian tribes who are recognized as aboriginal to the area from which these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed. None of these Indian tribes agreed to accept control of the human remains and associated funerary objects. In October 2015, the Fowler Museum at UCLA and California Department of Transportation agreed to transfer control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation).

Officials of the California Department of Transportation have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 10 individuals of Native American ancestry based on metric and non-metric analysis.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 14 items described in this notice 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 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.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(2)(i), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation).

Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Tina Biorn, California Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 942874 MS 27, Sacramento, CA 94271-0001, telephone (916) 653-0013; email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation), may proceed.

The California Department of Transportation is responsible for notifying the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation), 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 correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Charleston District of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Berkeley County, SC.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). 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.

This notice corrects the number of associated funerary objects published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register (80 FR 13614, March 16, 2015). Additional boxes of material that contained associated funerary objects were identified by the repository after the original inventory. These items were inventoried in March 2015, after the publication of the initial Notice. Transfer of control of the items in this correction notice has not occurred.

In the Federal Register (80 FR 13615, March 16, 2015), column 1, sentence 6, under the heading “History and Description of the Remains,” is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

In the Federal Register (80 FR 13615, March 16, 2015), column 2, bullet 3, is corrected by substituting the following sentence:

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Mr. Alan Shirey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, ATTN: CESAC-PM-PL, 69A Hagood Avenue, Charleston, SC 29403-5107, telephone (843) 329-8166, email [email protected] by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Catawba Indian Nation may proceed.

The Charleston District of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers is responsible for notifying the Catawba Indian Nation 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. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Fowler Museum at UCLA that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

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

Sometime before 1972 and in 1991, 2,948 cultural items were removed from Encinal Canyon (CA-LAN-114) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. Accession 752 contains 49 cultural items identified as being associated with the burial found in Encinal Canyon. The site has been dated through diagnostic artifacts and radiocarbon dating to the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) through Historic contact. The human remains were not curated at the Fowler Museum, and therefore the burial items are identified as unassociated funerary objects. The unassociated funerary objects are 15 shell beads, 28 unmodified shell fragments, 5 groundstone fragments, and 1 marine animal bone. Accession 871 contains 2,899 cultural items removed by Brian Dillon during mitigation work in 1991 on a single parcel that was given to UCLA in 2001. All human remains were reinterred on site along with many of the funerary objects. There were many more funerary objects that were not interred and under NAGPRA are unassociated funerary objects. The unassociated funerary objects are 2,779 pieces of shell, 1 bag of shell fragments, 1 bag of charcoal, 2 pieces of worked bone, 1 piece of ochre, 10 shell beads, 22 grinding stones, 5 metate fragments, 45 pieces of flaked-stone tools and debitage, 1 metal button, 26 glass fragments, 1 cement fragment, and 5 pieces of historic tools.

Between 1950 and 1969, 70 cultural items were removed from the Zuma Creek Site (CA-LAN-174) in Los Angeles County, CA. Salvage excavations were conducted at the site during 1968 and 1969 by Sally MacFadyen and Jinny McKenzie, as well as Thomas King and the University of California (UC) Archaeological Survey crew. Human remains from five burials were accessioned by UCLA in 1969 and 1986 and are contained in a separate Notice of Inventory Completion. The site produced a radiocarbon date of circa 3000 B.C. The field notes discuss human remains from the same excavations not curated at UCLA; funerary objects from these burials are, however, present in the collection and under NAGPRA are unassociated funerary objects. The unassociated funerary objects are 1 bag of shell fragments, 1 soil sample bag, 6 pieces of unmodified animal bone, 6 shell beads, 1 piece of burned clay, 24 ground stone tools, 7 stone fragments, 14 chipped-stone tools, 5 flaking cores, and 5 cobble fragments.

In 1967, seven cultural items were removed from Russell Valley (CA-LAN-186) in Thousand Oaks, Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were conducted by Chester King during a salvage operation of this Late Period site (A.D. 700-1500) initiated to recover as much information as possible before it was destroyed by development. Field notes indicate seven artifacts unearthed by contractors were pulled from a cairn in association with Burial 1 as well as other isolated human remains. The human remains were left at the site, but the curated burial items—6 mortar fragments and 1 metate fragment—are unassociated funerary objects under NAGPRA.

Between March and June 1968, one cultural item was removed from Trancas Canyon Cemetery (CA-LAN-197) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA, by the UC Archaeology Survey under the direction of John Beaton and aided by the Malibu Archaeological Society. The excavations took place on land owned by the Reco Land Company as a salvage project due to erosion and the construction of a shopping center. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1978. Radiocarbon dating from the cemetery estimates the site age to 370 B.C. The unassociated funerary object is one siltstone slab that was associated with Burial 5 (the human remains are not present in the collection).

In March of 1960, 309 cultural items were removed from the Village of Sumo (CA-LAN-207) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. This site, located along an eroding cliff face, was excavated by a UCLA archeological field course led by M.B. McKusick. The land where the excavation took place was owned by a private mobile home park at the time of excavation. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1960. The cemetery is dated to circa 3050 B.C. Field notes indicate that a “scattered reburial” of human remains was found near Pit 4 with a concentration of shell beads and discs. The human remains were never brought to UCLA, although the 309 shell beads and discs were. Under NAGPRA, these items are unassociated funerary objects.

In 1962 and 1963, 40 cultural items were removed from Paradise Cove (CA-LAN-222) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. The first excavations were undertaken by a Pasadena City College field school, supervised by Richard H. Brooks, in the spring of 1962. During this time excavations were also undertaken jointly by a Santa Monica City College and UCLA field course supervised by Jack Smith. These collections were accessioned by UCLA after receiving them from Richard Brooks of the Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in 1987. In 1963, excavations continued with the joint Santa Monica City College and UCLA Anthropology field course directed by Chester King and Jack Smith. The resulting collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1964. Radiocarbon dating estimates age of the site is 2350 B.C. Accession 291 includes 30 cultural items labeled as being found in association with human remains not in the possession of the Fowler Museum. The unassociated funerary objects are 1 awl fragment, 14 manos, 4 stone balls, 1 projectile point, 6 stone flakes, 2 hammerstones, and 2 stone fragments. Accession 338 includes 10 cultural items. The unassociated funerary objects are 1 sandstone metate that was collected from an unexcavated burial and 3 pestles and 6 mortar fragments from the general burial area that were disturbed by bulldozer activities.

In 1963, 26 cultural items were removed when Alex Apostolides directed a salvage project at the Mulholland Site (CA-LAN-246) in Los Angeles County, CA, before the construction of housing and to offset the pervasive vandalism that was occurring at the time. Dating of the site is to the Late Period (A.D. 1200-1500). The collection was accessioned by UCLA in November 1978. A number of burials and fragmentary human remains were found at the Mulholland Site. In addition, a number of items were identified as associated with burials although the human remains were either not curated at the Fowler Museum or not further excavated. The unassociated funerary objects are 20 shell ornaments, 4 unmodified animal bones, and 2 bags of charcoal.

In 1955, 1958, and 1959, 328 cultural items were removed from Simo'mo (CA-VEN-24 aka VEN-26) in Ventura County, CA. UCLA field school excavations on private land were undertaken by Clement Meighan in 1955, David M. Pendergast in 1958, and by M.B. McKusick in 1959. The excavations were all accessioned by UCLA by 1959. The estimated age of the site is A.D. 300-1100. There are 328 cultural items that are associated with identified burials, but the human remains are not curated at UCLA. The unassociated funerary objects are 34 pieces of unmodified animal bone, 5 shell fragments, 39 shell inlaid bone tubes, 6 shell pendant fragments, 1 projectile point, 212 shell beads, 27 river cobbles, and 4 bowl fragments.

In the summer of 1982, one cultural item was removed from CA-VEN-312 in Ventura County, CA. The collection derived from excavations directed by Brian Dillon in front of construction for Wildwood Homes. The collection was received at the Fowler Museum at UCLA in two parts. A small portion arrived in March of 1985, and a second portion in August of 1997. Other than a catalog, no other documentation was received for the collection. The catalog indicates that there were human remains excavated from Feature 1, however, no remains were curated by Dr. Dillon for this collection. A projectile point fragment was identified as being “in-situ associated” with the missing remains and is therefore classified as an unassociated funerary object.

The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through tribal consultation to be within the traditional territory of the Chumash people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Chumash people.

The Chumash territory, anthropologically defined first on the basis of linguistic similarities, and subsequently on broadly shared material and cultural traits, reaches from San Luis Obispo to Malibu on the coast, inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, to the edge of the San Fernando Valley, and includes the four Northern Channel Islands. The sites in this notice are located in northwestern Los Angeles County and Ventura County and fall within the geographical area identified as Chumash. Some tribal consultants state that these areas were the responsibility of regional leaders, who were themselves organized into a pan-regional association of both political power and ceremonial knowledge. Further, these indigenous areas are identified by some tribal consultants to be relational with clans or associations of traditional practitioners of specific kinds of indigenous medicinal and ceremonial practices. Some tribal consultants identified these clans as existing in the pre-contact period and identified some clans as also existing in the present day. Other tribal consultants do not recognize present-day geographical divisions to be related to clans of traditional practitioners. Ethnographic evidence suggests that the social and political organization of the pre-contact Channel Islands were primarily at the village level, with a hereditary chief, in addition to many other specialists who wielded power.

The unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Chumash people. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 10,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Chumash people, specifically the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Officials of the Fowler Museum at UCLA have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 3,730 cultural items 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 and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Wendy G. Teeter, Ph.D., Fowler Museum at UCLA, Box 951549, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1549, telephone (310) 825-1864, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, may proceed.

The Fowler Museum at UCLA is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, 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 and associated funerary objects in the physical custody of the Fowler Museum at UCLA and under the control of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Ventura and Los Angeles counties, CA.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). 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 was made by the Fowler Museum at UCLA professional staff in consultation with representatives of Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, and the following nonfederally recognized Indian groups: Barbareno Chumash Council; Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians; Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation; Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians; Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California Tribe; Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council; Northern Chumash Tribe; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Ti'at Society; and the Traditional Council of Pimu.

In 1954 and 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, 40 individuals were removed from Arroyo Sequit (CA-LAN-52) in Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were conducted by Clement Meighan as a UCLA Department of Anthropology and Sociology field school to salvage information from portions of the site that were to be lost due to highway widening. This collection was curated at UCLA after analysis was complete. Thomas King also conducted excavations at the site in 1970 with volunteers, and these artifacts were curated at UCLA after analysis as well. The excavations occurred on lands belonging to the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Arroyo Sequit is also recorded as the village of Lisiqshi with a radiocarbon date of A.D. 610 +/−100, placing occupation in the Late Period through Spanish contact. No formal burials were curated at UCLA, but fragmentary human remains were identified from midden contexts totaling 31 individuals from the 1954 excavations, of which 21 were distinguished as adult, 7 as infants, and 2 as juvenile. One individual could not be aged and none of the human remains could be identified to sex. Human remains from the 1970 excavations represent a minimum of 9 individuals (4 adults, 2 juveniles, and 3 unidentified). Since most the human remains are single elements, none could be attributed to sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1970 and 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, 220 individuals were removed from Humaliwu (CA-LAN-264) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. Nelson N. Leonard obtained permission to have a UCLA Anthropology field course, which included excavation of the historic cemetery on California Department of Parks and Recreation property. Collections were accessioned at UCLA as they returned from the field. The village dates from A.D. 550-1805. The excavations identified 159 formal burials as well as additional fragmentary human remains from midden contexts. In total, a minimum of 220 individuals were identified (130 adults, 39 juveniles, 35 infants, 3 neonates, 5 perinates, and 8 unidentified), of which 20 adults were distinguishable as males and 16 females. No known individuals were identified. The 54,655 associated funerary objects include 1,192 fragments, lumps, and plugs of asphaltum; 15 bags of asphaltum many with basketry, wood, and fabric impressions; 366 pieces and 14 bags of unmodified animal bone; 17 pieces of worked bone; 2 pieces of ceramic; 27 fragments and 1 bag of charcoal; 1 glass pendant; 2 cordage fragments; 56 whole and fragmented shells; 264 worked shell objects; 29 bags of soil samples; 1 shell and 11 copper buttons; 51,849 individual stone, shell, and glass beads; 1 copper cup; 1 apothecary jar; 2 leather fragments; 2 possible plaster fragments; 77 pieces and 1 bag of ochre; 1 bag and 136 wood fragments; 31 metal objects; 1 bag of iron fragments; 8 comal fragments; 1 steatite bowl; 30 bowl fragments; 361 chipped stone flakes and tools; 97 ground stone tools; and 58 stone fragments.

