Federal Register Vol. 83, No.164,

Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-208-1814, conference ID: 1317763. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Program Unit Office, 230 S. Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Wisconsin Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=282). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(k), on July 19, 2018, Commerce published its Final Results of the countervailing duty expedited review of CTL plate from China.1 On July 24, 2018, Jiangsu Tiangong Tools Company Limited (TG Tools) submitted a request to correct a ministerial error in the Final Results. 2 No other parties submitted ministerial error allegations or comments on TG Tools' allegations.

The product covered by the order is CTL plate from China. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Ministerial Error Memorandum.3

Section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a “ministerial error” as an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial. As discussed in Commerce's Ministerial Error Memorandum, Commerce finds that a certain error alleged by TG Tools constitutes a ministerial error within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f).4

In the subsidy rate calculation for TG Tools, we made a ministerial error with regard to the attribution methodology for certain grants. In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results to correct the ministerial error. Specifically, we are amending the net subsidy rate for TG Tools. The revised net subsidy rate is provided below.

As a result of correcting the ministerial error, we determine that the countervailable subsidy rate for the producer/exporter under review to be as follows:

Pursuant to section 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(iii), the amended final results of this expedited review will not be the basis for the assessment of countervailing duties. Upon the issuance of these final results, Commerce will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for the companies subject to this expedited review, at the rates shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this expedited review. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We intended to disclose the calculations performed for these amended final results to interested parties within five business days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

The MEP Advisory Board is authorized under Section 3003(d) of the America COMPETES Act (Pub. L. 110-69), as amended by the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, Public Law 114-329 sec. 501 (2017), and codified at 15 U.S.C. 278k(m), in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Hollings MEP Program (Program) is a unique program, consisting of Centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico with partnerships at the state, federal, and local levels. By statute, the MEP Advisory Board provides the NIST Director with: (1) Advice on the activities, plans, and policies of the Program; (2) assessments of the soundness of the plans and strategies of the Program; and (3) assessments of current performance against the plans of the Program.

Background information on the MEP Advisory Board is available at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the MEP Advisory Board will hold an open meeting on Wednesday, September 12, 2018, from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Central Time. The meeting agenda will include an update on Hollings MEP programmatic operations, as well as the opportunity for the MEP Advisory Board to provide guidance and advice on current activities related to the 2017-2022 MEP National Network Strategic Plan. The MEP Advisory Board will provide input to NIST on supply chain development with an emphasis on defense suppliers, in order to strengthen the defense industrial base, and will make recommendations on the development of research and performance metrics to support and enrich MEP Center evaluation. The MEP Advisory Board will also get updates on and discuss the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Cost Share Report. The final agenda will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board website at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm.

Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the MEP Advisory Board's business are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately 15 minutes will be reserved for public comments at the end of the meeting. Speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received but is likely to be no more than three to five minutes each. Requests must be received in writing by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 31, 2018 to be considered. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the MEP Advisory Board website at http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisory-board.cfm.

Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, or those who are or were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the MEP Advisory Board, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800, via fax at (301) 963-6556, or electronically by email to [email protected].

Admittance Instructions: Anyone wishing to attend the MEP Advisory Board meeting must submit their name, email address, and phone number to Cheryl Gendron ([email protected] or 301-975-2785) no later than Friday, September 7, 2018, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Background

Purse seine vessels flagged to the United States fish for skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) and other tunas in the WCPO. The fishery developed in the 1970s and early 1980s as some U.S. tuna vessels moved west from fishing grounds in the eastern Pacific. The vessels participating in this fishery currently are large: Between 175 and 260 feet in length with crews of between 19 and 40. Purse seining is fishing by setting a vertically oriented net around a school of fish, and then closing, or “pursing”, the bottom of the net to capture the fish. The vessels use purse seine nets up to about 6,500 feet long and 600 feet deep and in recent years (2013-2017) vessels set their nets, on average, once per fishing day.

NMFS manages the fishery in accordance with U.S. laws implementing international agreements, including the Treaty on Fisheries Between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America,1 also known as the South Pacific Tuna Treaty (hereafter, Treaty), and conservation and management measures adopted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (hereafter, Commission or WCPFC). The fishery operates in the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the Pacific Island parties to the Treaty (hereafter, PIPs) and that of the United States, as well as on the high seas in the WCPO. This EIS will address all U.S. tuna purse seine fisheries within the area of application of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean; a map of which is available at the WCPFC website at: www.wcpfc.int/doc/convention-area-map.

The U.S. purse seine fleet is not the only fishing fleet active in this region. Other major flags of purse seine fishing vessels in the region include: Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Papua New Guinea, and Taiwan. The U.S. fleet's fishing activities accounted for approximately 14 percent of the total purse seine fishing effort—measured in fishing days—in the WCPO from 2010 through 2016.2

The regulations under which the U.S. fleet operates require changes in response to new decisions of the Commission and new provisions of the Treaty, as well as changes in other laws. The Commission typically adopts new conservation and management measures relevant to this fishery annually. The PIPs and the United States agreed to amendments to the Treaty and its Annexes in 2016, along with a Memorandum of Understanding regarding their intent to provisionally apply some of the amendments pending completion of ratification and entry into force. Some provisions of the Treaty Annexes extend only through 2020 or 2022. NMFS promulgates regulations to implement the Commission's decisions (50 CFR part 300, subpart O) under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) and provisions of the Treaty (50 CFR part 300, subpart D) under authority of the South Pacific Tuna Act (16 U.S.C. 973-973r). In addition, NMFS may regulate the fishery to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and other applicable laws.

Regulations may control fishing effort and/or catches, specify open and closed areas and/or the use and design of fishing gear, among others. Recent regulatory changes have focused on Commission decisions limiting total fishing effort and the number of sets associated with fish aggregating devices (FADs). The objectives of these decisions include reducing fishing mortality on bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), which are caught primarily when fishing on FADs, and controlling fishing mortality on yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and skipjack tuna.

The proposed action in this EIS is the continued authorization of the U.S. purse seine fishery in the WCPO. Analysis of this proposed action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) involves examining likely future management of the fishery. Since management measures (including Commission decisions, Treaty provisions, and other applicable laws) can change substantially each year, a wide range of alternative regulatory approaches would be appropriate as action alternatives for consideration in this EIS.

The purpose of and need for the proposed action is the continued authorization of the U.S. purse seine fishery in the WCPO under existing and reasonably foreseeable future management measures.

Both no-action and action alternatives have been drafted for consideration during the public scoping period. NMFS has not yet identified a preferred alternative or preferred alternatives. Briefly, these alternatives are:

No-action alternatives are used in NEPA documents to establish the baseline against which the environmental impacts of the action alternatives are assessed, and they are often thought of as either maintaining the status quo—or current management—or not proceeding with the proposed action. There would still be environmental consequences of not proceeding with the proposed action, and defining no-action alternatives allows for the explicit evaluation of these impacts on their own and in relation to action alternatives. NMFS is considering analyzing two separate no-action alternatives in this EIS: A no-action alternative under which there would be no U.S. purse seine fishery in the WCPO (a no-fishery alternative), as well as a no-action alterative under which fishing operations and management would continue as they have in recent years (the status quo alternative).

Specifics of these two draft no-action alternatives are:

• No-action alternative A: No fishery. No U.S. purse seine fishing in any portion of the WCPO, which includes the EEZs of the United States and other countries, as well as the high seas.

• No-action alternative B: Status quo. A fishery with regulatory conditions and fishing activity distributed across the EEZs of the United States and other countries and the high seas in proportions similar to that seen in recent years (2014-2017). Specifically, a fishery with approximately 7,000 fishing days of effort, 7,000 total net sets and 2,800 FAD sets (40 percent FAD sets).

Action alternatives are generally the management options proposed or considered when the NEPA process begins. The action alternatives are meant to describe potential alternative approaches to achieve the defined purpose and need of the proposed action. NMFS recommends analyzing two specific classes of action alternatives in the EIS:

1. Alternatives that control the type and amount of fishing, such as limits on fishing effort, catches, and fishing methods; and

2. Alternatives that control the allocation and use of fishing privileges amongst participants in the fishery.

We address these two classes of draft action alternatives separately here and describe how they would be addressed concurrently in the EIS.

The controls on type and amount of fishing will be the primary drivers of environmental consequences of the fishery. The NMFS approach to developing action alternatives has been to review recent regulations, Treaty terms, and Commission decisions to understand the potential range of future management actions. There has been significant variability in management approaches in recent years, and both more and less restrictive regulatory changes have occurred.

Recent controls on the type and amount of fishing have focused on limits on fishing effort generally and restrictions on the use of FADs (i.e., limits on a subset of fishing effort). For both fishing effort and FAD use, NFMS has drafted alternatives that cover a wide range of possible future management outcomes (Table 1). NMFS is suggesting this approach to extend the usefulness of the analysis in this EIS, as the environmental impacts of future management measures that are not specifically analyzed can be quickly estimated relative to those that are.

The annual fishing effort possible by the U.S. WCPO purse seine fleet is currently limited by the Treaty, which limits the number of license applications that may be forwarded to the Treaty Administrator to 40. Given the recent average of one net set per fishing day per vessel and imagining 40 vessels actively fishing about 80 percent of the time, a theoretical maximum annual effort level is approximately 12,000 fishing days (or 12,000 sets). Over the last 15 years, the highest annual fishing effort recorded by the fleet was 8,664 fishing days (2014). The maximum number of U.S. purse seine vessels fishing in any of the last 15 years has been 40 (2013 and 2014), but it has been as low as 15 vessels (2005) and is currently 33 (2018). For the purposes of evaluating potential future management actions in this EIS, U.S. purse seine effort levels up to 12,000 fishing days annually are plausible. Along with the two no-action alternatives, representing 0 and 7,000 fishing days of effort, respectively, NMFS is considering analyzing three action alternatives with respect to limits on fishing effort: 5,000, 9,000, and 12,000 fishing days (Table 1).

The annual fishing effort associated with the action alternatives would be distributed across the U.S. EEZ, the high seas, and the EEZs of the PIPs. Since 2009, fishing effort in the U.S. EEZ and on the high seas in the WCPFC Convention Area has been limited in accordance with Commission decisions. The limits on the number of days of effort have, in the past, applied to the combined high seas and the U.S. EEZ (referred to in U.S. fisheries regulations as the Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine, or ELAPS). The combined U.S. EEZ and high seas limits dropped from 2,588 fishing days per year in 2009-2013 to 1,828 fishing days per year in 2014-2017. Future effort limits could apply to the U.S. EEZ and high seas areas separately. NMFS has recently implemented a limit of 458 fishing days in the U.S. EEZ—with the potential to increase to 558 fishing days if certain conditions are met—and 1,370 fishing days on the high seas for 2018 (see final rule implementing recent decisions of the WCPFC at 83 FR 33851, published July 18, 2018; hereafter “2018 Final Rule”).

The number of fishing days available to the U.S. purse seine fleet in the EEZs of the PIPs is higher than the number of fishing days available in the U.S. EEZ or on the high seas. The Treaty specifies a set number of “upfront” days that are available each year for the U.S. fleet to fish in the EEZs of PIPs. The Treaty Annexes stipulate the maximum number of upfront days that are available to the U.S. fleet and the price per day. The Treaty also identifies that “additional” days can be purchased by the owners of U.S. vessels directly from individual PIPs. Any conditions put by the PIPs on the use of these additional days must be consistent with the Treaty terms, but no other specifications—such as price—are defined in the Treaty. Provisions allowing for additional fishing day purchases were adopted as part of the 2016 amendments to the Treaty, and 2017 was the first year that the option of purchasing additional days was available under the amended Treaty. The only limit to the number of additional days available to the U.S. purse seine fleet are limits internally agreed by the PIPs on the number of fishing days they will make available—which might be informed to some degree by the decisions of the WCPFC—and competition for their purchase by other international purse seine fleets.

Ultimately, the spatial distribution of fishing effort (i.e., with respect to the U.S. EEZ, the high seas, and the PIPs' EEZs) will depend largely on the amount of effort that is available in each area each year. For each action alternative, NMFS would address the specifics of effort distribution within each alternative (Table 1) separately; and where necessary, NMFS would discuss the implications of variable effort distribution on impacts of that alternative to the human environment.

Fish aggregating devices, or FADs, are generally floating objects; they include natural objects as well as rafts deployed from purse seine vessels specifically to aggregate tuna. FADs tend to attract marine life, including tunas, and can be an effective method to increase tuna catch per unit of fishing effort. Purse seine sets on FADs tend to result in higher catches of targeted skipjack tuna than unassociated sets, but also increase the catch of bigeye tuna—most of which is relatively young—and young yellowfin tuna, as well as other marine life. Recent FAD regulations have included: Prohibitions on the times and/or locations that FADs can be deployed, serviced, or set on; limits on the annual number of FAD-directed purse seine sets; and a combination of both seasonal prohibitions and numerical limits. In addition, a recent Commission decision includes a limit of 350 FADs with activated instrumented buoys that each fishing vessel may have deployed at any given time (see 2018 Final Rule).