In 1983, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from CA-LAN-454 near Point Dume, Los Angeles, CA. Doug Armstrong and a UCLA Archaeological Survey crew conducted excavations on land owned by the California State Parks and Recreation. At some unknown time, a burial was loaned to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County for display. The museum returned the burial in 2000. The site dates from A.D. 0 to 800. The burial represents an adult female. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were distinguished.

In 1981, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from CA-LAN-1111, near Corral Canyon, Los Angeles County, CA. Fred Ghiradelli led excavations for the State Department of Beaches and Parks at this prehistoric village site. After analysis, the collection was accessioned at UCLA. A single human phalanx was removed from the surface represented an individual of unknown age or sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In the summer of 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Big Sycamore Canyon (CA-VEN-89) in Ventura County, CA. The site was excavated by Chester King and a University of California (UC) Archaeological Survey crew on land owned by the California State Parks in preparation for the construction of recreational facilities that would impact the site. The collection was accessioned at UCLA after analysis. The site is estimated to date to the Late Period (A.D. 700-1869) through Spanish contact, as the site was recorded as the village of Shuwalashu. Fragmentary human remains represent two adult individuals of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from CA-VEN-101 in Ventura County, CA. Nelson N. Leonard and a UC Archaeological Survey crew excavated the site as part of a larger survey project in the La Jolla Valley at Point Mugu State Park. The collection was curated at UCLA upon completion of analysis. The site dates from A.D. 200-400. Two human bone elements from a shell midden represent a single adult individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through tribal consultation to be within the traditional territory of the Chumash people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Chumash people.

The Chumash territory, anthropologically defined first on the basis of linguistic similarities, and subsequently on broadly shared material and cultural traits, reaches from San Luis Obispo to Malibu on the coast, inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, to the edge of the San Fernando Valley, and includes the four Northern Channel Islands. At the southern and southeastern boundaries of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva languages and beliefs systems. At the northern boundary of the territory there is evidence of the physical co-existence of Chumash and Salinan groups. The sites in this notice are located in northwestern Los Angeles County and Ventura County and fall within the geographical area identified as Chumash. Some tribal consultants state that these areas were the responsibility of regional leaders, who were themselves organized into a pan-regional association of both political power and ceremonial knowledge. Further, these indigenous areas are identified by some tribal consultants to be relational with clans or associations of traditional practitioners of specific kinds of indigenous medicinal and ceremonial practices. Some tribal consultants identified these clans as existing in the pre-contact period and identified some clans as also existing in the present day. Other tribal consultants do not recognize present-day geographical divisions to be related to clans of traditional practitioners. However, they do state that Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva territories were and are occupied by socially distinct, yet interrelated, groups which have been characterized by anthropologists. Ethnographic evidence suggests that the social and political organization of the pre-contact Channel Islands were primarily at the village level, with a hereditary chief, in addition to many other specialists who wielded power.

The associated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 10,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Chumash people, specifically the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Officials of the California Department of Parks and Recreation have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 265 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 54,655 objects described in this notice 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 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Leslie Hartzell, Ph.D., NAGPRA Coordinator, Cultural Resources Division Chief, California State Parks, P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296-0001, telephone (916) 653-9946, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, may proceed.

The California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, 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 and associated funerary objects under the control of the Fowler Museum at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from sites within Los Angeles County, CA.

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 was made by the Fowler Museum at UCLA professional staff in consultation with representatives of Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California; San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation); and the following nonfederally recognized Indian groups: Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians; Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California Tribe; Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Ti'at Society; and the Traditional Council of Pimu.

In the spring of 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, 10 individuals were removed from Sa'angna, the Admiralty Site in Los Angeles County, CA (CA-LAN-47). The site was excavated by Keith Johnson and F. Brauer in a volunteer salvage effort to preserve archeological human remains after sewer trenching initiated by the owner disturbed and exposed Burial 1. More burials were uncovered by workmen during construction of the Warehouse Restaurant in Marina Del Rey. The human remains were sent to UCLA's Archaeological Survey for analysis. The Admiralty Site is estimated to date to between A.D. 470 and 645, based on radiocarbon dating. Upon completion of analysis, the collection was accessioned at the Fowler Museum at UCLA in 1969. The human remains from all excavations at the site consist of a minimum of 10 individuals from six formally identified burials. Further analysis identified four adult females; one adult male; one adult, sex unknown; one juvenile (8-9 years old); and three sets of human remains that were too fragmentary to provide age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 140 associated funerary objects are 1 modified object, 112 unmodified animal bones, 2 chert flakes, 2 projectile points, 11 bone harpoons, 1 tarring pebble, 1 modified pebble, 1 worked serpentine fragment, 2 modified crystals, 1 unmodified shell fragment, and 6 worked shell fragments.

In 1983 and 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Playa del Rey Site #1 (CA-LAN-59), also known as the Hughes Site, in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated using a combination of heavy machinery and wet screening by Brian D. Dillon, David M. Van Horn, and James R. Murray. In 1994, fragmentary human remains were identified among the faunal remains during analysis at the UCLA Institute of Zooarchaeology Laboratory by Susan Colby. Upon notification of the situation in 1996, Van Horn indicated that he did not want the material returned. The entire collection was then accessioned into the Fowler Museum at UCLA for inclusion in UCLA's NAGPRA inventory as per the suggestion of Larry Myers, Executive Secretary of the California Native American Heritage Commission. Radiocarbon dating from Playa del Rey Site #1 is estimated to date to A.D. 430-870, with diagnostic artifacts from the Early Period (5000-600 B.C.) present in the collection. There are three extremely fragmentary individuals of unknown age or sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was removed from Playa del Rey Site #2 (CA-LAN-61), also known as the Loyola Marymount Site, in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated by the Archaeological Associates of Sun City. Fragmentary human remains were identified among faunal remains from the collection during analysis at the UCLA Institute of Zooarchaeology Laboratory by Susan Colby. Upon notification of the situation in 1996, Van Horn indicated that he did not want the material returned. The entire collection was accessioned into the Fowler Museum at UCLA for inclusion in UCLA's NAGPRA inventory as per the suggestion of Larry Myers, Executive Secretary of the California Native American Heritage Commission. Radiocarbon dating at Playa del Rey Site #2 estimates occupation to between 1390 B.C. and A.D. 440. One juvenile individual of unknown sex is represented by a single tooth. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1986, human remains representing, at minimum, 12 individuals were removed from Playa del Rey Site #4 (CA-LAN-63), also known as The Del Rey Site, in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated by the Archaeological Associates of Sun City. Fragmentary human remains were identified among faunal remains from the collection during analysis at the UCLA Institute of Zooarchaeology Laboratory by Susan Colby. Upon notification of the situation in 1996, Van Horn indicated that he did not want the material returned. The entire collection was accessioned into the Fowler Museum at UCLA for inclusion in UCLA's NAGPRA inventory as per the suggestion of Larry Myers, Executive Secretary of the California Native American Heritage Commission. The Playa del Rey Site #4 is estimated to have had mostly continuous occupation from 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1000. Fragmentary human remains represent one adult, one juvenile, and ten individuals that could not be identified to age or sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1986, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from Playa del Rey Site #5 (CA-LAN-64), also known as The Bluff Site, in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated by the Archaeological Associates of Sun City. Fragmentary human remains were identified among faunal remains from the collection during analysis at the UCLA Institute of Zooarchaeology Laboratory by Susan Colby. Upon notification of the situation in 1996, Van Horn indicated that he did not want the material returned. The entire collection was accessioned into the Fowler Museum at UCLA for inclusion in UCLA's NAGPRA inventory as per the suggestion of Larry Myers, Executive Secretary of the California Native American Heritage Commission. The Playa del Rey Site #5 is estimated to have had mostly continuous occupation from 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1000. Extremely fragmentary human remains represent a minimum of three juveniles and one individual that could not be identified to age or sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

At some time before 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from 5802 Parapet Street, Lakeside Village (CA-LAN-131) in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated by Hal Eberhart after discovery of human remains on private property. The human remains were brought to UCLA from the Norwalk Police Station after they were determined to be Native American and received at UCLA in 1950. Very little information accompanied the human remains to the Fowler Museum, but later excavations identified the location as from a Prehistoric site. Human remains from Burial A-3 represent a male individual of approximately 20 years of age. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Sometime before 1946, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from 827 N. Glendale Avenue (CA-LAN-132) in Glendale, Los Angeles County, CA. Upon discovery of the human remains at the property, the police were notified, who in turn contacted the Southwest Museum when it was determined that the human remains were burials of Native Americans. Excavations were carried out by Donald Costans and Mr. Talk, during which time three more burials were uncovered, making a total of five. All burials were originally donated to the Southwest Museum in 1946, and it is thought that Hal Eberhart arranged for two of the burials to be transferred to UCLA. Burials 3 and 5 were received at UCLA around 1949. Very little information accompanied the human remains to the Fowler Museum and none of the artifacts. Osteology analysis confirmed the human remains are Native American and the excavations of the time confirmed a Prehistoric age. Burial 3 represents an adult individual of unknown sex, while Burial 5 represents an adult female and a second individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were removed from Centinela Creek (CA-LAN-193) northeast of Ballona Point, in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. This site was excavated in the spring of 1939 by Ralph Beals, the first UCLA Anthropology Professor, and accessioned into UCLA's Anthropology collections sometime before 1945. The site age is estimated to be from the Late Period. Fragmentary human remains recovered from midden contexts represent six individuals of unknown age and sex, and one adult individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1969, human remains of, at minimum, two individuals were removed from between 109 and 111 Street along the west side of Alameda Street (CA-LAN-385) in Los Angeles County, CA. According to Melinda Horne of Applied Earthworks, the site was recorded and excavated by Thomas King during the construction of buildings associated with the Jorgensen Steel Company in 1969. The collection was received at UCLA after analysis. Occupation of the site dates to at least Historic contact based on diagnostic artifacts and the site is identified as the ethnohistorically recorded village site of Ha'utnga. Human remains from Burial 1 represent one adult female individual and one individual of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. The 6 associated funerary objects include 1 glass fragment, 2 pieces and 1 bag of unmodified faunal bone, 1 bag of unmodified shell fragments, and 1 bag of fire-cracked rock.