NMFS has implemented FAD-use prohibition periods for the U.S. purse seine fleet in the WCPFC Convention Area for 2009-2017 in line with Commission decisions. The prohibition periods were in August and September in 2009, July through September in 2010-2012, July through October in 2013 and 2014, and July through September in 2015-2017. There was also a complete prohibition on the use of FADs on the high seas for 2017. The 2018 Final Rule established FAD use prohibitions for a three-month period (July through September in 2018) and an additional FAD use prohibition period in high seas areas for two months (November and December 2018). In addition to FAD setting prohibitions, NMFS limited the total number of purse seine sets on FADs (“FAD sets”) to 2,522 per year in 2016 and 2017, in line with Commission decisions. The Commission did not establish FAD set limits for 2018.

Reasonably foreseeable future FAD measures for the fleet could include further FAD use prohibition periods and/or set limits as seen in recent years, as well as the potential for limitations for FAD design, restrictions for FAD construction materials and reductions in the number of FADs with activated instrumented buoys. Despite this broad range of potential FAD-related management measures, NMFS suggests that the total number of FAD sets—measured as the proportion of total sets made—could approximate the implications of any proposed future FAD management measure.

NMFS recommends evaluating four levels of FAD restrictions, ranging from a full prohibition on FAD sets to a higher proportion of FAD sets than seen in recent years, across each of the fishing effort-based alternatives (Table 1). The proportion of total sets that would occur on FADs across this range would be equal to 0, 20, 40 and 60 percent of the total number of sets made. FAD restrictions leading to 40 percent of total sets on FADs would be similar to the FAD restrictions experienced by the fleet over the last five years (average 38 percent of sets on FADs, 2013-2017) when a range of FAD management measures were in place. The 20 percent and 60 percent FAD set proportions bound the range of FAD set proportions for the fleet over during the last decade (min 27 percent, max 54 percent, 2008-2017). The full prohibition level (0 percent FAD sets) ensures the complete range of potential FAD restrictions will be analyzed in the EIS.

These proposed action alternatives, related to controls on the type and amount of fishing, are meant to capture the full range of foreseeable future management measures in the fishery. By combining a wide range of fishing effort levels and FAD restrictions into these proposed action alternatives (Table 1), the impact analysis should be relevant to a wide range of future management measures related to effort or FAD restrictions. NMFS interprets these fishing effort and FAD restrictions as proxies for other types of management measures, meaning the application of the impact analysis can be wider still. For example, fishing effort levels would be directly applicable to management measures specifying skipjack tuna or yellowfin tuna catch limits as well as a range of time and area closures. FAD restrictions—measured as proportion of sets on FADS—are proxies for bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna catch limits, FAD design or material specification, and a range of FAD set closure times and/or locations. With this approach, nearly all foreseeable future management measures can be evaluated relative to the environmental impacts of these proposed action alternatives.

One of the most significant amendments to the Treaty in 2016 is the way that vessel owners obtain and pay for fishing privileges—fishing days—in the EEZs of the PIPs. As described previously, both upfront and additional days are available under the Treaty to U.S. purse seine vessels. The Treaty specifies requirements for the timing of notification of upfront fishing day commitments, transfers of upfront fishing days among vessel owners, and notifications of additional fishing day arrangements. In the first two years under the amended Treaty (2017 and 2018), vessel owners have collaborated to allocate the available upfront days amongst themselves, conduct in-season transfers of those days, and communicate both information on upfront and additional day arrangements to NMFS. NMFS has provided owners with updates on day usage as well as helped informally resolve issues that arise over fishing days between U.S. vessels owners and PIPs, based on data available to NMFS.

NMFS is proposing to evaluate alternative approaches for allocation, transfers and use tracking of fishing privileges under the Treaty. These alternatives would address the following considerations: (1) Timely provision of information to meet requirements and obligations of the United States under the Treaty, decisions of the Commission and other U.S. law; (2) addressing and resolving allocation disputes; (3) addressing vessels joining or leaving the fishery; (4) providing flexibility to fleet participants with respect to obtaining and using fishing days from PIPs; and (5) minimizing regulatory burden and cost.

NMFS is considering evaluation of three alternative allocation and use tracking approaches that would fulfill the requirements defined above. These approaches are action alternatives that would first be compared separately and then discussed relative to any differential impact they would have on the human environment when combined with the no-action and action alternatives in Table 1. Like the control of type and amount of fishing alternatives, these control of allocation and use alternatives are intended to bound the full range of possibilities for analysis; and proceed from the lowest to highest level of NMFS oversight. The three proposed alternatives are:

1. An industry-led allocation and use tracking method, where decisions related to allocation, transfers and tracking of available fishing privileges were made by an organization of fishery participants based on approaches they collectively specified;

2. A collaborative industry-NMFS approach where NMFS would facilitate industry decisions regarding allocation, transfer, and use through both regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms; and

3. A specified allocation, transfer and use-tracking approach primarily under NMFS management and oversight.

Besides comments on these three proposed allocation and use alternatives, NMFS is specifically requesting comment on two additional aspects of these alternatives. The first concerns allocation and use of fishing privileges. Treaty and implementing agreements currently allow for assignment of vessel days at the U.S. vessel owner level. Tracking at the vessel owner level provides flexibility for those owners that have multiple vessels, but complicates the tracking of fishing day use as there are not vessel specific limits to monitor. NMFS seeks comment on the appropriate “level” for allocation and use tracking of fishing privileges in these proposed alternatives; be it the vessel, the vessel owner or some other level. Second, the numbers of U.S. EEZ and high seas fishing days available to the fleet in the WCPO have been limited since 2009 in accordance with decisions of the Commission. These limited fishing privileges have not previously been subject to allocation and are fished in an “Olympic” or “derby” style; meaning that they are available on a first-come, first-served basis to vessels that are permitted to fish in those areas. NMFS is also seeking comment on whether the proposed alternatives for control of allocation and use of fishing privileges should be extended from considering only privileges under Treaty to include fishing privileges in the U.S. EEZ and on the high seas in the WCPO—to the extent it is limited under WCPFC or other decisions.

NMFS recognizes that consultation and collaboration with U.S. purse seine vessel owners and operators on the approaches for allocation of effort in this fishery is needed, and sees this notice of intent to develop an EIS as an initial step in this process. The public comment received through this notice of intent and analysis of alternatives for allocation and use of fishing privileges in this EIS will inform future NMFS-industry discussions.

Given the wide range of potential future management approaches in this fishery, NMFS is proposing action alternatives that span the broad range of management measures foreseeable under U.S. regulations to implement the Treaty, decisions of the Commission, and other U.S. law. In total, NMFS has tentatively identified two no-action alternatives, three action alternatives related to controls on the type and amount of fishing (Table 1), and three alternatives related to the allocation and use of fishing privileges. NMFS plans to analyze the environmental consequences of implementing each of the alternatives by assessing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each to the human environment in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.

By evaluating alternatives that span the full range of reasonably foreseeable future management measures, the environmental impacts of future management actions not explicitly analyzed could be estimated relative to those calculated in this EIS.

I. Abstract

This request is for extension of a current information collection.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires any U.S. citizen issued a Special Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishing Permit to complete logbooks and submit them to NMFS (50 CFR 665). The Special Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishing Permit is authorized under the Fishery Ecosystem Plans for American Samoa Archipelago, Hawaiian Archipelago, Mariana Archipelago, and Pacific Remote Island Areas. The information in the logbooks is used to obtain fish catch/fishing effort data on coral reef fishes and invertebrates harvested in designated low-use marine protected areas and on those listed in the regulations as potentially-harvested coral reef taxa in waters of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in the western Pacific region. These data are needed to determine the condition of the stocks, whether the current management measures are having the intended effects, and to evaluate the benefits and costs of changes in management measures. The logbook information includes interactions with protected species, including sea turtles, monk seals, and other marine mammals, which are used to monitor and respond to incidental takes of endangered and threatened marine species.

Reports are submitted to NMFS in the form of paper logbook sheets and paper transshipment forms within 30 days of each landing of coral reef harvest. No electronic forms or web-based reporting is currently available. Notifications are submitted via telephone.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0462.

Form Number(s): None.

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

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5.

Estimated Time Per Response: Pre-trip and pre-landing notifications, 3 minutes; logbook reports, 30 minutes; transshipment reports, 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 18.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $100 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

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

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

I. Abstract

This request is for extension of a current information collection.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires, as codified under 50 CFR part 665, any person (1) fishing for, taking, retaining, or using a vessel to fish for Western Pacific coral reef ecosystem management unit species in the designated low-use Marine Protected Areas, (2) fishing for any of these species using gear not specifically allowed in the regulations, or (3) fishing for, taking, or retaining any Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa in the coral reef ecosystem regulatory area, to obtain and carry a permit. A receiving vessel owner must also have a transshipment permit for at-sea transshipment of coral reef ecosystem management unit species. The permit application form provides basic information about the permit applicant, vessel, fishing gear and method, target species, projected fishing effort, etc., for use by NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council in determining eligibility for permit issuance. The information is important for understanding the nature of the fishery and provides a link to participants. It also aids in the enforcement of Fishery Ecosystem Plan measures.

Information is submitted to NMFS, in the form of paper permit application forms.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0463.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a current information collection).

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations and individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 12.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours per special permit application; 10 minutes per transhipment permit application.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 31.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $100 in recordkeeping/mailing costs.

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

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

In accordance with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), a Permanent Advisory Committee, or PAC, has been convened to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the WCPFC, certain members of which have been appointed by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the U.S. Commissioners to the WCPFC. The PAC supports the work of the U.S. National Section to the WCPFC in an advisory capacity. The U.S. National Section is made up of the U.S. Commissioners and the Department of State. NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office provides administrative and technical support to the PAC in cooperation with the Department of State. The WCPFC was established under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The next regular annual session of the WCPFC (WCPFC 15) is scheduled for December 10-December 14, 2018, in Honolulu, HI. More information on this meeting and the WCPFC can be found on the WCPFC website: http://wcpfc.int/.

The PAC meeting topics may include the following: (1) Outcomes of the 2017 Annual Meeting and 2018 sessions of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, Northern Committee, and Technical and Compliance Committee; (2) conservation and management measures for bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna and other species for 2018 and beyond; (3) potential U.S. proposals to WCPFC15 (4) input and advice from the PAC on issues that may arise at WCPFC15; (5) potential proposals from other WCPFC members; and (6) other issues.

The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Emily Crigler at (808) 725-5036 by September 11, 2018.

The initial notice for this public meeting published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2018 (83 FR 39988). The purpose of this meeting was for the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog AP to provide feedback on the Public Hearing Document for the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Excessive Shares Amendment.

The Record of Decision reflects the Air Force decision to implement the Final Environmental Impact Statement Preferred Alternative, Alternative F, which consists of extending Runway 16/34 to the north. During the time that all prepatory actions, including funding, agency coordination, and construction are being implemented for Alternative F, the Air Force will implement Alternative A for more efficient flight operations.

The decision was based on matters discussed in the Proposal to Improve F-22 Operational Efficency at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, Final Environmental Impact Statement, contributions from the public and regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was made available to the public on February 23, 2018 through a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register (Volume 83, Number 37, page 8074) with a 30-day wait period that ended on March 25, 2018.

Title 32 CFR part 183, Defense Support of Special Events, established procedures and assigned responsibilities for special events and set forth procedural guidance for the execution of special events support when requested by qualifying entities and approved by the appropriate DoD authority, or as directed by the President, within the United States. This notice informs the public of pertinent information concerning the submission of requests for special event support in lieu of part 183. DoD has determined that 32 CFR part 183 can be repealed as it mostly contains internal DoD procedures. The final rule that removes 32 CFR part 183 is publishing elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

A special event is an international or domestic event, contest, activity, or meeting, which by its very nature, or by specific statutory or regulatory authority, may warrant security, safety, and other logistical support or assistance from DoD. Event status is not determined by DoD, and support may be requested by either civil authorities or qualifying entities.

A qualifying entity is a non-governmental organization to which DoD may provide assistance by virtue of statute. DoD support of qualifying entities for special events is pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2012, 2553-2555, and 2564; 32 U.S.C. 508; and section 5802 of Public Law 104-208, as amended.

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security will consult with Heads of DoD Components to obtain senior-level coordination of recommendations for Secretary of Defense approval of requests for support.

The requestor of this support agrees to reimburse DoD, in accordance with the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 277, 2553-2555, and 2564, 31 U.S.C. 1535-1536, and other applicable provisions of law, unless DoD receives appropriations for or is authorized to make funds available for the support requested.

Transmission Congestion Study

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) (EPAct) added several new provisions to the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.) (FPA), including FPA section 216, 16 U.S.C. 824p. FPA section 216(a)(1) requires the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study of electric transmission congestion within one year from the date of enactment of EPAct and every three years thereafter. The 2006, 2009, and 2015 Congestion Studies reviewed congestion nationwide except for the portion of Texas covered by the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas, to which FPA section 216 does not apply. FPA section 216(a) requires that the congestion study be conducted in consultation with affected states. Also, in exercising its responsibilities under section 216, DOE is required to consult regularly with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), any appropriate regional entity referred to in FPA section 215, i.e., the regional electric reliability organizations,1 and Transmission Organizations approved by FERC.