In 1975 and 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, eight individuals were removed from Sims Pond Site (CA-LAN-702) in Los Alamitos, Los Angeles County, CA. This collection is the result of salvage excavations completed by Marie Cottrell in 1975, and Lawrence P. Allen in 1979, before construction began at the site. In 1975, Archaeological Research Incorporated conducted a Test Level investigation under the direction of Cottrell. In 1983, Cottrell contracted with UCLA for the collection to be curated in perpetuity at the Fowler Museum. The site is estimated to date from 1300 B.C. through A.D. 1399. Fragmentary human remains recovered from midden contexts represent five individuals of unknown age and sex, two adult individuals of unknown sex, and one juvenile individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Burrell Site (CA-LAN-999) in Torrance, Los Angeles, CA. The site, on Palos Verdes Peninsula, is on former U.S. Army Missile site property. It is important to note that a portion of LAN-999 was destroyed during the missile site construction. A.V. Eggers discovered the site in May 1978, while an archeological reconnaissance of the property was being conducted. At the request of Burrell Ltd., Martin D. Rosen, Survey Archaeologist at UCLA, excavated the site in 1979. The estimated site age is Late Period (A.D. 700-1769). Human remains from Burial 1 represent an adult individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. The 121 associated funerary objects include 72 shell artifacts, 46 stone flakes, and 3 unworked animal bones.

In 1987, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a Prehistoric site in Palos Verdes (CA-LAN-1351), Los Angeles County, CA. Robert Rechtman led a surface survey in front of development on private land. This collection was received for curation at UCLA in April of 1988. Fragmentary human remains collected during survey represent one individual of unknown age or sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Mulholland Drive, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, CA. The collection was a set of human remains identified as Native American by Frank R. Webb, M.D., of the Los Angeles Coroner's Office in July 1942. The only documentation, a hand written note, indicates that the Southwest Museum received the collection in 1942 and later transferred it to UCLA around 1950. The exact location of the excavation or any other information concerning the circumstances of the excavation is unknown. The Coroner cataloged the human remains as Prehistoric without further information. Osteological analysis confirmed the human remains as being of a Native American adult male. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through consultation to be within the traditional territories of the Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people.

Linguistic and ethnohistoric evidence shows that these Takic-speaking peoples moved into the San Fernando Valley and greater Los Angeles area by at least 3000 B.C. These groups have a common heritage, but began to diverge after arrival. Analysis of historical records from missions in the Greater Los Angeles area shows that at the time of mission recruitment, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the occupants of the area were descended from the populations living in the area since 3000 B.C.

The associated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 5,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people. However, the Tataviam/Fernandeno and Tongva/Gabrielino people currently lack federal recognition within a single unified tribe.

At the time of the excavation and removal of these human remains and associated funerary objects, the land from which the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed was not the tribal land of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. In 2014 and 2015, the Fowler Museum at UCLA consulted with Indian tribes who are recognized as aboriginal to the area from which these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed. None of these Indian tribes agreed to accept control of the human remains and associated funerary objects. In October 2015, the Fowler Museum at UCLA agreed to transfer control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation).

Officials of the Fowler Museum at UCLA have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 54 individuals of Native American ancestry based on metric and non-metric analysis.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 267 objects described in this notice 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 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.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(2)(i), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation).

Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Wendy G. Teeter, Ph.D., Fowler Museum at UCLA, Box 951549, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1549, telephone (310) 825-1864, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation), may proceed.

The Fowler Museum is responsible for notifying the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation), 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 under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Boulder City, NV. The human remains were removed from site X:8:7, Yuma County, AZ.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Lake Mead National Recreation Area professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

In March 1951, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site X:8:7 on private land in Yuma County, AZ. National Park Service archeologist Albert H. Schroeder collected the fragmentary cremation with the permission of the landowner during an archeological survey of the Lower Colorado River. Three artifacts—two three-quarter groove, double-bitted polished axes and one small triangular obsidian point—may also have been removed, but their location is unknown. The cremation has been in the possession of Lake Mead National Recreation Area since its removal. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

Mr. Schroeder's 1952 report identified the cremation as a prehistoric Native American individual of unspecified gender, likely Hohokam. All available lines of evidence support the archeological identification of the remains as Hohokam. The Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona are known to be descendants of the Hohokam people. During consultation, representatives from each of these tribes stated that their oral traditions show cultural affiliation with the Hohokam. The ethnographic, archeological, and historical evidence supports that affiliation.

Officials of Lake Mead National Recreation Area have determined that:

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

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and The Tribes.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Lizette Richardson, Superintendent, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, 601 Nevada Highway, Boulder City, NV 89005, telephone (702) 293-8920, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed.

Lake Mead National Recreation Area 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 and associated funerary objects under the control of the Fowler Museum at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties, CA.

This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). 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 was made by the Fowler Museum at UCLA professional staff in consultation with representatives of Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, and the following nonfederally recognized Indian groups: Barbareno Chumash Council; Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians; Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation; Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians; Gabrielino/Tongva Indians of California Tribe; Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council; Northern Chumash Tribe; San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; Ti'at Society; and the Traditional Council of Pimu.

In 1957, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from the Lower Tank Site (CA-LAN-2) near Topanga, Los Angeles County, CA, where Keith Johnson led a UCLA field school course on privately owned land. The Lower Tank Site is estimated to date between 1000 and 0 B.C., based on radiocarbon dating. After analysis, the collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1961. Three formal burials were identified and consist of two adults and a juvenile. One adult could be further identified as male. No known individuals were identified. The seven associated funerary objects include five unmodified faunal bones, one metate, and one mano.

In 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from the Puerco Site (CA-LAN-19) near Malibu, Los Angeles, CA, where James West lead a UCLA field course on privately-owned land as part of the University of California (UC) Archaeological Survey in preparation for proposed freeway work. The Puerco Site is estimated to date between 600 B.C. and A.D. 1769, based on the presence of artifact types in the collection. After analysis, the collection was accessioned in 1977. Fragmentary human remains represent four adult individuals of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from CA-LAN-45 near Topanga, Los Angeles County, CA, where Keith Johnson lead a UCLA field course on privately-owned land. The site, CA-LAN-45, dates to between A.D. 1250 and 1769, based on the artifact types in the collection. After analysis, the collection was accessioned in the fall of 1963. Fragmentary human remains represent a minimum of two adult individuals. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

At an unknown date between 1900 and 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Sequit Creek Indian Mound (CA-LAN-52) in Los Angeles County, CA. The human remains were received at an unknown date by the UCLA Biology Department as part of the Dickey Bird and Mammal Collection and were subsequently transferred to the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology and Zooarchaeology Lab in August 1995, and then to Fowler Museum in September 1995 to be inventoried for NAGPRA compliance. Being that there is little to no original documentation for the human remains, they have been attributed to CA-LAN-52 because they are labeled with location information, and the site is known to have been heavily looted since at least the late 1800s. The human remains are estimated to date to A.D. 610 +/−100, based on radiocarbon dating. The fragmentary human remains represent two adult individuals, sex unknown, and one infant individual. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

Sometime before 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from CA-LAN-95 in San Fernando, Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were undertaken by USC students after the human remains of a Native American individual were found to be eroding from private property. At an unknown date, the collection was received by the Hancock Foundation, who subsequently donated the collection to UCLA sometime around 1950. Very little information accompanied the collection to the Fowler Museum, but the human remains were determined to be Native American based on osteological analysis. Fragmentary human remains represent a juvenile between four and six years of age. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is an unmodified faunal bone fragment.

Sometime before 1972, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Encinal Canyon (CA-LAN-114) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. The human remains are thought to have been excavated by John Beaton and were accessioned in 1972. Although the site has been excavated several times, no specific age for the site has been determined other than prehistoric. Fragmentary human remains represent one individual of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

Sometime before 1952, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Pacific Coast Highway (CA-LAN-133, formerly CA-LAN-190), in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. The collection was received by UCLA in 1952 from Mr. Gonzales, who had excavated the burial on private property. The human remains of an adult male were determined to be Native American based on osteological analysis. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1978 and 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, 11 individuals were removed from Stunt Ranch (CA-LAN-153) in Los Angeles County, CA. Clement Meighan led two field courses with the cooperation of the Jennings Engineering Company, who was developing the property before the land was acquired by UCLA. Clement Meighan dated the site to between A.D. 1250 and 1769, based on the presence of diagnostic artifact types. During excavations, six formal burials were identified in addition to fragmentary human remains. The human remains could be further identified as representing five adult and one infant of unknown sex. At least three individuals were cremated, and two others were too fragmentary to identify either age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 80 associated funerary objects are 6 pieces and 1 bag of unmodified animal bone, 60 unmodified shell fragments, 12 stone fragments, and 1 obsidian biface.

In 1987, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from the Santa Maria Site (CA-LAN-162) in Topanga Canyon, Los Angeles County, CA. At the request of the Montevideo Country Club, excavations were conducted throughout 1987 by Dr. Brian Dillon and assistant Justin Hyland for compliance with proposed development of the site. The collection was accessioned in April 1997. The site age is estimated to span from between 600 B.C. and A.D. 1769. Fragmentary human remains from Burials 1 and 2 represent two adult individuals of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

Between 1950 and 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, 27 individuals were removed from the Zuma Creek Site (CA-LAN-174) in Los Angeles County, CA. The site was first excavated in 1950 by Stuart Peck. It was excavated again in 1952 and 1957 by Clement Meighan as part of a UCLA field school. From these excavations, human remains from seventeen burials were accessioned in 1957. Later salvage excavations were conducted at the site during 1968 and 1969 by Sally MacFadyen and Jinny McKenzie, as well as by Thomas King and the UC Archaeological Survey crew. Human remains from five burials deriving from these excavations were accessioned by UCLA in 1969, after analysis was completed. The site produced a radiocarbon date of 3000 B.C. ± 200 years. The first set of excavations included human remains of 13 adults (6 female, 4 male, and 3 indeterminate), 4 juveniles, and 2 infants. The second set of excavations included six adults (2 female, 1 male, and 3 indeterminate), a juvenile, and an infant. No known individuals were identified. From both sets of excavations, the 178 associated funerary objects are 14 stone fragments, 5 cobbles, 32 groundstone artifacts, 65 flaked stone artifacts, 16 pieces and 3 bags of unmodified shell, 23 pieces and 1 bag of unmodified animal bone, 2 worked bone artifacts, 2 glass fragments, 3 ochre fragments, 5 worked shell artifacts, 1 bag of soil, 5 asphaltum fragments, and 1 bag of asphaltum with basketry impressions.

In 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Russell Valley (CA-LAN-186), in Thousand Oaks, Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were conducted by Chester King during a salvage operation of this Late Period site (A.D. 700-1500). Fragmentary human remains were identified from midden contexts representing at least one individual of unknown age or sex. The collection was accessioned in 1967. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1951, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Pacific Coast Highway (CA-LAN-195) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. The human remains had been exposed during construction and were disinterred by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, Malibu Sub-station. UCLA received the human remains in 1951. Based on osteological analysis the human remains were identified as an adult female and an adult individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. A single unmodified sea mammal bone was recovered and is assumed to be an associated funerary object.