Transmission congestion occurs when a constraint within an area's transmission network prevents the network from accommodating all transactions desired at a given time by authorized users. The most common form of transmission congestion is economic congestion. This occurs when the transmission system's capacity is sufficient to enable compliance with NERC reliability standards, but is not able to allow purchasers of wholesale power to obtain supplies from the least-cost sellers at all times. The premium involved may or may not be sufficiently large or persistent to justify investment in additional transmission capacity.

In more severe situations, congestion may have both economic and reliability components—that is, if an area's electricity demand essentially outgrows its transmission network, in addition to forcing wholesale buyers to turn to higher-priced sellers, the system may no longer be able to meet NERC reliability standards under one or more contingencies.

A third form of congestion occurs when the transmission network is not sufficient to enable achievement of established federal, state, or local public policy goals. For example, state-imposed renewable portfolio standards may lead to demands for transmission service that exceed the capacity currently available. At the federal level, requirements designed to ensure system resilience and security under extreme stress (e.g., natural disasters or cyber/physical attacks) could create a demand for additional transmission capacity in specific locations.

The Department is initiating its next triennial congestion study, and seeks comments on what publicly-available data and information should be considered, and what types of analysis should be performed to identify and understand the significance and character of transmission congestion. Note: The Department now publishes an Annual U.S. Transmission Data Review, now entering its fourth year; it seeks comments about any additional publicly-available data and information that is not already contained in the annual data reviews published in 2015, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f26/Transmission%20Data%20Review%20August%202015.pdf; 2016, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/04/f34/Annual%20US%20Transmission%20Data%20Review%202016_0.pdf; and 2018, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/03/f49/2018%20Transmission%20Data%20Review%20FINAL.pdf.

In preparing the 2009 and 2015 Congestion Studies, the Department gathered historical congestion data obtained from existing studies prepared by regional reliability councils, regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs), and regional planning groups. The forthcoming study will draw upon many of the same kinds of data, analyses, and information as the earlier studies. These sources may include, but would not be limited to:

a. Electricity market analyses, including locational marginal price patterns;

b. Reliability analyses and actions, including transmission loading relief actions;

c. Historic energy flows;

d. Current and projected electric supply and generation plans;

e. Recent, current, and planned transmission and interconnection queues;

f. Results of any “stress test” analysis of a transmission system based on threat and resilience modeling and any contingency modeling incorporating or accounting for interdependencies throughout energy systems;

g. Current and forecast electricity loads, including energy efficiency, distributed generation, and demand response plans and policies;

h. The location of renewable resources and state and regional policies with respect to renewable development;

i. Projected impacts of current or pending environmental regulation on generation availability;

j. Effects of recent or projected economic conditions on demand and congestion; and

k. Filings or regional transmission expansion plans developed in compliance with FERC Orders No. 890 and 1000.

FPA section 216(a)(2) authorizes the Secretary of Energy to designate “any geographic area experiencing electric energy transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers as a national interest electric transmission corridor” (National Corridor) after completion of a congestion study, and consideration of alternatives and recommendations of interested parties and other public comments. Prior to making a separate federal decision about any proposed designation of a National Corridor, DOE will consider environmental impacts of such a designation, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Designation of an area as a National Corridor would enable the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to exercise jurisdiction over the siting of transmission facilities in the National Corridor, if it found that certain preconditions (listed in FPA section 216(b)) have been met.

Some commenters on DOE's previous congestion studies suggested that in some circumstances it might be informative for DOE to publish a transmission congestion study focused on specific transmission project(s), and if appropriate, designate a National Corridor tailored to the project(s). DOE agrees, but notes that the need for such studies or corridors might not mesh well (in terms of both timing and appropriate granularity) with the triennial large-geographic-scale congestion studies envisioned in FPA section 216(a)(1). For this reason, DOE will continue to produce the triennial studies required by the statute, and would also respond, perhaps separately, to requests for the preparation of project-specific congestion studies or the designation of related National Corridors.

A party seeking the designation of a project-specific National Corridor should submit the following to DOE:

a. Data or studies confirming the existence in a specific geographic area of transmission constraints or congestion adversely affecting consumers;

b. Data or studies confirming that proposed transmission project(s) would ease the congestion and its adverse impacts on consumers;

c. Information showing how a National Corridor should be bounded in order to be relevant to the proposed transmission project(s); and

d. Information showing why it would be in the national interest for the Department to intervene in a subject area that is normally subject to state jurisdiction.

This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice, DA 18-761, released on July 23, 2018. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at https://www.fcc.gov/document/media-bureau-seeks-comment-audio-competition. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. On March 23, 2018, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, which included the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018 (RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018). Title IV of RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018 amends Section 13 of the Communications Act (the Act) of 1934, and requires that the Commission publish a Communications Marketplace Report in the last quarter of every even numbered year. Among other things, the biennial Communications Marketplace Report requires that the Commission assess the state of competition in the communications marketplace, including competition to deliver audio service among broadcast stations, satellite radio, and entities that provide audio content via the internet and to mobile devices. Accordingly, this Public Notice seeks input on the state of competition in the marketplace for the delivery of audio programming as it would relate to the overall goal of providing the required Communications Marketplace Report to Congress.

2. This Public Notice requests comment on the criteria or metrics that could be used to evaluate the state of competition in the audio programming marketplace, as well as comment and information on industry data, competitive dynamics, and trending factors. For example, commenters are invited to submit the following data and information related to participants in the marketplace for the delivery of audio programming, including, but not limited to, terrestrial radio broadcasters (i.e., AM and FM radio stations), satellite radio providers, and entities that provide audio programming over the internet and to mobile devices (collectively, Audio Marketplace Participants):

• Identification and ownership of key Audio Marketplace Participants, as well as the business models and competitive strategies they use;

• trends in service offerings, pricing, and consumer behavior;

• the extent of competition among Audio Marketplace Participants, including intramodal competition (i.e., competition among providers of the same type, such as terrestrial radio broadcast stations) and intermodal competition (i.e., competition among providers of different types, such as terrestrial radio broadcast stations and satellite radio providers);

• ratings, subscribership, and revenue information, for the marketplace as a whole and for individual Audio Marketplace Participants;

• capital investment, innovation, and the deployment of advanced technology;

• requirements for entry into the marketplace; and

• recent entry into and exit from the marketplace.

It is requested that commenters submit information, data, and statistics for 2016 and 2017, as well as information on any notable trends and developments that have occurred during 2018 to date. Industry stakeholders, the public, and other interested parties are encouraged to submit information, comments, and analyses. In order to facilitate analysis of competitive trends, parties should submit current and historic data that are comparable over time. Commenters seeking confidential treatment of their submissions should request that their submission, or a specific part thereof, be withheld from public inspection.

3. In addition, this document requests comment on whether laws, regulations, regulatory practices or demonstrated marketplace practices pose a barrier to competitive entry into the marketplace for the delivery of audio programming or to the competitive expansion of existing providers. Further, this document seeks input concerning the extent to which any such laws, regulations or marketplace practices affect entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the marketplace for the delivery of audio programming.

4. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. All filings should refer to MB Docket No. 18-227. Comments may be filed: (1) Using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), or (2) by filing paper copies. Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

5. Comments and reply comments filed in response to this document will be available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, and via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number, WT Docket No. 18-203.

6. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

7. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, as follows:

• All hand-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

• Commercial overnight mail (except U.S. Postal Service mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

• All other mail, including U.S. Postal Service Express Mail, Priority Mail, and First Class Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

8. Alternate formats of this Public Notice (computer diskette, large print, audio recording, and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY), or send an email to [email protected].

On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Board may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, without revision, of the following information collection:

Report title: Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with Changes in Foreign Investments (Made Pursuant to Regulation K).

Agency form number: FR 2064.

OMB control number: 7100-0109.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondents: Internationally active U.S banking organizations (member banks, Edge Act and agreement corporations, and bank holding companies).

Estimated number of respondents: 20.

Estimated average hours per response: 2.

Estimated annual burden hours: 160.

General description of report: Internationally active U.S. banking organizations are required to maintain adequate internal records to demonstrate compliance with the investment provisions contained in Subpart A of Regulation K (12 CFR part 211).

Legal authorization and confidentiality: This collection of information is authorized pursuant to section 5(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)); sections 25 and 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 602 and 625). The recordkeeping requirements are mandatory. Because the Federal Reserve does not collect these records, an issue of confidentiality under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is unlikely to arise. FOIA, however, may be implicated if the Federal Reserve's examiners retain a copy of the records in their examination or supervision of the institution. Any such records would be exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemption 8 of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b) (b)(8)). Exemption 4 to FOIA, which protects confidential financial information, may also be applicable. (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).

Current actions: On May 22, 2018, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (83 FR 23682) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, without revision, of the FR 2064. The comment period for this notice expired on July 23, 2018. The Board did not receive any comments.

A. Overview of Information Collection Description of the Information Collection

1. Type of Information Collection: Revision/Renewal of a currently approved collection.

2. Title of the Collection: Subcontract Consent and Contractors' Purchasing System Review.

3. Agency Form Number, If Any: N/A.

Written comments and suggestions from the public should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

This information collection requirement, OMB Control No. 9000-0149, currently titled “Subcontract Consent,” is proposed to be retitled “Subcontract Consent and Contractors' Purchasing System Review,” due to consolidation with currently approved information collection requirement OMB Control No. 9000-0132, Contractors' Purchasing System Review.

This clearance covers the information that a contractor must submit to comply with the requirements in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.244-2, Subcontracts, regarding consent to subcontract, advance notification, and Contractors' purchasing system review as follows:

1. Consent to subcontract. This is the contracting officer's written consent for the prime contractor to enter into a particular subcontract. In order for the contracting officer responsible for consent to make an informed decision, the prime contractor must submit adequate information to ensure that the proposed subcontract is appropriate for the risks involved and consistent with current policy and sound business judgment. The review allows the Government to determine whether the contractor's purchasing policies and practices are efficient and adequately protect the Government's interests.

If the contractor has an approved purchasing system, consent is required for subcontracts specifically identified by the contracting officer in the subcontracts clause of the contract. The contracting officer may require consent to subcontract if the contracting officer has determined that an individual consent action is required to protect the Government adequately because of the subcontract type, complexity, or value, or because the subcontract needs special surveillance. These can be subcontracts for critical systems, subsystems, components, or services.

If the contractor does not have an approved purchasing system, consent to subcontract is required for cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, labor-hour, or letter contracts, and also for unpriced actions under fixed-price contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

2. Advance notification. Prime contractors must provide contracting officers notification before the award of any cost-plus-fixed-fee subcontract, or certain fixed-price subcontracts. This requirement for advance notification is driven by statutory requirements in 10 U.S.C. 2306 and 41 U.S.C. 3905.

3. Contractors' Purchasing System Review. The objective of a contractor purchasing system review (CPSR), is to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness with which a contractor spends Government funds and complies with Government policy when subcontracting.

Paragraph (i) of FAR clause 52.244-2 specifies that the Government reserves the right to review the contractor's purchasing system as set forth in FAR subpart 44.3. FAR 44.302 requires the administrative contracting officer (ACO) to determine the need for a CPSR based on, but not limited to, the past performance of the contractor, and the volume, complexity and dollar value of subcontracts. If a contractor's sales to the Government (excluding competitively awarded firm-fixed-price and competitively awarded fixed-price with economic price adjustment contracts and sales of commercial items pursuant to Part 12) are expected to exceed $25 million during the next 12 months, the ACO will perform a review to determine if a CPSR is needed. Sales include those represented by prime contracts, subcontracts under Government prime contracts, and modifications. Generally, a CPSR is not performed for a specific contract. The head of the agency responsible for contract administration may raise or lower the $25 million review level if it is considered to be in the Government's best interest. Once an initial determination has been made to conduct a review, at least every three years the ACO shall determine whether a purchasing system review is necessary. If necessary, the cognizant contract administration office will conduct a purchasing system review.

A CPSR provides the administrative contracting officer (ACO) a basis for granting, withholding, or withdrawing approval of a contractor's purchasing system. An approved purchasing system allows the contractor more autonomy in subcontracting actions. Without an approved purchasing system more Government oversight is necessary, and Government consent to subcontract is required. Generally, a CPSR is not performed for a specific contract. Rather, CPSRs are conducted on contractors based on the factors identified above. For example, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Contractor Purchasing System Review Group is a group dedicated to conducting CPSRs for the Department of Defense. As of June 2014 the group's review workload included more than 700 contractors worldwide.

The cognizant ACO is responsible for granting, withholding, or withdrawing approval of a contractor's purchasing system and for promptly notifying the contractor of same (FAR 44.305-1).

Related administrative requirements are as follows: FAR 44.305-2(c) requires that when recommendations are made for improvement of an approved system, the contractor shall be requested to reply within 15 days with a position regarding the recommendations. FAR 44.305-3(b) requires when approval of the contractor's purchasing system is withheld or withdrawn, the ACO shall within 10 days after completing the in-plant review (1) inform the contractor in writing, (2) specify the deficiencies that must be corrected to qualify the system for approval, and (3) request the contractor to furnish within 15 days a plan for accomplishing the necessary actions. If the plan is accepted, the ACO shall make a follow-up review as soon as the contractor notifies the ACO that the deficiencies have been corrected.

Respondents: 2,578.

Responses per Respondent: 3.

Total Annual Responses: 7,734.

Hours per Response: 3.

Total Burden Hours: 23,202.

Respondents: 1,861.

Responses per Respondent: 3.

Total Annual Responses: 5,583.

Hours per Response: 0.25.

Total Burden Hours: 1,396.

Respondents: 1,050.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Total Annual Responses: 1,050.

Hours per Response: 25.

Total Burden Hours: 26,250.

Respondents: 5,489.

Total Annual Responses: 14,367.

Total Burden Hours: 50,848.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Obtaining Copies: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0149, Subcontract Consent and Contractors' Purchasing System Review, in all correspondence.

Purpose: This meeting will focus on emerging health and safety issues associated with the implementation of automation and advanced technology in the U.S. metal mining industry. The meeting is designed to identify to what extent automation and smart technologies will be implemented in metal mining and in what timeframe; to identify the related emerging health & safety concern;, and to identify what gaps exist in occupational health & safety research related to automation and smart technologies.

Matters to be Considered: The agenda will include updates on the state-of-the-art in mining automation and case studies on implementing automation at mine sites. The updates will be followed by panel discussions regarding: (1) Human factors considerations, (2) risk management, (3) automated haulage, (4) sensor technology, and (5) data analytics. Each panel will seek input and discuss the health and safety implications associated with these various topics, and identify gaps for further study. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

On April 24, 2018, NIOSH published a request for public review in the Federal Register [83 FR 17283] of the draft version of the National Occupational Research Agenda for Wholesale and Retail Trade. No comments were received.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

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

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

5. Assess information collection costs.

HIV prevention among Latina transgender women: Evaluation of a locally developed intervention—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STED, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

The National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention is requesting approval for 20-months of data collection entitled, “HIV prevention among Latina transgender women: Evaluation of a locally developed intervention.” The goal of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of ChiCAS (Chicas Creando Acceso a la Salud [Chicas: Girls Creating Access to Health]), a locally developed and culturally congruent two-session Spanish-language small-group combination intervention designed to promote consistent condom use, and access to and participation in pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and medically supervised hormone therapy by HIV seronegative Hispanic/Latina transgender women who have sex with men.

The information collected through this study will be used to evaluate whether the ChiCAS intervention is an effective HIV-prevention strategy by assessing whether exposure to the intervention results in improvements in participants' health and HIV prevention behaviors. The study will compare pre- (baseline) and post-intervention (six-month) levels of HIV risk among participants who have received the intervention and participants who have not yet received the intervention (delayed-intervention group).

This study will be carried out in five metropolitan areas in North Carolina: Ashville, NC; Charlotte, NC; Research Triangle (metropolitan area of Greensboro, Winston-Salem and High Point NC); Raleigh, NC; and Wilmington, NC. The study population will include 140 HIV-negative Spanish-speaking transgender women. Participants will be adults, at least 18 years of age, self-identify as male-to-female transgender or report having been born male and identifying as female, and report having sex with at least one man in the past six months.

We anticipate participants will be comprised mainly of racial/ethnic minority participants under 35 years of age, consistent with the epidemiology of HIV infection among transgender women.

Intervention participants will be recruited to the study through a combination of approaches, including traditional print advertisement, referral, in-person outreach, and through word of mouth. A quantitative assessment will be used to collect information for this study, which will be delivered at the time of study enrollment and again at six-month follow up. The assessment will be used to measure differences in sexual risk knowledge, perceptions and behaviors including condom use, PrEP use and use of medically supervised hormone therapy.

Intervention mediators, including healthcare provider trust and communication skills, self-reported health status and healthcare access, community attachment and social support will also be measured. All participants will complete the assessment at baseline and again at six-month follow-up after enrolling in the study. The intervention group will participate in ChiCAS after completing the baseline assessment and the delayed intervention group will participate in ChiCAS after completing the six-month follow up assessment.

We will also examine intervention experiences through in-depth interviews with 30 intervention group participants. The interviews will capture participants' general experiences with the ChiCAS intervention, as well as their experiences and perceptions specific to the main study outcomes: PrEP knowledge, awareness, interest and use; condom skills and use; and hormone therapy knowledge, awareness, interest and use.

It is expected that 50% of transgender women screened will meet study eligibility. We expect the initial screening to take approximately four minutes to complete. The assessment will take 60 minutes (one hour) to complete and will be administered to 140 participants a total of two times. The interview will take 90 minutes (one and one-half hours) to complete and will be administered to 30 participants from the intervention group one time.

There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours is 172.

Purpose: The committee is charged with advising the Director, CDC, on the use of immunizing agents. In addition, under 42 U.S.C. 1396s, the committee is mandated to establish and periodically review and, as appropriate, revise the list of vaccines for administration to vaccine-eligible children through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, along with schedules regarding dosing interval, dosage, and contraindications to administration of vaccines. Further, under provisions of the Affordable Care Act, section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act, immunization recommendations of the ACIP that have been approved by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and appear on CDC immunization schedules must be covered by applicable health plans.

Matters to Be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on child/adolescent immunization schedule, adult immunization schedule, human papillomavirus vaccines, pneumococcal vaccines, Japanese encephalitis vaccines, zoster vaccine, Influenza vaccines, general recommendations, anthrax vaccine, hepatitis A vaccine, Pertussis vaccine, and meningococcal vaccines. A recommendation vote is scheduled for child/adolescent immunization schedule and adult immunization schedule. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. For more information on the meeting agenda visit https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/meetings-info.html.

Public Comment: Written comments must include full name, address, organizational affiliation, email address of the speaker, topic being addressed and specific comments. Written comments must not exceed one single-spaced typed page with 1-inch margins containing all items above. Only those written comments received 10 business days in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. Public comments made in attendance must be no longer than 3 minutes and the person giving comments must attend the public comment session at the start time listed on the agenda. Time for public comments may start before the time indicated on the agenda. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

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

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

5. Assess information collection costs.

Understanding multi-sectoral collaboration for strengthening public health capacities in Ethiopia—New—Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Countries with poor public health infrastructure are more vulnerable to adverse health outcomes caused by disease outbreaks, natural disasters, and other public health events (Rodier, 2007). The 2013 Ebola outbreak in West Africa highlighted the shortcomings of infrastructure and preparedness plans in the region, and prompted Ministries of Health in affected countries to reexamine capabilities and identify approaches for strengthening them (Heymann, 2015). More recently, the spread of the Zika virus in 2015 through more than twenty countries in the Americas demonstrated that prioritizing efforts to strengthen public health systems and capacities is imperative to mitigating the impact of public health events and improving global health security (Lucey, 2016).

Capacities refer to the abilities and resources of countries to identify and address problems, and carry out functions for public health. Public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) related capacities focus acutely on the resources and infrastructure required for communities and countries to effectively respond to incidents. Zoonotic disease (ZD) related capacities center on minimizing the spread of diseases from animals to humans in domestic, agricultural and wildlife settings.

PHEP and ZD are regarded as cross-cutting technical areas of public health, spanning numerous fields of practice and knowledge necessary to successfully mitigate the impacts of public health events. As a result, multi-sectoral collaboration—a cornerstone of many public health initiatives and programs—is a prominent feature of efforts and plans to strengthen PHEP and ZD capacities. While the importance of multi-sectoral collaboration for health strategies is widely recognized by global health experts and leaders, the evidence base on demonstrated benefits and advantages in public health capacity building is limited. Some research has been carried out to understand aspects of public health capacity strengthening efforts and their impact on global health security; however, it often focuses on high-income countries, such as the United States (U.S.). More research is needed, particularly in low- and middle-income country settings, to understand how collaboration occurs across sectors to implement efforts to strengthen PHEP and ZD capacities and systems, and to gain a deeper understanding of the perspectives of partners involved in the collaboration.

The purpose of the proposed research is to explore how multi-sectoral collaboration occurs for PHEP and ZD related activities implemented under the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA). The research will employ a multiple-case study design in Ethiopia, focusing on the GHSA technical areas of PHEP and ZD as the cases. The study seeks to understand the landscape of stakeholders engaged in PHEP and ZD related capacity development, and their perspectives on one another's roles and contributions to efforts. This research will also examine stakeholder perceptions on barriers and facilitators to collaboration under GHSA, overall and in each technical area via in-depth interviews. Finally, this study will utilize an adapted questionnaire that measures collaboration across five key domains to foster dialogue between partners on the strength of multi-sectoral collaboration in Ethiopia for GHSA related ZD and PHEP activities. Participants will be able to provide feedback to these questionnaires through a workshop. Research findings will be compared across the two technical areas to understand similarities and differences in stakeholder environments and partner perspectives on collaboration under GHSA; they can also be used to identify opportunities to amplify successes and overcome challenges for stakeholders to collaborate across sectors—in Ethiopia and other countries—to achieve ZD and PHEP goals under GHSA. CDC will disseminate information and findings through presentations, publications, and summary reports to stakeholders and interested members of the public. This research can enrich understanding among stakeholders of one another's perspectives on collaborative efforts, and encourage further dialogue on how to best facilitate multi-sectoral collaboration for broad global agendas such as GHSA, and improved health outcomes overall. CDC is requesting a two year approval for this information collection. Information collection activities will begin approximately one month after OMB approval.

The total estimated cost to respondents for their participation in this proposed information collection is $12,483.20. The total estimated burden to respondents is 320 hours.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees (SGEs), requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for BSC, OID membership each year, and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term in October 2019, or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for different expertise varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year. SGE Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Candidates should submit the following items:

Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address).

At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency (e.g., CDC, NIH, FDA, etc.).

Nominations may be submitted by the candidate him- or herself, or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

ORR is continuously monitoring its capacity to provide fingerprinting services to the sponsors of UAC referred to HHS, as well as the information received from interagency partners, to inform any future decisions or actions.

ORR has specific requirements for the provision of services. Award recipients must have the infrastructure, licensing, experience, and appropriate level of trained staff to meet those requirements. The expansion of the existing program and its services through this supplemental award is a key strategy for ORR to be prepared to meet its responsibility to provide fingerprinting services to the sponsors of UAC referred to its care by DHS.

ORR plans to solicit an application from Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Inc., Baltimore, MD to meet the fingerprinting needs. If the application received a favorable objective review, ORR intends to issue a supplement in the amount up to $1,000,000.

Statutory Authority: This program is authorized by—

(A) Section 462 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which in March 2003, transferred responsibility for the care and custody of Unaccompanied Alien Children from the Commissioner of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the Director of ORR of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

(B) The Flores Settlement Agreement, Case No. CV85-4544RJK (C.D. Cal. 1996), as well as the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-457), which authorizes post release services under certain conditions to eligible children. All programs must comply with the Flores Settlement Agreement, Case No. CV85-4544-RJK (C.D. Cal. 1996), pertinent regulations and ORR policies and procedures.

FDA is requesting nominations for voting members for vacancies listed in table 2:

The Committee reviews regulations proposed for promulgation regarding good manufacturing practices governing the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture, packing, storage, and installation of devices, and makes recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) regarding the feasibility and reasonableness of those proposed regulations. The Committee also advises the Commissioner on any petition submitted by a manufacturer for an exemption or variance from good manufacturing practice regulations that is referred to the committee.

The Committee reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices and makes recommendations for their regulation. The panels engage in a number of activities to fulfill the functions the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) envisions for device advisory panels. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, performs the following duties: (1) Advises the Commissioner regarding recommended classification or reclassification of devices into one of three regulatory categories, (2) advises on any possible risks to health associated with the use of devices, (3) advises on formulation of product development protocols, (4) reviews premarket approval applications for medical devices, (5) reviews guidelines and guidance documents, (6) recommends exemption of certain devices from the application of portions of the FD&C Act, (7) advises on the necessity to ban a device, and (8) responds to requests from the Agency to review and make recommendations on specific issues or problems concerning the safety and effectiveness of devices. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, may also make appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner on issues relating to the design of clinical studies regarding the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices.

The Dental Products Panel also functions at times as a dental drug panel. The functions of the dental drug panel are to evaluate and recommend whether various prescription drug products should be changed to over-the-counter status and to evaluate data and make recommendations concerning the approval of new dental drug products for human use.

The Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel provides advice to the Commissioner on complex or contested scientific issues between FDA and medical device sponsors, applicants, or manufacturers relating to specific products, marketing applications, regulatory decisions and actions by FDA, and Agency guidance and policies. The panel makes recommendations on issues that are lacking resolution, are highly complex in nature, or result from challenges to regular advisory panel proceedings or Agency decisions or actions.

The Committee consists of a core of nine members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Persons nominated for membership as a health professional or officer or employee of any Federal, State, or local government should have knowledge of or expertise in any one or more of the following areas: Quality assurance concerning the design, manufacture, and use of medical devices. To be eligible for selection as a representative of the general public, nominees should possess appropriate qualifications to understand and contribute to the committee's work. Three of the members shall be officers or employees of any State or local government or of the Federal Government; two shall be representative of the interests of the device manufacturing industry; two shall be representatives of the interests of physicians and other health professionals; and two shall be representatives of the interests of the general public. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serves as Special Government Employees. Members are invited to serve for overlapping terms of 4 years. The particular needs at this time for this committee are listed in table 2 of this document.