Between March and June 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, 129 individuals were removed from Trancas Canyon Cemetery (CA-LAN-197) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA, by the UC Archaeology Survey under the direction of John Beaton and aided by the Malibu Archaeological Society. The excavations took place on land owned by the Reco Land Company as a salvage project due to erosion and the construction of a shopping center. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1978. Radiocarbon dating produced from the cemetery estimate the site age to 370 B.C. ± 58 years but continues through Spanish contact. Human remains from these excavations were further identified to age and sex, when possible, including 78 adults (32 male, 21 female, and 25 indeterminate), 4 sub-adults, 28 juveniles, and 14 infants were identified. Another five individuals were too fragmentary to determine age or sex. No known individuals. The 718 associated funerary objects include: 28 pieces and 1 bag of asphaltum fragments, 87 pieces and 1 bag of unmodified animal bone, 27 worked bone fragments, 1 charcoal fragment, 50 pieces and 1 bag of flaked stone artifacts, 4 copper fragments, 15 pieces and 1 bag of ochre fragments, 11 groundstone pieces, 84 shell beads, 182 pieces and 1 bag of unmodified shell, 206 pieces and 4 bags of cobbles/pebbles, and 14 stone fragments.

In 1953, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from Zuma Creek, also known as Zuma Creek “G” (CA-LAN-201, LAN-19) near Point Dume in Los Angeles County, CA. The collection was excavated by Clement W. Meighan as a UCLA research project. The estimated age of the site was not determined. The human remains were from a known prehistoric site and determined to be Native American based on osteological analysis. Fragmentary human remains from Burial A-13 represents one adult female individual, one adult possible female individual, one juvenile individual of unknown sex, and two adult individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1962 and 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, 45 individuals were removed from Paradise Cove (CA-LAN-222) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. The first set of excavations was undertaken by a Pasadena City College field school, supervised by Richard H. Brooks, in the spring of 1962. During this time excavations were also undertaken jointly with a Santa Monica City College and UCLA field course supervised by Jack Smith. These collections were accessioned by UCLA after receiving them from Richard H. Brooks of the Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas in 1987. In 1963, excavations continued with the joint Santa Monica City College and UCLA Anthropology field school course directed by Chester King and Jack Smith. The resulting collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1964. The estimated age of the site based on radiocarbon dating is 2350 B.C. ± 80 years. Fragmentary human remains recovered from midden contexts in 1962 represent a minimum of 10 individuals: 6 adults, a juvenile, and 3 individuals of unknown age or sex. From the 1963 excavations, human remains were recovered from 8 burials and from midden contexts. These human remains represent a minimum of 35 individuals: 17 adults (2 male, 2 female, and 13 indeterminate), 1 sub-adult, 8 juveniles, 3 infants, and 6 individuals whose age and sex could not be determined. No known individuals were identified. The 39 associated funerary objects were recovered from the second set of excavations and include: 6 unmodified animal bones, 3 worked bones, 2 limestone cobble unifaces, 3 chert scrapers, 1 limestone hammerstone, 1 sandstone metate fragment, 12 asphaltum basketry impression fragments, 3 manos, 1 quartz crystal fragment, 1 quartzite chopper, 1 sandstone mortar fragment, 4 shell fragments, and 1 wood handle fragment.

From 1961 through 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, 13 individuals were removed from Century Ranch (CA-LAN-225) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated by UCLA student volunteers under the direction of Jayne Harbinger. The site was also excavated in 1963 by a Santa Monica City College class under the direction of Chester King and Thomas Blackburn. The excavations took place on land that was then owned by the Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation and is now part of Malibu Creek State Park. Human remains were recovered from burial and midden contexts. Burial contexts included 9 adults (2 of which are possibly male), an infant, and one individual of unknown age and sex. Fragmentary human remains from midden contexts represent two individuals of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. The 60 associated funerary objects are 14 stone fragments, 10 flaked-stone tools, 20 ground stone artifacts, 12 cobble artifacts, and 4 unmodified faunal bone pieces.

In 1960 and 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, 53 individuals were removed from Century Ranch (CA-LAN-227), in Malibu Canyon, Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were conducted by Thomas Blackburn and Ernest Chandonet with UCLA archeology students. The excavations were conducted on land owned by Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, now part of Malibu Creek State Park. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1961. The site is estimated to date to the Late Period, with a radiocarbon date of circa A.D. 1530. The burials include a minimum of 53 individuals that were further identified as 23 adults (10 males, 2 females, and 11 indeterminate), 1 sub-adult, 13 juveniles, 15 infants, and 1 individual too fragmented to determine age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 821 associated funerary objects include 678 shell beads, 19 shell pendants, 7 worked bone artifacts, 7 flaked-stone artifacts, 3 groundstone artifacts, 91 asphaltum fragments with basketry impressions, 7 shell dishes, one ochre fragment, and 8 unmodified shell fragments.

In 1966, 1967, and 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, 906 individuals were removed from Medea Creek village and cemetery (CA-LAN-243) in Thousand Oaks, Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were conducted in 1966-1967, in the cemetery area by UC Archaeological Survey volunteers and a UCLA field course directed by Linda B. King and Linda Hasten. In 1969, the Medea Creek village area was excavated by a crew of volunteers under the direction of Clay A. Singer. Both efforts were part of a volunteer salvage project prior to the site's destruction. The collections were accessioned by UCLA in 1969. The estimated age of the site is Late Period/Historic (A.D. 1500-1785). Human remains from the 1969 excavations represent two adult individuals of unknown sex. Human remains from 1966-1967 excavations of the cemetery represent a minimum number of 904 individuals from 467 burials. All human remains from these burials were assessed for age, sex, pathology, and completeness. To summarize, a total of 524 adults (88 male, 86 female, and 350 indeterminate), 217 juveniles, 97 infants, and 9 prenatal were identified, and the human remains of 59 individuals were too fragmentary to identify by age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 23,922 associated funerary objects include: 213 pieces and 8 bags of unmodified faunal remains and artifacts, 925 pieces and 2 bags of shell unmodified fragments and artifacts, 414 pieces and 7 bags of asphaltum fragments, 21,243 shell, glass, and stone beads, 78 flaked-stone artifacts, 62 ground stone artifacts, 179 pieces and 4 bags of organic materials, 2 metal artifacts, 435 pieces and 3 bags of stone fragments, 321 cobble and pebble artifacts, 7 fragments and 1 bag of charcoal, 17 bags of soil, and 1 glass pendant.

In 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, 102 individuals were removed when Alex Apostolides directed a salvage project at the Mullholland Site (CA-LAN-246) before the construction of housing and to offset the pervasive vandalism that was occurring at the time. Dating of the site is to the Late Period (A.D. 1200-1500). The collection was accessioned by UCLA in November 1978. Eighteen formal burials were included in the collection, but fragmentary human remains were also identified from midden contexts that result in a minimum number of 102 individuals being represented. The human remains were further identified as 56 adults (11 males, 6 females, and 39 indeterminate), 27 juveniles, 14 infants, and 5 individuals too fragmentary to identify further. No known individuals were identified. The 2,640 associated funerary objects include: 27 flaked-stone artifacts, 8 groundstone artifacts, 1 carved clay fragment, 13 pieces of worked bone, 1 ceramic sherd, 30 charcoal fragments, 4 ochre fragments, 1 pecked pebble, 2,321 shell beads and ornaments, 16 unmodified shell fragments, 10 soapstone ornaments, 203 pieces and 3 bags of unmodified animal bone, and 2 bags of soil samples.

In 1964, 1971-1972, and 1973-1975, human remains representing, at minimum, 247 individuals were removed from Humaliwu (CA-LAN-264) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. UCLA conducted several field seasons under the direction of Clement Meighan on private property. Excavations also took place on land controlled by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, but that is filed under a separate inventory. Collections were accessioned by UCLA as they returned from the field under Accession numbers 505 (1964 excavations) and 573 (1971-75 excavations). The village dates from A.D. 550-1805. Three formal burials were identified during the 1964 excavations, and additional fragmentary human remains were recovered from midden contexts. There are a minimum of 27 individuals identified as 19 adults (one male, two female, and 16 indeterminate), one sub-adult, four juveniles, one infant, and two perinatal. Excavations in the 1970s uncovered 83 formal burials, and with the addition of fragmentary human remains recovered from midden contexts, a minimum number of 220 individuals were identified. Of this total, identification was possible for 110 adults (34 male, 34 female, and 42 indeterminate), 13 sub-adults, 36 juvenile, 36 infants, 13 neonatal individuals, and 10 perinatal individuals. Two individuals were too fragmentary to determine age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 15,917 associated funerary objects include: 7 bone awl fragments, 21 worked bone fragments, 1 bone barb, 2 bone pin fragments, 7 bone tube beads, 1 bone wedge, 1 bone whistle, 2 red stone ear spools, 1 pipe, 1,869 pieces and 39 bags of unmodified animal bones, 13 bags of soil samples, 3 pieces and 1 bag of metal items, 4 pieces of ochre, 5 charcoal fragments, 7 quartz crystals, 1 fluorite crystal, 158 Megathura (limpet) rings, 3 fishhook fragments, 1 glass fragment, 4 perforated shells, 3 inlayed abalone shells, 13,040 shell beads, 54 pieces and 10 bags of unmodified shell fragments, 42 effigies, 4 stone tube beads, 30 stone beads, 1 bead blank, 3 stone pendants, 24 cobbles, 20 stone cores, 480 flaked-stone tools and debitage, 18 ground stone tools, 1 tarring pebble, 8 asphaltum fragments, 1 wood fragment, and 24 pieces and 3 bags of stone fragments.

Between 1961 and 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from Sweetwater Mesa (CA-LAN-267) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations on private property took place under the direction of Chester King, Tom Blackburn, and Earnest Chadonet as part of the UC Archaeological Survey, along with UCLA students and members of the Archaeological Research Association. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1963. The site is estimated to date to 4920-4360 B.C. Fragmentary human remains recovered from midden contexts represent a minimum of four adults and a juvenile individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1986, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Tobillo (CA-LAN-311) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. The site was excavated as part of the Malibu Wastewater Project under the direction of Brian Dillon on private property. The collection was given to UCLA on April 24, 1997. The site is estimated to date to the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) and Historic (after A.D. 1769) time periods. Fragmentary human remains represent an individual of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Topanga Canyon Area (CA-LAN-330) in Los Angeles County, CA. This site was excavated by Clement Meighan with UCLA field school students inside a Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) rock shelter on privately owned land. The collection was accessioned by UCLA between 1966 and 1969. Fragmentary human remains represent a juvenile individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, 10 individuals were removed from San Nicholas Canyon Site (CA-LAN-352, formerly CA-LAN-27) in Triunfo Pass, Los Angeles County, CA. The collection resulted from excavations by James West and a crew of volunteers, testing a portion of the site on private land that was in the right-of-way for the proposed Coast Freeway, US 101A. The collection was received at UCLA in 1967. The site is estimated to date to 5550-2050 B.C., through radiocarbon dating. Although burials were uncovered at the site, the site had been heavily disturbed, and thus human remains were also found in midden contexts. Human remains from a minimum of 5 adults were identified (1 female and 4 indeterminate), two juveniles, and three other individuals too fragmentary to identify further. No known individuals were identified. The 28 associated funerary objects include: 2 cobble tools, 2 flaked-stone tools, 6 unmodified animal bones, 9 ground stone artifacts, a worked sandstone disk, 4 shell artifacts, a wood fragment, and 3 bags of soil.