The Medical Devices Advisory Committee (MDAC) with its 18 panels shall consist of a maximum of 159 standing members. Members are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities in clinical and administrative medicine, engineering, biological and physical sciences, and other related professions. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. A maximum of 122 members shall be standing voting members and 37 shall be nonvoting members who serve as representatives of consumer interests and of industry interests. FDA is publishing separate documents announcing the Request for Nominations Notification for Non-Voting Representatives on certain panels of the MDAC. Persons nominated for membership on the panels should have adequately diversified experience appropriate to the work of the panel in such fields as clinical and administrative medicine, engineering, biological and physical sciences, statistics, and other related professions. The nature of specialized training and experience necessary to qualify the nominee as an expert suitable for appointment may include experience in medical practice, teaching, and/or research relevant to the field of activity of the panel. The particular needs at this time for each panel are listed in table 2. Members will be invited to serve for terms of up to 4 years.

Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified individuals for membership on one or more of the advisory panels or advisory committees. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations must include a current, complete resume or curriculum vitae for each nominee, including current business address, telephone number, and email address if available and a signed copy of the Acknowledgement and Consent form available at the FDA Advisory Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES). Nominations must also specify the advisory committee(s) for which the nominee is recommended. Nominations must also acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA will ask potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such matters related to financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflict of interest.

This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Osteoarthritis: Structural Endpoints for the Development of Drugs, Devices, and Biological Products for Treatment.” The purpose of this draft guidance is to assist sponsors who are developing drugs, devices, or biological products to treat the underlying pathophysiology and structural progression of OA. This guidance does not address improvement of symptoms of OA, such as pain or functional impairment. FDA recognizes the importance of these outcomes, which will be addressed in future guidances. The previous draft guidance for industry entitled “Clinical Development Programs for Drugs, Devices, and Biological Products Intended for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis (OA),” published July 15, 1999, has been withdrawn.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Osteoarthritis: Structural Endpoints for the Development of Drugs, Devices, and Biological Products for Treatment.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) into law. The Tobacco Control Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by adding, among other things, a new chapter granting FDA important authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors. Additionally, section 101 of the Tobacco Control Act amended the FD&C Act by adding, among other things, new section 904(a)(4) (21 U.S.C. 387d(a)(4)).

Section 904(a)(4) of the FD&C Act requires each tobacco product manufacturer or importer, or agent thereof, to submit all documents developed after June 22, 2009, “that relate to health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiologic effects of current or future tobacco products, their constituents (including smoke constituents), ingredients, components, and additives” (herein referred to as “tobacco health documents”).

FDA announced the availability of a guidance on this collection in the Federal Register of April 4, 2010 (75 FR 20606) (revised December 5, 2016 (81 FR 87565) and August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37459) (extending compliance dates)), and requested health documents that were created during the period of June 23, 2009, through December 31, 2009 based on the statutory requirements. The guidance stated that information required under section 904(a)(4) of the FD&C Act must be submitted to FDA beginning December 22, 2009. However, FDA also explained that it did not intend to enforce the December 22, 2009, deadline provided that the documents were submitted by April 30, 2010, for all health documents developed between June 23, 2009 and December 31, 2009. Further, FDA stated it would publish a revised guidance specifying the timing of subsequent reporting.

FDA has been collecting the information submitted pursuant to section 904(a)(4) of the FD&C Act through a facilitative electronic form and through a paper form (Form FDA 3743) for those individuals who choose not to use the electronic method. On both forms, FDA is requesting the following information from firms that have not already reported or still have documents to report:

• Document readability and accessibility: Keywords; glossary or explanation of any abbreviations, jargon, or internal (e.g., code) names; special instructions for loading or compiling submission.

• Document metadata: Date document was created, document author(s), document recipient(s), document custodian, document title or identification number, beginning and ending Bates numbers, Bates number ranges for documents attached to a submitted email, document type, and whether the document is present in the University of California San Francisco's Truth Tobacco Documents database.

In addition to the electronic and paper forms, FDA issued guidance documents intended to assist persons making tobacco health document submissions (draft guidance: December 28, 2009 (74 FR 68629); final guidance: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 20606); revised December 5, 2016 (81 FR 87565) and August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37459) (extending compliance dates)). For further assistance, FDA is providing a technical guide, embedded hints, and a web tutorial on the electronic portal.

FDA issued a final rule to deem products meeting the statutory definition of “tobacco product” to be subject to the FD&C Act on May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28973), which became effective on August 8, 2016. The FD&C Act provides FDA authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco (RYO), smokeless tobacco, and any other tobacco products that the Agency by regulation deems to be subject to the law. This final rule extends the Agency's “tobacco product” authorities to all other categories of products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product” in the FD&C Act, except accessories of such deemed tobacco products.

For tobacco products subject to the deeming rule, FDA understands “current or future tobacco products” to refer to products commercially distributed on or after August 8, 2016, or products in any stage of research or development at any time after August 8, 2016, including experimental products and developmental products intended for introduction into the market for consumer use. For cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, RYO, and smokeless tobacco, FDA understands “current or future tobacco products” to refer to products commercially distributed on or after June 23, 2009, or products in any stage of research or development at any time after June 23, 2009, including experimental products and developmental products intended for introduction into the market for consumer use.

All manufacturers and importers of tobacco products are now subject to the FD&C Act and are required to comply with section 904(a)(4), which requires immediate and ongoing submission of health documents developed after June 22, 2009 (the date of enactment of the Tobacco Control Act). However, FDA generally does not intend to enforce the requirement at this time with respect to all such health documents relating to the deemed tobacco products, so long as a specified set of documents, those developed between June 23, 2009, and December 31, 2009, were submitted by February 8, 2017, or in the case of small-scale deemed tobacco product manufacturers (small-scale manufacturers), by November 8, 2017 (81 FR 28974 at 29008-09). Additionally, FDA extended the compliance deadlines by an additional 6 months for small-scale manufacturers in the areas impacted by recent natural disasters to May 8, 2018. Thereafter, FDA's compliance plan requests deemed manufacturers provide tobacco health document submissions from the specified period, at least 90 days prior to the delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of tobacco products to which the health documents relate. Manufacturers or importers of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, RYO, or smokeless tobacco products must provide all health documents developed between June 23, 2009, and December 31, 2009, at least 90 days prior to the delivery for introduction of tobacco products into interstate commerce. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The number of documents received each year since the original collection period has fallen to less than 5 percent of what was received in the original collection period. FDA expects this is because documents created within the specified period should have already been submitted. The Agency bases this estimate on the total number of tobacco firms it is aware of and its experience with document production and the number of additional documents that have been reported each year since the original estimate of the reporting burden.

FDA estimates that a tobacco health document submission for cigars, pipe and waterpipe tobacco, electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), and other tobacco products as required by section 904(a)(4) of the FD&C Act, will take approximately 50 hours per submission based on the existing collection that applies to tobacco products currently subject to the FD&C Act and FDA experience. To derive the number of respondents for this provision, FDA assumes that very few manufacturers or importers of deemed tobacco products, or agents thereof, would have health documents to submit. In addition to the existing 4 respondents, the Agency estimates that approximately 6 submissions (2 for cigar manufacturers, 1 for pipe and waterpipe tobacco manufacturers, 1 for other tobacco product manufacturers, 1 for tobacco importers, and 1 for importers of ENDS who are considered manufacturers) will be submitted on an annual basis for a total of 10 respondents. FDA estimates the total annual reporting burden to be 1,600 hours.

Based on a review of the information collection of our current OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.

I. Background

Section 610 of FDARA requires that FDA convene a public workshop to discuss clinical trial eligibility criteria to inform a guidance on this subject and to publish a report summarizing the topics discussed within 90 days of the public workshop (Pub. L. 115-52). On April 16, 2018, FDA convened the public workshop required by FDARA entitled “Evaluating Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in Clinical Trials.” This notice announces the availability of the report required by FDARA that summarizes the major points explored with stakeholders during the public workshop. The report is intended only as a summary of the workshop discussions and does not provide guidance or reflect FDA's current thinking on this subject. The workshop report was posted on FDA's website on July 11, 2018.

Persons may obtain the summary report at https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/LawsEnforcedbyFDA/SignificantAmendmentstotheFDCAct/FDARA/ucm598050.htm.

NACNHSC consults, advises, and makes recommendations to the HHS Secretary and the HRSA Administrator with respect to their responsibilities. NACNHSC also reviews and comments on regulations promulgated by the Secretary under Subpart II, Part D of Title III of the Public Health Service Act.

During the September 2018 meetings, NACNHSC will continue its discussion from the May 15, 2018, meeting to develop recommendations on the current NHSC focus areas and finalize policy recommendations to the Secretary and the HRSA Administrator. The current circumstances to strengthen the healthcare workforce and NHSC's role in the expansion and improvement of access to quality opioid and substance use disorder treatment in rural and underserved areas is an important opportunity for NACNHSC to add its voice. For this reason, NACNHSC will develop comprehensive policy recommendations and a framework to articulate a clear vision and mission statement that aligns with the BHW and HRSA strategic plan. An agenda will be posted on the NACNHSC website prior to the meeting. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments. Oral comments will be honored in the order they are requested and may be limited as time allows. Requests to make oral comments or provide written comments to the NACNHSC should be sent to Monica-Tia Bullock by email at [email protected] at least 3 business days prior to the meeting. Council members are given copies of all written statements submitted from the public. Any further public participation will be solely at the discretion of the Chair, with approval of the DFO. Registration through the designated contact for the public comment session is required. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance or another reasonable accommodation should notify Monica-Tia Bullock using the email address listed above at least 10 business days prior to the meeting. Since this meeting occurs in a federal government building, attendees must go through a security check to enter the building. Non-U.S. Citizen attendees must notify HRSA of their planned attendance at least 10 business days prior to the meeting in order to facilitate their entry into the building. All attendees are required to present government-issued identification prior to entry.

Each federal agency is mandated by Presidential Executive Order 13587, issued October 7, 2011, to establish an insider threat detection and prevention program to ensure the security of classified networks and the responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified information consistent with appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties. The order states in section 2.1:

A threat need not be directed at classified information to threaten classified networks. Consequently, insider threats include any of the following: Attempted or actual espionage, subversion, sabotage, terrorism, or extremist activities directed against the Department and its personnel, facilities, information resources, and activities; unauthorized use of or intrusion into automated information systems; unauthorized disclosure of classified, controlled unclassified, sensitive, or proprietary information to technology; indicators of potential insider threats or other incidents that may indicate activities of an insider threat; and other threats to the Department, such as indicators of potential for workplace violence or misconduct.

The records that OSSI will compile to administer HHS' insider threat program may be from any HHS component, office, program, record or source, and may include records pertaining to information security, personnel security, or systems security. The records covered under System No. 09-90-1701 include investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes and information classified in the interest of national security. Accordingly, HHS has published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in today's Federal Register to exempt such material in the new system of records from certain Privacy Act requirements, based on subsections (k)(1) and (k)(2) of the Act.

The Insider Threat Program system of records includes investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes and information classified in the interest of national security. While OSSI does not perform criminal law enforcement activity as its principal function, OSSI may compile in System No. 09-90-1701 material obtained from other agencies or components which perform as their principal function activities pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, and which have exempted their records from certain Privacy Act requirements, based on 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). All other investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes is eligible to be exempted from certain Privacy Act requirements based on 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Information classified in the interest of national security is eligible to be exempted from certain Privacy Act requirements, based on 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). The Department's NPRM published in today's Federal Register proposes to establish these exemptions for System No. 09-90-1701:

• Law enforcement investigatory material compiled in this system of records that is from another system of records in which such material was exempted from access and other requirements of the Privacy Act (the Act) based on 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) will be exempt in this system of records on the same basis (5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2)) and from the same requirements as in the source system. The requirements from which records described in 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) are eligible to be exempted are: (c)(3)-(4); (d)(1)-(4); (e)(1)-(3), (e)(4)(G)-(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (e)(12); (f); (g); and (h).

• All other law enforcement investigatory material in System No. 09-90-1701 will be exempt, based on 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), from the requirements in subsections (c)(3), (d)(1)-(4), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G)-(I), and (f) of the Act. However, if any individual is denied a right, privilege, or benefit to which the individual would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which the individual would otherwise be eligible, access will be granted, except to the extent that the disclosure would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise of confidentiality.

• Information in this system of records that is classified in the interest of national security will be exempt, based on 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), from the requirements in subsections (c)(3), (d)(1)-(4), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G)-(I), and (f) of the Act.

Note that this system of records does not cover investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualification for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information. Such material is covered by other HHS systems of records (i.e., 09-90-0002 with respect to HHS Office of Inspector General determinations, and 09-90-0020 as to all other HHS determinations) which have been exempted from access and other Privacy Act requirements based on 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5).