In 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Highland Cave (CA-LAN-388) in Los Angeles County, CA. This site was excavated as a salvage project conducted by Grif Coleman and the UCLA Archaeological Survey for research purposes on private property in front of development activities. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1977. The site is estimated to date to A.D. 1500-1800 based on artifact types. Human remains from one formal burial represent an adult female. No known individuals were identified. One bag of unmodified animal bones was identified as an associated funerary object.

In 1977 and 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Horse Flats (LAN-474B), also referred to as Porter Ranch, Los Angeles County, CA. John Romani as part of Northridge Archaeology Research Center (contract #VS-175) was hired to conduct testing in preparation for development in the spring and fall of 1977. Salvage excavation was completed in 1978 by Clay A. Singer, and the resulting collection was submitted to UCLA for curation in May 1979. The site is estimated to date to 3000 B.C. to A.D. 1800, based on radiocarbon dating and diagnostic artifacts. Fragmentary human remains represent an adult of unknown sex and an additional individual of unknown age or sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1981, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Saddle Rock Ranch (CA-LAN-717) in Malibu, Los Angeles County, CA. This site was excavated by a UCLA field school directed by Brian Dillon on the privately owned ranch. The collection was partially received for curation at UCLA in September of 1984, with additional materials arriving later in April 1997. The site is estimated to date from the Early Period to Historic, circa 4500 B.C. to A.D. 1785. Human remains from Burial 1 represent an adult male and an adult individual of unknown sex. Additional fragmentary human remains represent one individual of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. The 23 associated funerary objects include 1 incised siltstone fragment, 1 stone flake, and 21 unworked animal bones.

In 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Cazador Site, also known as Three Springs Valley (CA-LAN-807) in Westlake Village, Los Angeles County, CA. This site was excavated by a UCLA archeology field course directed by Brian Dillon. Excavations occurred on land privately owned by the Pacifica Corporation. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in March of 1985. The site is estimated to date to the Late Period, after A.D. 1000-1769. Human remains from Burial 1 represent one adult individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1976, human remains representing, at minimum, 44 individuals were removed from Century Ranch (CA-LAN-840) in Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations at the site were a joint field-school project between UCLA (directed by Clement Meighan) and California State University at Northridge (directed by Lou Tartaglia) on land owned by the Hunter family. Each university had a portion of the collection until Kathy Pedrick gathered the CSUN materials in 1978 to incorporate into one collection for analysis and curation. Susan Hector accessioned the UCLA collection August 1977. The area was likely a cemetery featuring both inhumations and cremations, and as such, fragmentary human remains were found in almost every unit. Twelve formal burials were identified by the excavators, but they acknowledged that potential overlapping existed. Of the 44 human individuals identified, 26 are adults (one male, one female, and 24 indeterminate), 6 are juveniles, 4 are infants, and 1 is a perinatal individual. Seven additional individuals were cremations where age and sex could not be determined. No known individuals were identified. The 493 associated funerary objects include: 284 pieces of unmodified animal bones, 9 worked bone artifacts, 3 bags and 4 fragments of charcoal, 34 pieces of chipped-stone tools and flakes, 7 pieces of ochre, 7 wood fragments, 57 pieces of unmodified shell, and 85 pieces and 3 bags of ground stone fragments and tools.

In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Agoura Hills (CA-LAN-972) in Los Angeles County, CA. Excavations were undertaken by Ancient Enterprises under C. William Clewlow in 1978 on private land being developed for housing. The site is estimated to date from the Late Period to Historic (A.D. 700-1769). The collection arrived at UCLA for curation in 1978. All fragmentary human remains were pulled from midden contexts and represent two adult individuals of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

At some unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Hansen Dam in Los Angeles County, CA. A memo indicated that UCLA loaned human remains from a prehistoric site in the Hansen Dam area to the City of Los Angeles Park Rangers in the 1960s and that they were returned in 1981, but no further information about this loan could be found. The human remains were identified by osteological analysis as an adult male of Native American ancestry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a mile South of Carpentaria (CA-SBA-1) in Santa Barbara County, CA, by unknown individuals and given to Loye Miller of the UCLA Biology Department between 1900 and 1950, and accessioned within the Dickey Bird and Mammal Collection. After NAGPRA was enacted, all Native American remains under UCLA's control were transferred to the Fowler Museum for inventory and compliance purposes. The Dickey Bird and Mammal Collection transferred these human remains and several others to the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Zooarchaeology Lab in August 1995, and then to the Archaeology Collections Facility of the Fowler Museum at UCLA on September 18, 1995. The site dates from the Early to Late Periods (5000 B.C. to A.D. 1769). The fragmentary human remains represent one juvenile individual. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual was found eroding from the shoreline at the south end of Santa Cruz Island in Santa Barbara County, CA, on land likely belonging to the Nature Conservancy. They were donated to UCLA in 1984, and represent one adult male individual. No date was assigned, but an osteologist determined the human remains to be of Native American ancestry. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1985, 1992, and 1995, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from Shawa Village (CA-SCRI-192) on Santa Cruz Island in Santa Barbara County, CA, on land belonging to the Nature Conservancy. Excavations by Jeanne Arnold took place on Santa Cruz in the summers of 1990-1992 and 1994-1997. All collections were curated at UCLA after completion of the field analysis. The site dates from the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) through Historic contact. Extremely fragmentary human remains were identified from midden contexts and represent 1 infant and 2 adult individuals. One additional individual could not be distinguished by age. None of the human remains could be identified by sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1995, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Christy Ranch (CA-SCRI-236) on Santa Cruz Island in Santa Barbara County, CA, with permission of the private land owner. Excavations by Jeanne Arnold took place on Santa Cruz in the summers of 1990-1992 and 1994-1997. All collections were curated at UCLA upon completion of the field analysis. Radiocarbon dates from site indicate at least intermittent occupation from as early as 2485 B.C. into the Late Period. Human teeth were identified from midden contexts and represent a minimum number of two individuals, of which one could be identified as an adult. One could not be further distinguished by age. None of the human remains could be identified by sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1995, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were removed from Xaxas Village (CA-SCRI-240) on Santa Cruz Island in Santa Barbara County, CA, on land belonging to the Nature Conservancy. Excavations by Jeanne Arnold took place on Santa Cruz in the summers of 1990-1992 and 1994-1997. All collections were curated at UCLA upon completion of the field analysis. Radiocarbon dates obtained from site CA-SCRI-240 indicate it was occupied between 2480 B.C. and A.D. 1425. Its presence in mission documents also indicates that it was occupied into the Historic Period. Fragmentary human remains (many of them teeth) were identified from midden contexts and represent 2 neonatal and 4 infant individuals. One could not be further distinguished by age. None of the human remains could be identified to sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from CA-SLO-267/268 in San Luis Obispo County, CA. Excavations were conducted by Ronald P. Sekkel of UCLA on land owned by the Hearst Corporation. The site dates to the Late Period (A.D. 1200-1500). The human remains consist of one formal burial and fragmentary human remains representing a minimum of 2 individuals, an adult male and a juvenile individual. No known individuals were identified. The 10 burial associated objects consist of one animal bone, one shell fragment, and 8 chert flakes that were pulled from the burial matrix.

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from San Miguel Island (CA-SMI-xxx) in Santa Barbara County, CA, from private ranching land, likely in the 1920s, by unknown individuals and given to Loye Miller of the UCLA Biology Department and accessioned within the Dickey Bird and Mammal Collection. After NAGPRA was enacted, all Native American remains under UCLA's control were transferred to the Fowler Museum for inventory and compliance purposes. The Dickey Bird and Mammal Collection transferred these human remains and several others to the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Zooarchaeology Lab in August 1995, and then to the Archaeology Collections Facility of the Fowler Museum at UCLA on September 18, 1995. No date was assigned, but an osteologist determined the human remains to be of Native American ancestry. The fragmentary human remains represent two individuals of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In December 1926, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Little Sycamore Canyon Site (CA-VEN-1) in Ventura County, CA, by A.W. Schmuck, H.T. Cartio, and W.A. Starrett, who collected these human remains from a shellmound at the mouth of Little Sycamore Canyon. According to the accession records, these human remains were received by the UCLA Biology Department through Loye Miller on September 13, 1956. After NAGPRA was enacted, all Native American remains under UCLA's control were transferred to the Fowler Museum for inventory and compliance purposes. The Dickey Bird and Mammal Collection transferred these human remains and several others to the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Zooarchaeology Lab in August 1995, and then to the Archaeology Collections Facility of the Fowler Museum at UCLA on September 18, 1995. Later excavators dated the site to the Early Period (5000-600 B.C.). The fragmentary human remains represent an adult male. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1959 and 1960, human remains representing, at minimum, 16 individuals were removed from Little Sycamore Canyon Site (CA-VEN-1) in Ventura County, CA. The collection was donated by David L. Jennings, Chair of the Earth Sciences Department, Los Angeles City College. Field school excavations conducted by Dr. Jerry Jordan, Jr., led to recovery of the collection, but no final report was ever compiled and no field documentation could be found with the collection. The original catalog listed six burials along with fragmentary human remains from midden contexts that included 10 adults (of which 4 were identified as male), two juveniles, and four individuals of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In the spring of 1964, human remains representing, at minimum, 34 individuals were removed from the Deer Creek Site (CA-VEN-7 and CA-VEN-10) in Ventura County, CA. This site was excavated by a UCLA field school course directed by Clement Meighan and Gene Sterud on private property as ongoing construction was impacting both sites. The excavation was conducted primarily at CA-VEN-7, however, additional excavations occurred at nearby CA-VEN-10. They are likely loci of the same village site along with VEN-2, 6, and 205 and grouped together for NAGPRA as such. The collection was received by UCLA in 1964. A single radiocarbon date and artifact types recovered indicate the site was occupied as early as A.D. 1 until after A.D. 1000. Human remains from seven formal burials as well as fragmentary human remains from midden contexts were identified from the collection and represent 17 adults (2 male, 4 female, and 11 indeterminate), 9 juveniles (1 male), 5 infants, and 2 perinatal individuals. Another individual was too fragmentary to determine age or sex. No known individuals were identified. Associated funerary objects were only recovered from the formal burials at VEN-7. The 55 associated funerary objects include: 1 shell bead, 3 ground stone artifacts, 1 projectile point, 30 pieces and 3 bags of unmodified faunal bone, 6 pebbles, 9 shell fragments, and 2 wood fragments.

In 1955, 1958, and 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, 35 individuals were removed from Simo'mo (CA-VEN-24 aka VEN-26) in Ventura County, CA. The first set of excavations was undertaken by UCLA field courses supervised by Clement Meighan in 1955, and by David M. Pendergast in 1958. A second set of excavations were conducted by a UCLA field course taught by M.B. McKusick on private land in 1959. The excavation materials were all accessioned by UCLA by 1959. The estimated age of the site is A.D. 300-1100. While a report by Meighan discusses finding two formal burials, neither were accessioned by UCLA. Their current location is unknown. A single drawing was found referencing work done in 1958 under David Pendergast. It includes information about Burials 9-13 and states that they are located at San Fernando Valley State College along with their artifacts (although some of the artifacts are included on UCLA's catalog and are present). While no formal burials were found, fragmentary human remains were identified within the faunal bone from the 1956 and 1958 excavations. In addition, faunal remains returned from UCSB included two sets of proveniences that could not be traced to UCLA excavations, which also included fragmentary human remains. Accession 117 includes 15 adults, 5 juveniles, 6 infants, 2 perinatal, and 1 individual that was too fragmentary to determine age or sex. The identified burial associated items are from burials not currently at UCLA and are therefore not included on this notice. Accession 219 consists of two excavated burials and fragmentary human remains representing a minimum number of six individuals (4 adults and 2 juveniles). No known individuals were identified. There are 22 unmodified animal bones removed from the burials and identified as associated funerary objects.