Background and Purpose

As part of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Congress passed the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight and Monitoring Act of 1990 (the Act), 33 U.S.C. 2732, to foster a long-term partnership among industry, government, and local communities in overseeing compliance with environmental concerns in the operation of crude oil terminals and oil tankers.

The President has delegated his authority under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o) respecting certification of advisory councils, or groups, subject to the Act to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Section 8(g) of Executive Order 12777, (56 FR 54757, October 22, 1991), as amended by section 34 of Executive Order 13286 (68 FR 10619, March 5, 2003). The Secretary redelegated that authority to the Commandant of the USCG. Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, paragraph 80 of section II. The Commandant redelegated that authority to the Chief, Office of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection (G-M) on March 19, 1992 (letter #5402).

The Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection (G-M), redelegated recertification authority for advisory councils, or groups, to the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District on February 26, 1999 (letter #16450).

On July 7, 1993, the USCG published a policy statement, “Alternative Voluntary Advisory Groups, Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet” (58 FR 36504), to clarify the factors considered in making the determination as to whether advisory councils, or groups, should be certified in accordance with the Act.

On September 16, 2002, the USCG published a policy statement, 67 FR 58440, which changed the recertification procedures such that applicants are required to provide the USCG with comprehensive information every three years (triennially). For each of the two years between the triennial application procedures, applicants submit a letter requesting recertification that includes a description of any substantive changes to the information provided at the previous triennial recertification. Further, public comment is only solicited during the triennial comprehensive review.

By letter dated August 2, 2018, the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, certified that the CIRCAC qualifies as an alternative voluntary advisory group under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o). This recertification terminates on August 31, 2019.

The Fish and Wildlife Programs Improvement and National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act of 2000 (Improvement Act, Pub. L. 106-408) amended the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.) and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.) and established the Multistate Conservation Grant Program. The Improvement Act authorizes us to award grants of up to $3 million annually from funds available under each of the restoration acts, for a total of up to $6 million annually. Projects can be funded from both funds, depending on the project activities. We may award grants to projects from a list of priority projects recommended to us by the Association. The Service Director, exercising the authority of the Secretary of the Interior, need not fund all projects on the list, but all projects funded must be on the list.

The Improvement Act provides that funding for Multistate grants is available in the year it is appropriated and for the following year. Total funding available for new FY 2017 Multistate Conservation grants was $2,522,000. This total was made up of funding that was carried over from FY 2016, added to the funding that was previously sequestered, and subtracted committed funds ($3,261,027) for FY 2017. Those committed funds were directed into the three components of the 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (parts A and B).

Grantees under this program may use funds for sport fisheries and wildlife management and research projects, boating access development, hunter safety and education, aquatic education, fish and wildlife habitat improvements, and other purposes consistent with the enabling legislation.

To be eligible for funding, a project must benefit fish and/or wildlife conservation for at least 26 States, a majority of the States in any one Service Region, or one of the regional associations of State fish and wildlife agencies. We may award grants to a State, a group of States, or one or more nongovernmental organizations. For the purpose of carrying out the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, we may award grants to the Service, if requested by the Association, or to a State or a group of States. Also, the Association requires all project proposals to address its National Conservation Needs, which the Association announces annually at the same time it requests proposals. Further, applicants must provide certification that no activities conducted under a Multistate Conservation Grant will promote or encourage opposition to regulated hunting or trapping of wildlife, or to regulated angling or taking of fish.

The Association committees and interested nongovernmental organizations that represent conservation organizations, sportsmen's and women's organizations, and industries that support or promote fishing, hunting, trapping, recreational shooting, bowhunting, or archery review and rank eligible project proposals. The Association's National Grants Committee recommends a final list of priority projects to the directors of the State fish and wildlife agencies for their approval by majority vote. By statute, the Association then transmits the final approved list to the Service for funding under the Multistate Conservation Grant program by October 1 of the fiscal year. For FY 2017, the Association sent us a list of 17 new projects, plus the three previously approved components of the 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation that they recommended for funding. The Director approved all projects on this list and all have been awarded. The list follows:

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 associated funerary objects under the control of the Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. The associated funerary objects were removed from Canyon del Muerto, Apache 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 museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the associated funerary objects was made by the Brooklyn Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).

The associated funerary objects and the mummified remains of a man were removed from an unidentified site within Canyon del Muerto in Apache County, AZ, by Charles L. Day at an unknown date prior to April 1903. In April 1903, Brooklyn Museum curator Stewart Culin purchased the associated funerary objects and human remains from Day. Culin's catalog cards indicate that the associated funerary objects were found with the human remains. In 1907, the human remains were transferred to the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL. The human remains can be found in the Field Museum of Natural History's culturally unidentifiable inventory. The two associated funerary objects are one fragmented arrow shaft and one bow with cord.

The arrow fragments and bow are Ancestral Puebloan and date to the Pueblo I-III Periods (700-1300 C.E.). This determination was made by Susan Kennedy Zeller, former Associate Curator of Native American Art, on August 8, 1996, on the basis of parallel materials found within the archeological literature. Canyon del Muerto is located within the Western Ancestral Puebloan cultural area. Archeologically, this cultural area is characterized by a temporal shift from subterranean pit houses to above-ground masonry rooms surrounding plazas, rectangular kivas, and a wide variety of regionally distinct painted ceramics. Other archeological sites within Canyon del Muerto indicate sustained Ancestral Puebloan occupation from the late Basketmaker II through the Pueblo III Periods. After the start of the Pueblo III Period, around 1300 C.E., the archeological evidence suggests that much of the population living within Canyon del Muerto moved to other settlements.

The associated funerary objects were examined during consultations by representatives from The Tribes during 1996 and 1997, as part of the Brooklyn Museum's 1996 NAGPRA Grant.

The Colorado River Tribes of the Colorado River Reservation, Arizona and California are composed of four distinct tribes: the Mohave, Chemehuevi, Hopi, and Navajo. Evidence for a cultural affiliation between the Ancestral Puebloan occupants of Canyon del Muerto and the Colorado River Tribes of the Colorado River Reservation, Arizona and California includes similarities in material culture and architectural design, as well as archeological data and oral tradition. Canyon del Muerto lies within traditional Hopi territory, and Hopi oral tradition speaks of clan migrations through the Canyon de Chelly region, of which Canyon del Muerto is a part.

Evidence for cultural affiliation between the Ancestral Puebloan occupants of Canyon del Muerto and the Hopi Tribe of Arizona includes similarities in material culture and architectural design, as well as archeological data, geographic proximity, and oral tradition. The Hopi Tribe of Arizona considers all of Arizona to either lie within traditional Hopi territory or to be a territory through which Hopi clans migrated.

Evidence for cultural affiliation between the Ancestral Puebloan occupants of Canyon del Muerto and the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah, includes expert opinion and geographic proximity. Canyon del Muerto lies within the aboriginal lands of the Navajo Nation, as established by the Indian Claims Commission. Navajo consultants in 1997 did not specifically comment on the cultural affiliation of the associated funerary objects. However, the Navajo Nation maintains that it is affiliated with material and human remains from Canyon de Chelly.

Evidence for cultural affiliation between the Ancestral Puebloan occupants of Canyon del Muerto and the Pueblo of Acoma includes similarities in material culture and architectural design, expert opinion, and oral tradition. The Pueblo of Acoma asserts a cultural affiliation with archeological sites within the Four Corners area. During a 1997 consultation visit to the Brooklyn Museum, Pueblo of Acoma representatives stated that they consider Puebloan archeological material from Canyon del Muerto to be ancestral to them.

Evidence for cultural affiliation between the Ancestral Puebloan occupants of Canyon del Muerto and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation includes similarities in material culture and architectural design, expert opinion, geographic proximity, and oral tradition. Zuni Tribe representatives explained during a 1996 consultation that they do not distinguish between their Ancestral Puebloan ancestors and themselves, and referred to both the earlier and present-day groups as Zuni.

Officials of the Brooklyn Museum have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the two 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 associated funerary objects and the Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereafter referred to as “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 associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Nancy Rosoff, Andrew W. Mellon Senior Curator, Arts of the Americas, Brooklyn Museum, 200 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, NY 11238, telephone (718) 501-6283, email [email protected], by September 24, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the associated funerary objects to The Tribes may proceed.

The Brooklyn Museum is responsible for notifying The Consulted 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 Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Sentinel Ruin, Canyon del Muerto, Apache 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 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 Brooklyn Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Reservation, Arizona and California; Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Utah; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes.”

The Southern Paiute Consortium—composed of Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; and Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)—was also consulted at this time, but representatives only viewed ethnographic objects and did not view or offer comments on the human remains and associated funerary objects listed in this Notice.

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from Sentinel Ruin, Canyon del Muerto, Apache County, AZ. No known individuals were identified. The human remains are one mummified body of a child. The one associated funerary object is a turkey feather blanket wrapped around the human remains.

The human remains and associated funerary object were removed by Charles L. Day at an unknown date. The Day family owned a trading post in Chinle, AZ, where Day worked prior to being appointed custodian of Canyon de Chelly in 1903 or 1904. Brooklyn Museum curator Stewart Culin purchased the human remains and associated funerary object from Day at some point between 1903 and 1911—most likely in 1903—as part of a large purchase of “cliff dweller” objects and human remains.

The human remains are not cataloged, so their provenience has been established through careful consideration of Brooklyn Museum records, and discussions with staff at other institutions and The Consulted Tribes. The Brooklyn Museum has determined with near certainty that the human remains are those documented in Culin's catalog as number 10934, the “body of a child” removed from Sentinel Ruin. The Brooklyn Museum has had mummies from the Canyon de Chelly region and Peru in its collection. These mummies, including the human remains described in this Notice, were supposed to have been transferred to the American Museum of Natural History in 1956. However, for reasons unknown, it appears that the child's mummy never left the Brooklyn Museum.

Non-intrusive examination and expert opinion have shown with near certainty that the human remains were removed from Sentinel Ruin in Canyon del Muerto. In 1991, responding to photos of the human remains, American Museum of Natural History staff stated that the human remains do not resemble Peruvian mummies, and that the cords used to weave the shroud are more typical of American Southwestern styles than Peruvian ones. In November 1996, a Brooklyn Museum conservator examined the human remains and determined that the woven shroud was made from vegetable stem or bast fibers, possibly jute or sisal, onto which feathers were woven. In 1997, feathers from the shroud were examined by Roxie C. Laybourne at the National Museum of Natural History. She determined that the feathers came from a turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). The range of turkeys does not extend south of Mexico, eliminating any possibility that the human remains were removed from a site in Peru. Through consideration of the above evidence, the Brooklyn Museum has determined that the human remains were removed from Sentinel Ruin in Canyon de Chelly.

The associated funerary object is one turkey feather blanket used as a shroud. Turkey feather and rabbit fur blankets are frequently found in Ancestral Puebloan graves from Basketmaker II on, particularly the graves of children. Although there is some overlap, fur blankets generally predate feather blankets. Many human remains removed from Canyon del Muerto and Canyon de Chelly were found in association with fur or feather blankets, which were used as shrouds. For example, a 1929 excavation of a Basketmaker II site in Canyon del Muerto, by Earl Morris of the American Museum of Natural History disturbed the grave of an individual who had been buried in a turkey feather blanket. The presence of the feather blanket and documented usage of the Sentinel Ruin site indicates that the human remains are Ancestral Puebloan, dating between Basketmaker II and Pueblo III (100 B.C.E.-1300 C.E.).

Sentinel Ruin (site number CDM155, also known as Tseahatso, Screen Cave, and Big Cave) is a multi-phase site located in the wall of Canyon del Muerto, 23m above the canyon floor and 155m below the canyon rim. The site shows use from Basketmaker II through Pueblo III, and in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Basketmaker II-III Periods are represented by numerous slab-lined cists, many of which contained burials. Pole and mud structures are thought to date to between Basketmaker III and Pueblo I, based upon comparison with similar structures in nearby Mummy Cave. Three masonry room blocks with turkey enclosures date to Pueblo II-III. A layer of sheep dung represents 18th and 19th century Navajo use of the site. All burials containing datable material date from Basketmaker II to Pueblo III. During excavations at the site by the University of Colorado Museum in 1924, numerous child burials were disturbed. Many of these individuals were buried with rabbit fur or turkey feather blankets in a manner similar to the human remains described in this notice.

None of The Consulted Tribes viewed the human remains during consultations due to religious and personal reasons. Instead, photographs of the human remains were provided either during consultation or as a follow-up to consultations.

Colorado River Tribes of the Colorado River Reservation, Arizona and California, representatives examined photos of the human remains but did not make any statements.

The Hopi Tribe of Arizona representatives did not make any comments regarding the cultural affiliation of the human remains. At their request, photographs of the human remains were sent to the Hopi Tribe Cultural Preservation Office.

Navajo Nation representatives did not address the cultural affiliation of the human remains during their consultation. At their request, photographs of the human remains were sent to Rena Martin at the Navajo Nation Preservation Department. In a letter from October 1997, Martin stated that the human remains “are culturally affiliated with the Navajo people and are the sole responsibility of the Navajo Nation.”