Between 1966 and 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from La Robleda (CA-VEN-39) at Medea Creek in Ventura County, CA. This collection resulted from excavations carried out by a UCLA field school course on land owned by the Metropolitan Development Corporation under the direction of James N. Hill and Michael Glassow to test different excavation strategies. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1971. The site is estimated to date from 815 B.C. to A.D. 1890. Fragmentary human remains represent two adults and two juvenile individuals of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1960 and 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were removed from Soule Park Site (CA-VEN-61) in Ventura County, CA. The site was excavated by Margaret Susia and a UC Archaeological Survey crew during a salvage project, after being granted permission by the Ventura County of Public Works. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in 1961. The site is estimated to date to between A.D. 1 and 1500. Fragmentary human remains represent six adults and three juveniles of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1964, 1965, and 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Potrero Valley (CA-VEN-70) in Ventura County, CA. The site was excavated by Nelson N. Leonard and the UCLA Archaeological Survey from December 1964 through May 1965, and by Clay Singer in 1977, on land owned by the Janss Corporation. The collections were accessioned by UCLA after each excavation. The site is estimated to date to the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769). Fragmentary human remains represent two adult individuals of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Little Sycamore Canyon (CA-VEN-86) in Ventura County, CA. Bob Gibson directed excavations in the summer and fall of 1971 for the UC Archaeological Survey on private property and under contract with CEDAM International. The contract gave ownership of the collection to UCLA, and the collection was received in August 1971. The site dates to the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769). The human remains from Burial 1 represent an adult female and an individual of unknown age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 87 associated funerary objects include: 1 shell bead, 2 worked bone fragments, 2 ground stone artifacts, 42 flaked-stone artifacts, 5 pieces and 4 bags of unmodified faunal bones, 19 unmodified shell fragments, 10 pieces and 1 bag of stone fragments, and 1 cobble.

In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from CA-VEN-122 in Oak Park, Ventura County, CA. The collection derives from excavations conducted by a UCLA field class under the direction of C. William Clewlow, Jr., and supervised by Marilyn Beaudry. The site is located on land owned by the Metropolitan Development Corporation. The collection was curated at UCLA in August 1978. This site dates to A.D. 700-1785. A formal burial was designated at the site and left in situ at the request of the Native American monitors. However, additional fragmentary human remains were identified from midden contexts that represent two adults, sex unknown, and another individual represented by an incisor. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1965-1966, human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were removed from CA-VEN-138 in Ventura County, CA, by students from Mira Monte Elementary School, under the direction of their teacher Dr. John Hook during the school year. The collection from this Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) through Historic contact site was donated to UCLA in 1985 by the elementary school. Fragmentary human remains removed from the site include a minimum of 9 individuals: One adult male; one adult, sex unknown; one juvenile, sex unknown; and six other extremely incomplete individuals, age and sex unknown. No known individuals were identified. The collection of 101 associated funerary objects consists of 4 ground stone artifacts, 35 worked stone fragments, 40 unmodified shell fragments, 19 pieces of unmodified animal bones, 1 charcoal fragment, 1 ceramic fragment, and 1 metal knife.

In 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, eight individuals were removed from Big Sycamore Rock Shelters (CA-VEN-195) in Ventura County, CA. The site was excavated under the direction of Robert Gibson with a UC Archaeological Survey crew on private property. This site dates to the Late Period, circa A.D. 1500. Fragmentary human remains represent two incomplete adult individuals of unknown sex, and six individuals of unknown age and sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In the summer of 1975, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from the Running Springs Ranch Site (CA-VEN-261) in Ventura County, CA. This collection derives from a boundary test conducted by C. William Clewlow and Allen Pastron. The site is estimated to date to A.D. 800-1800. Human remains from Burial 1 represent a sub-adult female individual. In addition fragmentary human remains represent three adult individuals, sex unknown. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are a shell fragment and a stone flake.

In 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Conejo Valley (CA-VEN-272) in Thousand Oaks, Ventura County, CA. The site was discovered by a crew of archeologists from the UCLA Archaeological Survey in 1972, and reevaluated in 1976 by Pamela Ivie and David Whitley as part of an environmental impact report on the MGM Ranch. The Late Period site (A.D. 700-1769) was excavated in August of 1977, by a UCLA research team on MGM property. Fragmentary human remains were recovered from a midden context representing one individual of unknown age or sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In the fall of 1976 and the summer of 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, 12 individuals were removed from Oak Park (CA-VEN-294) in Ventura County, CA. Salvage excavations were conducted on land owned by the Metropolitan Development Corporation and directed by Robert Lopez and C. William Clewlow with the UCLA Archaeological Survey. The site dates to between 48 B.C. and A.D. 1400. Human remains were recovered from five burials as well as midden contexts. They include 6 adults, sex unknown; 3 juveniles, sex unknown; 2 infants, sex unknown; and 1 individual of unknown sex and age. No known individuals were identified. The 697 associated funerary objects are 9 worked bones, 1 shell pendant fragment, 106 unmodified animal bones, 44 unmodified shell fragments, 52 flaked stone artifacts, 1 metal ball, 466 shell beads, 5 serpentine beads, 1 stone pestle, 5 cobble tools, 3 bags of soil samples, and 4 stone fragments.

In 1975, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from CA-VEN-340 in Ventura County, CA. Nelson N. Leonard led salvage excavations after the Late Period site (A.D. 700-1769) was heavily impacted by construction in the 1970s leaving only a portion of the deposit intact. The collection arrived at UCLA soon after excavations, between 1975 and 1976. Fragmentary human remains represent a minimum of one adult individual, sex unknown. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

Sometime in 1976 or 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, eight individuals were removed from Ferndale Ranch (CA-VEN-404) in Ventura County, CA. Excavations were conducted in 1976 by the UC Archaeological Survey in conjunction with the University of Santa Clara, directed by C.W. Clewlow, Jr., in advance of site development. During the course of excavations, burials were found but left in situ at the request of the Candelaria Indian Tribal Council. There were also two short periods of field excavations again in 1977 by Dr. C. Moser. The excavations were closed at the request of the Candelaria Indian Council as more burials were encountered, and they were reinterred. Construction damaged part of the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769) through Historic contact cemetery after excavations were concluded. A summary report states that the location of the Moser 1977 work is currently unknown and not included in this collection. The collection in the possession and control of the Fowler Museum presumably derives from after the 1977 excavations and comprises 6 burials including 5 adults (2 of which are identified as female), a juvenile, an infant of unknown sex, and an individual of unknown age or sex. No known individuals were identified. The 111 associated funerary objects consist of 8 pieces and 4 bags of unmodified faunal bones, 6 pebbles, 1 organic fragment, 1 bone tool, 2 bags of flakes, 49 pieces and 1 bag of stone fragments, 15 pieces and 2 bags of unmodified shell, 20 beads, and 2 ceramic fragments.

In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Medea Creek (CA-VEN-542) in Oak Park, Thousand Oaks, Ventura County, CA. The collection was excavated by researchers from the UCLA Archaeological Survey under the direction of Dr. C. William Clewlow, Jr., on land owned by the Metropolitan Development Corporation. The collection was accessioned by UCLA in July 1978. This site was dated to the Late Period (A.D. 700-1769). Fragmentary human remains represent one juvenile individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Newbury Park (CA-VEN-544) in Ventura County, CA. The collection is from excavations on Grace Properties by Brian Dillon in the summer of 1982. There was no documentation provided when the human remains were received at UCLA in 1985. The site is dated to the Early Millingstone Period (circa 600-0 B.C.). Fragmentary human remains represent one adult individual of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Lindero Canyon (CA-VEN-606) in Ventura County, CA. Collections from the site derive from survey and excavation during the North Ranch Inland Chumash research project led by Dr. William Clewlow, Jr. The second investigation was conducted the same year under the direction of Holly Love and Rheta Resnick. Excavations took place on land privately owned by the Prudential Insurance Company. The collections were curated at UCLA in 1979. The site has been dated to the Late Period, A.D. 1300-1650. Fragmentary human remains represent one adult individual of unknown sex and two infants of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were identified.

The sites detailed in this notice have been identified through consultation to be within the traditional territory of the Chumash people. These locations are consistent with ethnographic and historic documentation of the Chumash people.

The Chumash territory, anthropologically defined first on the basis of linguistic similarities, and subsequently on broadly shared material and cultural traits, reaches from San Luis Obispo to Malibu on the coast, inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, to the edge of the San Fernando Valley, and includes the four Northern Channel Islands. The sites in this notice are located in northwestern Los Angeles, Ventura, southwestern San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties and fall within the geographical area identified as Chumash. Some tribal consultants state that these areas were the responsibility of regional leaders, who were themselves organized into a pan-regional association of both political power and ceremonial knowledge. Further, these indigenous areas are identified by some tribal consultants to be relational with clans or associations of traditional practitioners of specific kinds of indigenous medicinal and ceremonial practices. Some tribal consultants identified these clans as existing in the pre-contact period and identified some clans as also existing in the present day. Other tribal consultants do not recognize present-day geographical divisions to be related to clans of traditional practitioners. However, they do state that Chumash, Tataviam, and Gabrielino/Tongva territories were and are occupied by socially distinct, yet interrelated, groups which have been characterized by anthropologists. Ethnographic evidence suggests that the social and political organization of the pre-contact Channel Islands were primarily at the village level, with a hereditary chief, in addition to many other specialists who wielded power.

The associated funerary objects described in this notice are consistent with those of groups ancestral to the present-day Chumash people. The material cultures of earlier groups living in the geographical areas mentioned in this notice are characterized by archeologists as having passed through stages over the past 10,000 years. Many local archeologists assert that the changes in the material culture reflect evolving ecological adaptations and related changes in social organization of the same populations and do not represent population displacements or movements. The same range of artifact types and materials were used from the early pre-contact period until historic times. Tribal consultants explicitly state that population mixing, which did occur on a small scale, would not alter the continuity of the shared group identities of people associated with specific locales. Based on this evidence, continuity through time can be traced for all sites listed in this notice with present-day Chumash people, specifically the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Officials of the Fowler Museum at UCLA have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 1,802 individuals of Native American ancestry.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 46,015 objects described in this notice 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 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Wendy G. Teeter, Ph.D., Fowler Museum at UCLA, Box 951549, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1549, telephone (310) 825-1864, email [email protected], by February 26, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, may proceed.

The Fowler Museum is responsible for notifying the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California, that this notice has been published.

The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC and International Refills Company Ltd. on January 21, 2016. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain diaper disposal systems and components thereof, including diaper refill cassettes. The complaint names as respondents Munchkin, Inc. of Van Nuys, CA; Munchkin Baby Canada Ltd. of Canada; and Lianyungang Brilliant Daily Products Co. Ltd. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.

Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3115”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 4 ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.5

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

On November 10, 2015, the Department of Justice published in the Federal Register a Notice announcing the December 7-8, 2015, Federal Advisory Committee Meeting of the National Commission on Forensic Science (80 FR 69698). During the Commission proceedings on December 7-8, 2015, subcommittees were provided an opportunity to revise existing draft work products. This Notice announces a public comment period to provide an opportunity for submitting comments for the revised work products.

Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Commission in response to the revised draft work products. Work products are available on the Commission's Web site: http://www.justice.gov/ncfs/work-products and on www.regulations.gov.

I. Background

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., the State Plans) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimized, collection instruments are understandable, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. Currently, OSHA is soliciting comments concerning the extension of the information collection requirements contained in the series of regulations establishing requirements for the submission, initial approval, continuing approval, final approval, monitoring, and evaluation of OSHA-approved State Plans:

• 29 CFR part 1902, State Plans for the Development and Enforcement of State Standards;

• 29 CFR part 1953, Changes to State Plans for the Development and Enforcement of State Standards;

• 29 CFR part 1954, Procedures for the Evaluation and Monitoring of Approved State Plans; and

• 29 CFR part 1956, State Plans for the Development and Enforcement of State Standards Applicable to State and Local Government Employees in States Without Approved Private Employee Plans.

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 667) offers an opportunity to the states to assume responsibility for the development and enforcement of state standards through the mechanism of an OSHA-approved State Plan. Absent an approved plan, states are precluded from enforcing occupational safety and health standards in the private sector with respect to any issue for which Federal OSHA has promulgated a standard. Once approved and operational, the state adopts standards and provides most occupational safety and health enforcement and compliance assistance in the state under the authority of its plan, instead of Federal OSHA. States also must extend their jurisdiction to cover state and local government employees and may obtain approval of State Plans limited in scope to these workers. To obtain and maintain State Plan approval, a state must submit various documents to OSHA describing its program structure and operation, including any modifications thereto as they occur, in accordance with the identified regulations. OSHA funds 50 percent of the costs required to be incurred by an approved State Plan, with the state at least matching and providing additional funding at its discretion.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

Ways to minimize the burden on participating states who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the collection of information requirements associated with its State Plan regulations. The Agency is requesting an adjustment increase to adjust the number of burden hours associated with the developmental steps necessary for states in the developmental process, including Maine, Illinois and the Virgin Islands. Maine received initial approval on August 5, 2015 and has been moved to the developmental category. As a result, the total burden hours have increased slightly from 11,369 to 11,519 burden hours (an increase of 150 burden hours). The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in its request to OMB.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: Occupational Safety and Health State Plans.

OMB Control Number: 1218-0247.

Affected Public: Designated state government agencies that are seeking or have submitted and obtained approval for State Plans for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health. standards.

Number of Respondents: 28.

Frequency of Response: On occasion; quarterly; annually.

Total Responses: 1,309.

Average Time per Response: Varies from 30 minutes (.5 hour) to respond to an information inquiry to 80 hours to document state annual performance goals.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 11,519.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0197). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the OSHA docket number, so the Agency can attach them to your comments.

Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).

Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information, such as their social security number and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available from the Web site and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

Public Law 104-113, the “National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,” codified the existing policies in A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” established reporting requirements, and authorized the National Institute of Standards and Technology to coordinate conformity assessment activities of the agencies. In 1998, OMB revised the Circular in order to make the terminology of the Circular consistent with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, to issue guidance to the agencies on making their reports to OMB, to direct the Secretary of Commerce to issue policy guidance for conformity assessment, and to make changes for clarity.

OMB has issued a revision of Circular A-119 in light of changes that have taken place in the world of regulation, standards, and conformity assessment since the Circular was last revised in 1998. The revised Circular is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_infopoltech. OMB's revisions are meant to provide more detailed guidance to agencies to take into account several issues, including the Administration's current work in Open Government, developments in regulatory policy and international trade, and changes in technology.

The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The meeting will also be available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 1-800-988-9663, passcode 4718658, to participate in this meeting by telephone. A toll number also is available, 1-517-308-9427 passcode 4718658. The WebEx link is https://nasa.webex.com/; the meeting number is 999 765 122 and the password is BigD@T@16. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

NCUA charters, regulates and insures deposits in federal credit unions (FCUs) and insures deposits in state-chartered credit unions that have their shares insured through the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Share Insurance Fund). To cover expenses related to its statutory mission, the Board adopts an Operating Budget in the fall of each year (Operating Budget). The Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) authorizes two primary sources to fund the Operating Budget: (1) Requisitions from the Share Insurance Fund “for such administrative and other expenses incurred in carrying out the purposes of [Title II of the FCU Act] as [the Board] may determine to be proper”; 1 and (2) “fees and assessments (including income earned on insurance deposits) levied on insured credit unions under [the FCU Act].” 2 The latter of fees are referred to herein as annual Operating Fees, which “may be expended by the Board to defray the expenses incurred in carrying out the provisions of [the FCU Act,] including the examination and supervision of [FCUs].” 3

With regard to the Operating Fee, the FCU Act requires each FCU to, “in accordance with rules prescribed by the Board, . . . pay to the [NCUA] an annual operating fee which may be composed of one or more charges identified as to the function or functions for which assessed.” 4 The fee must “be determined according to a schedule, or schedules, or other method determined by the Board to be appropriate, which gives due consideration to the expenses of the [NCUA] in carrying out its responsibilities under the [FCU Act] and to the ability of [FCUs] to pay the fee.” 5 The statute requires the Board to, among other things, “determine the periods for which the fee shall be assessed and the date or dates for the payment of the fee or increments thereof.” 6

Accordingly, the FCU Act imposes three requirements on the Board in connection with assessing an Operating Fee on FCUs: (1) The fee must be assessed according to a schedule or schedules, or other method that the Board determines to be appropriate, which gives due consideration to NCUA's responsibilities in carrying out the FCU Act and the ability of FCUs to pay the fee; (2) the Board must determine the period for which the fee will be assessed and the due date for payment; and (3) the Board must deposit collected fees into the Treasury to defray the Board's expenses in carrying out the FCU Act.

The Operating Fee methodology that this document describes meets all three legal requirements. First, the Board is assessing the Operating Fee under a schedule presented later in this document. The schedule sets forth assessment rates for FCUs based on asset size and takes account of NCUA's responsibilities in carrying out the FCU Act as well as the ability of FCUs to pay. Specifically, the schedule reflects consideration of NCUA's expenses in various areas of responsibility under the FCU Act and is scaled by asset size to account for the ability to pay. Second, this document specifies the applicable time period for the assessment, 2016, and notes that a later publication will update the due date. Third, NCUA will deposit collected fees in the United States Treasury, and the collected fees will fund some of NCUA's expenses in carrying out its responsibilities under the FCU Act.

NCUA has a regulation that governs Operating Fee processes.7 The regulation establishes (i) the basis for charging Operating Fees (i.e., total assets), (ii) a notice process, (iii) rules for new charters, conversions, mergers, and liquidations, and (iv) administrative fees and interest for late payment, among other principles and processes.8 Certain aspects of and adjustments to the Operating Fee process, such as the asset tier of FCUs that are exempt from Operating Fees and the multipliers that are used to determine fees applicable to higher asset tiers, are usually not published in the Federal Register. Instead, the Board traditionally set the Operating Fee during an open meeting each November, after determining the Operating Budget and Overhead Transfer at the same open meeting. At an open meeting in November 2015, the Board delegated authority to the Chief Financial Officer to administer the Board-approved Operating Fee methodology, and to set the Operating Fees as calculated per the approved methodology each annual budget cycle beginning with 2016.9

Although it is not required to do so under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Board now chooses to specifically solicit public comments on the methodology and process NCUA uses for the fee schedule through this Federal Register publication, as it has done on occasion in the past.

The Board adopted the current Operating Fee methodology in 1979, after Congress passed the Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978.10 This legislation permitted the Board to consolidate previously separate chartering, supervision, and examination fees into a single Operating Fee, charged “in accordance with schedules, and for time periods, as determined by the Board, in an amount necessary to offset the expenses of the Administration at a rate consistent with a credit union's ability to pay.” 11 In combination with a proposed change to NCUA Regulation 12 CFR 701.6 in 1979, the Board proposed an initial fee schedule in the Federal Register, including rates for 12 asset tiers.12 It later published a final rule in the Federal Register, which also included a finalized fee schedule for 1979.13

On three additional occasions, the Board has requested comments on potential changes to the Operating Fee schedule through a Federal Register notice, independent of any changes to 12 CFR 701.6. First, in 1990, the Board provided notice to the public that it was considering consolidating the Operating Fee schedule from 14 asset tiers to two asset tiers, retaining an exemption for FCUs under $50,000 in assets and implementing a $100 minimum fee.14 The Board provided a 60-day comment period.15

In 1990, the Board determined that current 14 asset tier Operating Fee scale was sharply regressive. In looking at the issue of fairness, the Board concluded the previous scale was no longer based fairly on the ability to pay, as evidenced by the rate for the smallest credit unions being $2.41 per $1,000 in assets, compared to $0.07 per $1,000 in assets for the largest credit unions, so that the burden on smaller credit unions had become significantly greater than on larger credit unions. In 1989, the Operating Fee was an average of 3.96 percent of expenses for credit unions in the lowest asset bracket, compared to 0.23 percent of expenses for the largest credit union. While a single rate was initially considered to be potentially more equitable, the fees from a single rate would have more than tripled for the largest credit unions. In 1990, the Board instead adopted a final two-bracket, two-rate structure proposal as the most feasible solution. In general, larger federal credit unions pay a higher dollar Operating Fee, but based on a lower (regressive) rate. The Board considered this regressive rate approach to be the fairest method of balancing the competing concepts and views of larger federal credit unions' higher dollar fees paid as subsidizing smaller federal credit unions, and larger federal credit unions not receiving proportionally more service from NCUA for the fees they pay. The Board-adopted proposal in 1990 exempted credit unions with assets under $50,000, set a minimum fee of $100, established two brackets with $250 million in assets as the dividing line between the two, and allowed the dividing points to be changed based on projected asset growth. The proposed fee structure did even out the effect on credit unions. For credit unions between $250,000 and $1 million in assets, the fee was 0.58 percent of expenses, down from 3.00 percent, and for credit unions over $1 billion in assets, the fee was 0.33 percent of expenses, up from 0.25 percent.

In restructuring the scale in 1990, the Board also established a policy that the asset level dividing points between the brackets be adjusted annually or “indexed” in accordance with the projected asset growth of federal credit unions. This indexing was made in order to preserve the same relative relationship of the scale to the asset base to which it is applied.

Two years later, the Board adopted a new third bracket at its open Board meeting in late 1992 that applied to assets exceeding $1 billion. The Board made this change in the interest of fairness to all credit unions. At that time, there were four federal credit unions with assets over $1 billion. The current approach to the fee schedule for natural-person FCUs continues to use three asset tiers.

Second, also in 1992, the Board requested comments on a plan to limit Operating Fees to the first $1 million of each FCU's assets.16 The Board provided a 30-day comment period.17 It later extended the comment period by an additional 20 days.18

Third, in 1995, the Board requested comments on a plan to restructure the Operating Fee schedule for natural-person FCUs, to exempt FCUs with assets of $500,000 or less.19 It also requested comments on imposing a minimum fee of $100 on all natural-person FCUs with assets over $500,000 but less than or equal to $750,000.20 The Board provided a 30-day comment period.21

The Board did not publish a response to the comments in the Federal Register in any of the cases referenced above. Instead, it adopted changes at open Board meetings. At its open meeting on November 12, 1992, for example, rather than eliminating fees for FCUs with assets under $1 million as proposed in the Federal Register, the Board adopted a third rate of 0.0003 for that asset tier.22 At its open meeting on November 16, 1995, after a discussion of the comments received, the Board adopted changes as proposed in the Federal Register, exempting FCUs under $500,000 in assets and imposing a $100 fee on FCUs with between $500,000 and $750,000 in assets.23

In general, since 1995, the Board has not used Federal Register notices in connection with the annual adjustments to the asset tiers and rates of the Operating Fee schedule. In the past, the Board has opted to adopt such changes at open meetings. As recently as 2012, for example, the Board increased the asset threshold used to exempt FCUs from Operating Fees from $500,000 to $1 million at an open meeting without requesting advance comment in the Federal Register.24 While the Board has varied its practice with respect to fee schedule changes, it has done so within the FCU Act's broad directive that the fee schedule should be as “determined by the Board to be appropriate,” subject to its consideration of its expenses and the ability of FCUs to pay.25 In addition, NCUA's existing regulation on Operating Fee processes includes a standing invitation for written comments from FCUs on existing fee schedules.26

The Board adopts an Operating Budget in the fall of each year. The Operating Budget provides the resources required to execute the goals and objectives as outlined in NCUA's strategic plan. NCUA develops its Operating Budget using zero-based budgeting techniques, which ensure each activity is properly justified before the Board considers it for funding.27 As discussed above, two primary sources fund the Operating Budget: (1) The Overhead Transfer Rate (OTR); and (2) FCU Operating Fees. The following summarizes the various adjustments to arrive at the FCU Operating Fee and is illustrated below in Table 1.

Adjustments to the Budget. When calculating the aggregate annual Operating Fee requirements, the Board first subtracts amounts transferred for operational expenses from the Share Insurance Fund through the Overhead Transfer Rate and other expected income amounts from the operating budget for that year.

Overhead Transfer Rate: The FCU Act authorizes NCUA to expend funds from the Share Insurance Fund for administrative and other expenses related to federal share insurance.28 An Overhead Transfer from the Share Insurance Fund covers the expenses associated with insurance-related functions of NCUA's operations. The Overhead Transfer is one of the funding sources for the budget, but the Overhead Transfer Rate does not affect the amount of the budget. The Board approves the budget separately and without regard to the Overhead Transfer Rate. The Overhead Transfer Rate is applied to actual expenses incurred each month.29

Other Income: Other income reduces the required Operating Fees by providing an additional source of funds to cover regulatory (i.e., non-insurance) related aspects of operating NCUA. Other income is projected based on the latest financial statements and includes interest income and miscellaneous revenues. Interest income includes interest on investments of annual Operating Fees not needed for current operations. Such investments may be made only in interest-bearing securities of the United States, with maturities requested by the Board, bearing interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the Treasury.30 Other income includes miscellaneous revenues, such as proceeds from publication sales, parking fee income, and rental income. Publication sales include proceeds from the sale of printed publications and brochures. NCUA leases office space to commercial tenants in its Central Office building and recognizes rental income in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). NCUA's Central Office has a parking garage and NCUA collects income on parking fees, which are divided among the complex owners according to the percentage of parking garage space owned by each.

Adjustments for cash and non-cash needs. The balance remaining after removing the Overhead Transfer amount and other expected income is then adjusted for cash and non-cash needs. Cash needs include additions for capital acquisitions and the payment of the note payable for the NCUA Central Office building on King Street. Non-cash needs include deductions for accrued annual leave and depreciation. Additional deductions or additions to cash needs are necessary to maintain a sufficient cash reserve to continue NCUA's operations. Operating Fund Mid-Session adjustments may also result in changes to cash needs, normally in the form of a reduction.

Sufficient Cash Reserves: NCUA's policy for the Operating Fund is to maintain cash reserves of at least one month for contingencies.31 Cash requirements are projected to last approximately 15 months from the end of the current budget year, until the subsequent Operating Fee collections are received from FCUs. NCUA sends an annual Letter to FCUs that establishes the Operating Fees for the coming year.32 It then provides invoices that require payment by April 15.

Accrued Annual Leave: Accrued annual leave is the change in the economic value of earned, but unpaid annual leave for current NCUA employees. It is a non-cash expense under GAAP and therefore is excluded when determining the required Operating Fees. NCUA uses historical data to determine the annual amount of accrued annual leave.

Depreciation: Capital acquisitions are investments in assets including information technology software and building improvement projects. Depreciation is a reduction in the value of an asset with the passage of time. For NCUA's Operating Budget, depreciation expenses are included for assets such as NCUA's Central Office building, furniture and equipment, and leasehold improvements. The Share Insurance Fund covers a percentage of the depreciation expenses based on the OTR. The cash needs of all budgeted capital acquisitions are added to the FCU Operating Fee requirements.

Repayment of NCUA Central Office on King Street, Note Payable. In 1992, the Operating Fund entered into a commitment to borrow up to $42.0 million in a 30-year secured term note with the Share Insurance Fund to fund the costs of constructing NCUA's Central Office in 1993. Since the Operating Fund borrowed monies from the Share Insurance Fund, the annual scheduled principal payments are excluded from the OTR and Overhead Transfer amount. The annual scheduled principal payments are treated as a cash need and applied as an increase to Operating Fee requirements.

Operating Fee Requirements. The amount remaining after adjustments for all cash and non-cash needs is the total budgeted Operating Fee requirements. The total budgeted Operating Fee requirements (i.e., line 11 below) represents Operating Fees for both natural-person and corporate FCUs. The natural-person FCU Operating Fees required (i.e. line 13 below) is determined by deducting the corporate FCU Operating Fees (i.e. line 12 below) from the total budgeted Operating Fee requirements (i.e., line 11 below).

The corporate credit union fee schedule was established in 1979 and has changed little over the years. In fact, for many years, the Operating Fee scale remained virtually unchanged. The main driver for no change is the concept that corporate FCUs hold assets of natural-person credit unions, which are already assessed under the natural-person Operating Fees. Assessing corporate FCUs at the same rate would, effectively, assess the same assets twice. Corporate FCUs return a large portion of their earnings to natural-person FCUs in the form of lower fees and higher dividends. Raising Operating Fee assessments for corporate FCUs would result in higher expenses for corporate FCUs. Corporate FCUs would need to pass the higher expenses to natural-person FCUs in the form of higher fees and lower investment yields. The corporate credit union fee schedule is a method of charging corporate FCUs a supervisory fee to defray costs. Table 2 below outlines the 2016 corporate FCU Operating Fee schedule:

As stated above, the Board delegated authority to the Chief Financial Officer to administer the methodology approved by the Board for calculating the Operating Fees and to set the fee schedule as calculated per the approved methodology beginning in 2016. After determining the Operating Fee requirements for natural-person FCUs (i.e., line 13 above), the Chief Financial Officer creates the natural-person FCU Operating Fee schedule for the upcoming year. Table 3 below outlines the 2016 Operating Fee schedule for natural-person FCUs.

A different assessment rate is applied to each tier. FCUs with $1 million or less in assets pay no Operating Fee.

There are two primary steps used to determine the adjustments to the Operating Fee schedule for the upcoming year. They are: (1) Updating the prior year asset tiers using the projected asset growth rate; and (2) updating the prior year assessment rates for each asset tier by determining the average assessment rate adjustment.

Updating prior year asset levels. The first step in determining the new Operating Fee schedule is to increase each asset tier from the prior year by the projected asset growth rate. Assets are indexed annually to preserve the same relative relationship of the scale to the applicable asset base.

The projected asset growth rate is a forecast of FCU asset growth rates for a year. NCUA's Office of Chief Economist (OCE) uses three different methods to forecast asset growth and combines them to generate an overall asset growth rate forecast.

Forecasting Method #1: Uses Call Report data for the first half of the year to predict full-year asset growth. This is done by first calculating the ratio of first-half asset growth to full-year asset growth. The percentage of full-year growth accounted for by first-half asset growth varies from year to year but, on average, nearly 80 percent of the asset growth for FCUs occurs in the first half of the year. Using the growth rate in the first half of the year, OCE projects the full-year growth rate.

Forecasting Method #2: Uses Call Report data to determine the most recent four-quarter growth rate and sets this rate to the full-year asset growth rate. This approach is based on the idea that an FCU is likely to establish and maintain a relatively constant growth rate over a short period, after accounting for variations in the growth rate that is attributable to seasonal fluctuations. This implies that a good forecast of full-year asset growth is the most recently available four-quarter asset growth.

Forecasting Method #3: Uses a time series statistical model. Using quarterly Call Report data, OCE predicts future four-quarter asset growth using the four-quarter growth in assets for the period ending two quarters earlier (that is, four-quarter asset growth lagged two quarters).

Combined Forecast: In general, forecasting literature shows that combining forecasts from different approaches can improve forecast accuracy and decrease the likelihood of forecast errors. Using the root mean squared error statistic to calculate the accuracy of the individual approaches and combined forecast approaches, OCE has found that the combined forecast approach is better at predicting the final asset growth rate than any of the individual approaches. OCE therefore averages the forecasts from the three approaches to maximize accuracy.

Updating the prior year's assessment rates. After updating the prior year asset tiers, the next step is to project Operating Fees using the updated asset tiers and the prior year assessment rates charged to each tier. The percentage difference between the projected Operating Fees (i.e., line 14 above) and the required Operating Fees (i.e., line 13 above) is the average rate adjustment (i.e., line 16 above).

The average rate adjustment (i.e., line 16 above) is used to amend the prior year's assessment rates for each asset tier either upwards or downwards. If the projected amount of Operating Fees is less than the required amount, then the assessment rates for each asset tier are adjusted upwards. If the projected amount is more than the required amount, then the assessment rates for each asset tier are adjusted downwards.

The resulting new Operating Fee schedule and due date are communicated via a Letter to Federal Credit Unions and posted to www.NCUA.gov at least 30 days in advance of the due date. No later than March of each year, natural-person FCUs with assets greater than $1 million will receive an invoice for their Operating Fee. Operating Fees are based on actual assets reported as of December 31 of the previous year. NCUA combines the annual Operating Fee and capitalization deposit adjustment into a single invoice normally due in April. As required by the FCU Act, NCUA will deposit the collected fees in the United States Treasury.

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires agencies to prepare strategic plans, annual performance plans and annual performance reports with measurable performance indicators to address the policy, budgeting and oversight needs of both Congress and agency leaders, partners/stakeholders, and program managers. In 2010, Congress passed the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, which further requires a leadership-driven governance model with emphasis on quarterly reviews and transparency. The GPRA Modernization Act requires agencies to set priority goals linked to longer-term Agency strategic goals. Part 6 of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 provides additional guidance and requirements for federal agencies to implement these laws.

The NCUA Draft Strategic Plan 2017-2021 is issued pursuant to the GPRA, the GPRA Modernization Act, and OMB Circular A-11.

It highlights the agency's three strategic goals and supporting strategic objectives, which reflect the outcome or greater impact of the broader strategic goals. The three strategic goals for 2017-2021 are to:

• Ensure a Safe and Sound Credit Union System.

• Promote Consumer Protection and Financial Literacy.

• Cultivate an Inclusive, Collaborative Workplace at NCUA that Maximizes Productivity and Enhances Impact.

The draft NCUA Draft Strategic Plan 2017-2021 is available at the following Web address: https://www.ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/Pages/board-comments.aspx.

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0234 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0234.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. Draft NUREG/CR-7209, “A Compendium of Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response Analyses to Severe Fire Accident Scenarios,” is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16015A016.