Pueblo of Acoma representatives examined photos of the human remains, but were unsure of cultural affiliation. They stated that the human remains were probably Ancestral Puebloan, though not from Acoma.

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation representatives examined photos of the human remains and stated that the tribe encourages reburial of human remains at their place of origin, regardless of cultural affiliation. They made no other comments regarding the cultural affiliation of the human remains.

Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation representatives examined photos of the human remains and stated that they consider the prehistoric populations of the Southwest to be ancestral to all Pueblo groups, and that the tribe supports reburial of human remains at their place of origin.

Evidence for cultural affiliation of the human remains and associated funerary object with the Colorado River Tribes of the Colorado River Reservation, Arizona and California includes archeological data, expert opinion, and oral tradition. The Colorado River Tribes of the Colorado River Reservation, Arizona and California are composed of four distinct tribes: The Mohave, Chemehuevi, Hopi, and Navajo. Sentinel Ruin is located within traditional Hopi territory and Hopi oral tradition discusses clan migrations through the Canyon de Chelly region.

Evidence for cultural affiliation of the human remains and associated funerary object with the Hopi Tribe of Arizona includes archeological data, expert opinion, geographic proximity, and oral tradition. The Hopi Tribe of Arizona considers all of Arizona to be within traditional Hopi territory or territory through which Hopi clans have migrated. During a repatriation visit to the Brooklyn Museum in 2007, representatives from the Hopi Tribe of Arizona stated that they consider all Canyon de Chelly archeological material in the museum's collection to be ancestral to them.

Evidence for cultural affiliation of the human remains and associated funerary object with the Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah includes expert opinion and geographic proximity. The Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah claims cultural affiliation with and sole responsibility for all human remains from the Canyon de Chelly region.

Evidence for cultural affiliation of the human remains and associated funerary object with the Pueblo of Acoma includes expert opinion and oral tradition. The Pueblo of Acoma claims cultural affiliation with archeological sites within the Four Corners area. During their 1997 consultation visit to the Brooklyn Museum, the Pueblo of Acoma representatives stated that they consider Puebloan archeological material from Canyon del Muerto to be ancestral to them.

Evidence for cultural affiliation of the human remains and associated funerary object with the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico includes expert opinion, geographic proximity, and oral tradition. The Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico considers prehistoric populations of the Southwest to be ancestral to all Pueblo group. During their 1996 consultation, the tribal representatives explained that they do not distinguish between their Ancestral Puebloan ancestors and themselves, and referred to both as Zuni.

Officials of the Brooklyn Museum 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(3)(A), the one object described in this notice is 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 Colorado River Tribes of the Colorado River Reservation, Arizona and California; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Pueblo of Acoma; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, hereafter referred to as “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 and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Nancy Rosoff, Andrew W. Mellon Senior Curator, Arts of the Americas, Brooklyn Museum, 200 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, NY 11238, telephone (718) 501-6283, email [email protected], by September 24, 2018. 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 Brooklyn Museum is responsible for notifying The Consulted 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 State Center Community College District—Fresno City College, Fresno, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Fresno, Kings or Madera 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 State Center Community College District—Fresno City College professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California (previously listed as the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California); Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria (previously listed as the Table Mountain Rancheria of California); Tejon Indian Tribe; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; and Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California.

The California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada were contacted and invited to consult, but did not participate.

Two non-federally recognized groups, the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians and Traditional Choinumni Tribe, were consulted. One non-federally recognized group, the Wukchumni Tribe, was invited to consult, but did not participate. Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Consulted and Notified Tribes.”

On February 12, 1976, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a site identified as 2-12-76A, in Fresno, Kings, or Madera County, CA, by Fresno City College instructor Don Wren. The human remains are fragmentary and represent an adult of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is one lot of non-human bone.

Between the early 1960s and 2000, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unidentified site in Fresno, Kings, or Madera County, CA, by Fresno City College instructor Don Wren. The human remains are fragmentary and represent an individual of indeterminate age and sex. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

The archeological collections under the control of the State Center Community College District and housed in the Archeological Repository at Fresno City College derive from archeological fieldwork done by Wren from the early 1960s through 2000. Over the course of his archeological career, Wren documented over 1,500 archeological sites in Fresno, Madera, Tulare, Mariposa, and Kings Counties. All of the human remains that Wren collected from sites with known provenience were collected from Fresno, Kings, and Madera Counties. In January 2017, during an examination of the faunal collections for the presence of human remains, the human remains described in this inventory were discovered.

Officials of The State Center Community College District—Fresno City College have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on osteological analysis.

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

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the one object described in this notice is 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.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada.

• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California (previously listed as the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California); Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria (previously listed as the Table Mountain Rancheria of California); Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; and Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California (previously listed as the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California); Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria (previously listed as the Table Mountain Rancheria of California); Tejon Indian Tribe; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada.

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 Dr. Margaret Mericle, Fresno City College of The State Center Community College District, 1101 East University Avenue, Fresno, CA 93741, telephone (559) 442-8210, email [email protected], by September 24, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California (previously listed as the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California); Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria (previously listed as the Table Mountain Rancheria of California); Tejon Indian Tribe; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada may proceed.

The State Center Community College District—Fresno City College is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Notified 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 State Center Community College District—Fresno City College, Fresno, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from CA-MAD-1785, Madera County, CA, and CA-MAD-1788, Madera 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 was made by the State Center Community College District—Fresno City College professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California (previously listed as the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California); Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria (previously listed as the Table Mountain Rancheria of California); Tejon Indian Tribe; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; and Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California.

The California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada; Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada were contacted and invited to consult, but did not participate.

Two non-federally recognized groups, the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians and Traditional Choinumni Tribe, were consulted. One non-federally recognized group, the Wukchumni Tribe, was invited to consult, but did not participate. Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Consulted and Notified Tribes.”

In the early 1990s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site CA-MAD-1785, in Madera County, CA. The human remains represent one adult of indeterminate sex, represented by four fragments. No known individuals were identified. The 12 associated funerary objects are: one lot of steatite sherds, six lots of steatite beads, and five lots of shell beads.

In the early 1990s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site CA-MAD-1788, in Madera County, CA. The human remains represent one sub-adult of indeterminate sex, represented by 14 fragments. No known individuals were identified. The five associated funerary objects are: one lot of shell fragments, one glass bead, one steatite bead, and two shell beads.

Fresno City College instructor Don Wren excavated both sites for the Deer Creek and Fine Gold Creek Projects. In January 2017, an osteological examination of the faunal collections was conducted to determine if human remains were present. That examination resulted in the identification of the human remains described in this inventory.

Officials of the State Center Community College District—Fresno City College have determined that:

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

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 17 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 both the Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California and the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California, based on geographic information and oral tradition.

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 Dr. Margaret Mericle, Fresno City College of The State Center Community College District, 1101 East University Avenue, Fresno, CA 93741, telephone (559) 442-8210, email [email protected], by September 24, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California and the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California may proceed.

The State Center Community College District—Fresno City College is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Notified 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 under the control of the Riverside Metropolitan Museum, Riverside, CA. The human remains were removed from one of the Pueblos in New Mexico.

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. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Riverside Metropolitan Museum professional staff in consultation with Kurt Dongoske, Historic Preservation Officer, Pueblo of Zuni and representative of the following Indian Tribes: Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.

At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from one of the Pueblos in New Mexico. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

It was determined through research of the Donor's records in the collections that the human remains are from New Mexico and are of Pueblo origin.

Officials of the Riverside Metropolitan Museum 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 Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereafter referred to as “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 Robyn G. Peterson, Ph.D., Museum Director, Riverside Metropolitan Museum, 3580 Mission Inn Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, telephone (951) 826-5792, email [email protected], by September 24, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed.

The Riverside Metropolitan Museum 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 ISMHS, Indianapolis, IN. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Prophetstown State Park, Tippecanoe County, IN.

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 staff at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) in consultation with the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, as requested by the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA). Additional consultation was conducted by FHWA and the Indiana Department of Transportation Environmental Services, Cultural Resources Office (INDOT-CRO) with representatives of the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; and the Shawnee Tribe.

Following transfer of the human remains to the ISMHS, additional invitations to consult were sent by letter from the ISMHS to the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.

On July 7, 2010, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 12T59/530 within Prophetstown State Park, in Tippecanoe County, IN, during archeological work conducted under Indiana Department of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) plan 3513, permit 201022. This Phase 111 data recovery was prompted by a wetland and forest mitigation project associated with the SR 25 Hoosier Heartland Corridor (INDOT DES No. 0901664, formerly 9802920). The human remains were recovered from state-owned land.

Upon recovering the human remains, IPFW archeology staff contacted the Tippecanoe County Coroner, who determined that the remains were over 100 years old. Also notified was staff from Prophetstown State Park and the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), as well as Indiana State Archaeologist Dr. Rick Jones. FHWA notified the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma by letter dated July 26, 2010, and the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and Shawnee Tribe by letter dated November 16, 2010. In co-operation between the FHWA, INDOT, and archeologists from IPFW, the human remains were temporarily housed at IPFW while initial consultation proceeded with the tribes listed in this notice and INDOT. On December 5, 2013, the human remains were transferred from IPFW to the ISMHS.

Upon consultation with the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, the human remains were inventoried and an osteological analysis by staff at IPFW was conducted. Staff identified the human remains as belonging to a single individual, approximately 18-24 months of age at death. Analyses also indicated no apparent pathologies apparent or evidence of pre- or peri-mortem skeletal trauma. Given the incomplete nature of the human remains (only a portion of the upper body is present) as well as the age of the individual, sex or stature could not be determined. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object is a pipe made of green stone that appears to mimic the bowls found on 18th century metal tomahawk pipes. The pipe bowl is shaped like the more common kaolin clay pipes and is similar to examples recovered from the Wea village near Ouiatenon.

Officials of the ISMHS have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on analysis of the physical remains and the archeological context.

• 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(3)(A), the one object described in this notice is 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 object and any present-day Indian tribe.

• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; and Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas).

• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; and Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas).

• Other authoritative governmental sources identify the removal location of the human remains as the aboriginal land of Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Shawnee Tribe; and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Shawnee Tribe Nation of Oklahoma; and Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska (hereafter, “The Tribes”).

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 Michele Greenan, Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites Corporation, 650 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46214, telephone (317) 473-0836, email [email protected], by September 24, 2018. 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 ISMHS 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 under the control of History Colorado, Denver, CO. The human remains were removed from La Plata County and Montezuma County, CO.

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

A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by History Colorado professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma); Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (previously listed as the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah); Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (previously listed as the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.

The Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; and Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico were invited to consult, but did not participate. Hereafter, all tribes listed above are referred to as “The Consulted and Invited Tribes.”

In the 1930s, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from private property in La Plata County, CO, by a private citizen. In the 1960s, the human remains were given to another family member, who mailed them to the Office of the State Archeologist in June 2017. The La Plata County Coroner ruled out a forensic interest in the human remains. The human remains are identified as Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) Case Number 324. Osteological analysis by Dr. Christine Pink of Metropolitan State University of Denver—Human Identification Laboratory indicates that the human remains are likely of Native American ancestry and archeological. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

About forty years ago, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from private property in Montezuma County, CO, by a private citizen. In October 2017, she turned them over to the Mesa County Coroner, who, with the Montezuma County Coroner, ruled out a forensic interest. In December 2017, the human remains were transferred to the Office of the State Archeologist (OSAC), where they are identified as Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) Case Number 327. Osteological analysis by Dr. Christine Pink of Metropolitan State University of Denver—Human Identification Laboratory indicates that the human remains are likely of Native American ancestry and archeological. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

History Colorado, in partnership with the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs, Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (previously listed as the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah), conducted tribal consultations among the tribes with ancestral ties to the State of Colorado to develop the process for disposition of culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains and associated funerary objects originating from inadvertent discoveries on Colorado State and private lands. That consultation led to the drafting of the “Process for Consultation, Transfer, and Reburial of Culturally Unidentifiable Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects Originating From Inadvertent Discoveries on Colorado State and Private Lands” (2008, unpublished, on file with the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation). The tribes consulted on the human remains in this notice are those who have expressed their wishes to be notified of discoveries in the Southwest Consultation Region as established by the “Process.”

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee (Review Committee) is responsible for recommending specific actions for disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains. On November 3-4, 2006, the “Process” was presented to the Review Committee for consideration. A January 8, 2007, letter on behalf of the Review Committee from the Designated Federal Officer transmitted the provisional authorization to proceed with the “Process” upon receipt of formal responses from the Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico, and the Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, subject to forthcoming conditions imposed by the Secretary of the Interior. On May 15-16, 2008, the responses from the Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico, and the Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma were submitted to the Review Committee. On September 23, 2008, the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, as the designee for the Secretary of the Interior, authorized the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains according to the “Process” and NAGPRA, contingent on the publication of a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register. This notice fulfills that requirement.

43 CFR 10.11 was promulgated on March 15, 2010, to provide a process for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains recovered from tribal or aboriginal lands as established by the final judgment of the Indian Claims Commission or U.S. Court of Claims, a treaty, Act of Congress, or Executive Order, or other authoritative governmental sources. As there is no evidence indicating that the human remains reported in this notice originated from tribal or aboriginal lands, they are eligible for disposition under the “Process.”

Officials of History Colorado have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on osteological evidence.

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

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

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(2)(ii), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (previously listed as the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah).

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 Sheila Goff, NAGPRA Liaison, History Colorado, 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203, telephone (303) 866-4531, email [email protected], by September 24, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (previously listed as the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah) may proceed.

History Colorado is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Invited 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 under the control of the Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, FL. The human remains were removed from an unknown location.

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. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

A detailed assessment of the remains was made by the Florida Department of State professional staff in consultation with representatives of Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Kialegee Tribal Town; Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and Thlopthlocco Tribal Town. Two non-federally recognized Indian groups, the Florida Tribe of Eastern Creek Indians and the Original Miccosukee Simanolee Nation of Aboriginal People were also consulted.

A braided lock of hair belonging to Osceola, an advisor to the principal chief of the Seminole and leader of Seminole resistance during the Second Seminole War (89M.041.004), in the collection of the Florida Department of State, was donated by one of the descendants of Dr. Frederick Weedon. Weedon, who was a medical doctor under contract to the Army, treated Osceola during his captivity at Ft. Marion and later at Ft. Moultrie (1837-1838). Before he died, Osceola had given a few personal effects to Dr. Weedon, but the braided lock of hair is presumed to have been taken after death. Osceola's postcranial remains were buried at Ft. Moultrie in 1838; however, his head was retained by Dr. Weedon. It is believed that, later, the head was housed at the Surgical and Pathological Museum in New York City, and was lost in the fire that destroyed the museum in 1866.

A lock of Osceola's hair remained with the Weedon family from 1838 until its donation to the Florida Department of State in 1989. Taking a lock of a descendant's hair for a keepsake was a popular western custom in the 1800s. The hair is in a braided plait that is 53/4″ long, and consists of approximately seven strands of hair. Presumably, it had been plaited by a Weedon family member sometime after its acquisition.

Officials of the Florida Department of State 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 Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas (previously listed as Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Kialegee Tribal Town; Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)); The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and Thlopthlocco Tribal Town (hereafter, “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 Kathryn Miyar, Florida Department of State, Mission San Luis Collections, 2100 West Tennessee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32304, telephone (850) 245-6301, email [email protected], by September 24, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to The Tribes may proceed.

The Florida Department of State 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 a cultural item under the control of the Riverside Metropolitan Museum, Riverside, CA, 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 items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

At an unknown date, one cultural item was removed from San Juan Pueblo, New Mexico. The sacred object was associated with John Trujillo, San Juan Pueblo. The donor gave the cultural item to the Riverside Metropolitan Museum, Riverside, CA on May 23, 1985. The sacred object is a prayer stick.

Written in orange ink on the plain hand end of the carved wood prayer stick is “John Trujillo/San Juan Pueblo”.

Officials of the Riverside Metropolitan Museum 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 Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).

Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim this cultural item should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Robyn G. Peterson, Ph. D., Museum Director, Riverside Metropolitan Museum, 3580 Mission Inn Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, telephone (951) 826-5792, email [email protected], by September 24, 2018. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the sacred object to The Tribes may proceed.

The Riverside Metropolitan Museum 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 State Center Community College District—Fresno City College, Fresno, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Hanse site, Kings 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 was made by the State Center Community College District—Fresno City College professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California (previously listed as the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California); Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria (previously listed as the Table Mountain Rancheria of California); Tejon Indian Tribe; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; and Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California.

The California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; For McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Reservation, Nevada and Oregon; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada, Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada; and Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada were contacted and invited to consult, but did not participate.

Two non-federally recognized groups, the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians and Traditional Choinumni Tribe, were consulted. One non-federally recognized group, the Wukchumni Tribe, was invited to consult, but did not participate. Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Consulted and Notified Tribes.”

In 1975, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from the Hanse site in Kings County, CA. Fresno City College instructor Don Wren and his students (and possibly Dudley Varner of California State University, Fresno) were involved in a salvage excavation of at least 13 burials in response to vandalism at the site. In January 2017, an osteological examination of the faunal collections was conducted to determine if human remains were present. That examination resulted in the identification of the human remains described in this inventory. The human remains represent one adult of indeterminate sex, one sub-adult of indeterminate sex, and one sub-adult (neonatal) of indeterminate sex. The three individuals are represented by a total of 248 fragments. No known individuals were identified. The 75 associated funerary objects: are 57 lots of shell beads, one lot of bone beads, one lot of steatite beads, two lots of shell buttons, one lot of shell pendants, one lot of shell artifacts, three lots of shell fragments, two lots of steatite sherds, and seven lots of mixed materials.

Officials of the State Center Community College District—Fresno City College have determined that:

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry, based on their archeological context.

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 75 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 Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California, based on geographic information and oral tradition.

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 Dr. Margaret Mericle, Fresno City College of The State Center Community College District, 1101 East University Avenue, Fresno, CA 93741, telephone (559) 442-8210, email [email protected], by September 24, 2018. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California may proceed.

The State Center Community College District—Fresno City College is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Notified Tribes that this notice has been published.

The Commission instituted this investigation on January 13, 2015, based on a complaint filed by One-E-Way, Inc. of Pasadena, California (“One-E-Way”). 80 FR 1663 (Jan. 13, 2015). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 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 wireless headsets by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,865,258 (“the '258 patent”) and 8,131,391 (“the '391 patent”). Id. The notice of investigation named several respondents, including GN Netcom A/S d/b/a Jabra of Ballerup (“GN”), Denmark; BlueAnt Wireless Pty, Ltd. of Richmond, Australia and BlueAnt Wireless, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois (collectively, “BlueAnt”); Creative Technology Ltd. of Singapore and Creative Labs, Inc. of Milpitas, California (collectively, “Creative”); Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York, and Sony Electronics, Inc. of San Diego, California (collectively, “Sony”). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also named as a party to the investigation. Id. The Commission also previously terminated other respondents prior to the original termination of the investigation. See Notice (Apr. 20, 2015); Notice (June 11, 2015).

On September 21, 2015, the ALJ issued Order No. 17, granting Respondents' motion for summary determination that the asserted claims of the '258 and '391 patents are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2 and terminated the investigation with a finding of no violation of section 337. Order No. 17 (Sept. 21, 2015). On May 12, 2016, the Commission affirmed the ID with modification. 81 FR 31257 (May 18, 2016). Thereafter, One-E-Way filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2016-2105).

On June 12, 2017, the Court reversed the Commission's summary determination that the asserted claims are invalid as indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2 and remanded the investigation to the Commission for further proceedings. One-E-Way, Inc. v. ITC, 859 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2017). On October 13, 2016, the Commission remanded the investigation to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision. Order (Oct. 13, 2016). OUII is not participating in the remand proceedings. The Commission previously terminated Sony, Creative, and BlueAnt from the remand investigation. Order 24 (Feb. 26, 2018) (unreviewed Notice (Mar. 20, 2018)); Order No. 25 (June 26, 2018) (unreviewed Notice (July 17, 2018)); Order No. 28 (Aug. 1, 2018) (unreviewed Notice (Aug. 15, 2018)).

On August 2, 2018, One-E-Way and GN filed a joint motion to terminate the remand investigation as to GN based upon a settlement and license agreement. The motion was unopposed, and no responses to the motion were filed.

On August 6, 2018, the ALJ issued the subject ID pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(b) (19 CFR 210.21(b)), granting the joint motion to terminate GN based on a settlement and license agreement. The ID finds that the settlement agreement is consistent with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(b)(1)). The ID also finds, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2) (19 CFR 210.50(b)(2)), that the requested termination does not impose any undue burdens on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers. No petitions for review were filed.

The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. As GN is the last remaining respondent, the termination of GN also terminates the remand investigation in its entirety.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

The Commission instituted the original investigation on July 1, 2016, based on a complaint filed by Fujifilm Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, and Fujifilm Recording Media U.S.A., Inc. of Bedford, Massachusetts (collectively, “Fujifilm”). 81 FR 43243-44 (July 1, 2016). Pertinent to this action, the complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), in the sale for importation, importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain magnetic data storage tapes and cartridges containing the same by reason of infringement of, inter alia, claims 1, 4-9, 11 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,641,891 (“the '891 patent”). The Commission's Notice of Investigation named as respondents Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York, and Sony Electronics Inc. of San Diego, California (collectively, “the Sony respondents”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also named as a party to the investigation.

On March 8, 2018, the Commission found a section 337 violation as to the '891 patent and issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) to each of the Sony respondents. 83 FR 11245-47 (March 14, 2018). The LEO generally prohibits the Sony respondents from importing certain magnetic data storage tapes and cartridges containing the same that infringe the '891 patent, with certain exceptions related to service and repair and verification testing. The CDOs prohibit the Sony respondents from importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring (except for exportation) certain magnetic data storage tapes and cartridges containing the same that infringe the '891 patent, and soliciting United States agents or distributors for these activities.

On May 9, 2018, Fujifilm filed a complaint requesting that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75 to investigate alleged violation of the CDOs by the Sony Respondents, as well as Sony Storage Media Solutions Corporation, Sony Storage Media Manufacturing Corporation, Sony DADC US Inc., and Sony Latin America Inc. (collectively, “Sony”). On June 13, 2018, the Commission instituted the enforcement proceeding. 83 FR 27626-27 (June 13, 2018). OUII was also named as a party in the enforcement proceeding.

On July 23, 2018, Sony filed a request for an advisory opinion and a petition for modification of the remedial orders to clarify that certain of its redesigned tape products are outside the scope of the remedial orders. On August 2, 2018, Fujifilm filed a response, opposing both Sony's request and petition.

Having examined the request and petition, as well as the supporting documents, the Commission has determined to institute a modification proceeding, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.76(b) (19 CFR. 210.76(b)), to determine whether the LEO and CDOs issued in the underlying investigation should be modified to exclude certain of Sony's redesigned tape products. The Commission has further determined to delegate the modification proceeding to the presiding administrative law judge and to consolidate that proceeding with the ongoing enforcement proceeding.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

Posting of Public Comments

Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) applies to all comments received. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personal identifying information you do not want made publicly available in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.

Comments containing personal identifying information or confidential business information identified and located as directed above will generally be made available in redacted form. If a comment contains so much confidential business information or personal identifying information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to http://www.regulations.gov may include any personal identifying information (such as name, address, and phone number) included in the text of your electronic submission that is not identified as directed above as confidential.

An electronic copy of this document is available at http://www.regulations.gov for easy reference.

Section 306 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. 826) requires the Attorney General to establish aggregate production quotas for each basic class of controlled substance listed in schedules I and II and for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine. The Attorney General has delegated this function to the Administrator of the DEA pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100.

The DEA established the 2018 aggregate production quotas for substances in schedules I and II and the assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine on November 8, 2017 (82 FR 51873). That notice stipulated that, in accordance with 21 CFR 1303.13 and 1315.13, all aggregate production quotas and assessments of annual need are subject to adjustment.

The DEA proposes to adjust the established 2018 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs for certain schedule I and II controlled substances, and the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, to be manufactured in the United States in 2018 to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, for lawful export requirements, and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. These quotas do not include imports of controlled substances for use in industrial processes.

In determining the proposed adjustment, the Acting Administrator has taken into account the criteria in accordance with 21 CFR 1303.13 (adjustment of aggregate production quotas for controlled substances) and 21 CFR 1315.13 (adjustment of the assessment of annual needs for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine). The DEA determined whether to propose an adjustment of the aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs for 2018 by considering: (1) Changes in the demand for that class or chemical, changes in the national rate of net disposal of the class or chemical, and changes in the rate of net disposal of the class or chemical by registrants holding individual manufacturing quotas for the class; (2) whether any increased demand for that class or chemical, the national and/or individual rates of net disposal of that class or chemical are temporary, short term, or long term; (3) whether any increased demand for that class or chemical can be met through existing inventories, increased individual manufacturing quotas, or increased importation, without increasing the aggregate production quota; (4) whether any decreased demand for that class or chemical will result in excessive inventory accumulation by all persons registered to handle that class or chemical; and (5) other factors affecting medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs in the United States and lawful export requirements, as the Acting Administrator finds relevant. These quotas do not include imports of controlled substances for use in industrial processes.

The Acting Administrator also considered updated information obtained from 2017 year-end inventories, 2017 disposition data submitted by quota applicants, estimates of the medical needs of the United States, product development, and other information made available to the DEA after the initial aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs had been established. Other factors the Acting Administrator considered in calculating the aggregate production quotas, but not the assessment of annual needs, include product development requirements of both bulk and finished dosage form manufacturers, and other pertinent information. In determining the proposed adjusted 2018 assessment of annual needs, the DEA used the calculation methodology previously described in the 2010 and 2011 established assessment of annual needs (74 FR 60294, Nov. 20, 2009, and 75 FR 79407, Dec. 20, 2010, respectively).

The Acting Administrator, therefore, proposes to adjust the 2018 aggregate production quotas for certain schedule I and II controlled substances and the assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, expressed in grams of anhydrous acid or base, as follows: