Notices. Notice
19,701 words·~90 min read·
/register/2007/02/07/07-532A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4312-52-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before January 20, 2007. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St.
NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by February 22, 2007. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National, Historic Landmarks Program. CALIFORNIA San Joaquin County IOOF Lodge #355, 18819 East CA 88, Clements, 07000085 COLORADO Larimer County Flowers, Jacob and Elizabeth, House, 5200 W.
Cty Rd. 52E, Bellvue, 07000086 GEORGIA Fannin County Mineral Bluff Depot, 150 Railroad Ave., Mineral Bluff, 07000089 Fulton County Southern Spring Bed Company, 300 Martin Luther King, Jr., Dr., Atlanta, 07000088 Telfair County McRae, Max and Emma Sue, House, 405 S. Second Ave., McRae, 07000087 IDAHO Nez Perce County Children's Home Finding and Aid Society of North Idaho, 1805 19th Ave., Lewiston, 07000090 LOUISIANA Rapides Parish Bennett Store, Approx. 2 mi. N of US71 and Old Baton Rouge Hwy., Alexandria, 07000104 NEW YORK Broome County Saints Cyril and Methodius Slovak Roman Catholic School, 144-146 Clinton St., Binghamton, 07000095 Madison County DeFerriere House, 2089 Genesee St., Oneida, 07000097 Nassau County Execution Rocks Light Station, (Light Stations of the United States MPS) In Long Island Sound, 0.9 mi.
NNW of N end of NY 101 in Nassau Co., Port Washington, 07000094 Rensselaer County Breese-Reynolds House, 601 South St., Hoosick, 07000096 NORTH CAROLINA Craven County Mount Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church, 307 Scott St., New Bern, 07000093 Guilford County Smith, William Rankin and Elizabeth Wharton, House, 437 Brightwood Church Rd., NC 2758, 0.62 mi. N of U.S. 70, Whitsett, 07000091 Pitt County Dickinson Avenue Historic District, 600-900 Blks Dickinson Ave., one blk of side Sts, inc.
W. Eighth, Flicklien, S. Pitt, Clark Sts., Atlantic, Albermarle, Greenville, 07000092 SOUTH CAROLINA Beaufort County Charleston Navy Yard Officers' Quarters Historic District, Turnbull Ave., Everglades Dr., Navy Way, and portions of Hobson Ave. and Blackstop Dr., North Charleston, 07000100 Greenville County Stradley and Barr Dry Goods Store, 14 S. Main St., Greenville, 07000099 Orangeburg County Dantzler Plantation, 2755 Vance Rd., Holly Hill, 07000098 WISCONSIN Ashland County Ashland Harbor Breakwater Light, (Light Stations of the United States MPS) Breakwater's NW end in Chequamegon Bay, 2 mi.
N of Bay City Ck. mouth, Ashland, 07000103 Douglas County Superior Enry South Breakwater Light, (Light Stations of the United States MPS) Superior Entry S. Breakwater offshore end. 0.4 mi. NE of Wisconsin Point, Superior, 07000102 Portage County Temple Beth Israel, 1475 Water St., Stevens Point, 07000101 A request for *REMOVAL* has been made for the following resource: LOUISIANA Rapides Parish Bennett Store E of Alexandria, on U.S. 71 Alexandria vicinity, 79001083 [FR Doc. E7-1946 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion:
American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY. The human remains were collected from Umatilla County, OR, and Walla Walla County, WA. 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 American Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon. In 1882, human remains representing a minimum of four individuals were collected from sand dunes in Umatilla, Umatilla County, OR.
The human remains were purchased by the American Museum of Natural History from Mr. James Terry in 1891. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The individuals have been identified as Native American based on their likely association with a Native American village, the presence of cranial reshaping in some of the human remains, and the collector's practice of only collecting cultural items related to Native Americans from the United States.
Physical anthropologists who examined the human remains estimate them to be less than 500 years old. Consultation information provided by the tribe, archeological information, and expert opinion also indicate that the human remains are likely associated with the Umatilla site, a Late Prehistoric to Historic Umatilla village. Geographic location is consistent with the traditional and post-contact territory of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon. In 1882, human remains representing a minimum of four individuals were collected from Old Wallula, Walla Walla County, WA.
The human remains were purchased by the American Museum of Natural History from Mr. Terry in 1891. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The individuals have been identified as Native American based on the presence of cranial reshaping in some of the human remains and the collector's practice of only collecting cultural items related to Native Americans from the United States. Physical anthropologists who examined the human remains estimate them to be less than 500 years old.
Expert opinion also indicates that the human remains are likely to be of recent age. Geographic location is consistent with the traditional and post-contact territory of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon. Officials of the American Museum of Natural History have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of eight individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the American Museum of Natural History also have determined that, 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 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Nell Murphy, Director of Cultural Resources, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024-5192, telephone
(212)769-5837, before March 9, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The American Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon that this notice has been published. Dated: January 19, 2007. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E7-1968 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: Central Washington University, Department of Anthropology and Museum, Ellensburg, WA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the control of Central Washington University, Department of Anthropology and Museum, Ellensburg, WA. The human remains were removed from Ferry and Okanogan Counties, WA. 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 Central Washington University, Department of Anthropology and Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington. In 1958, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from a terrace 15 feet from Kettle River in Ferry County, WA, by University of Washington Museum staff, and were accessioned by the Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum (Burke Museum), University of Washington, Seattle, WA (Burke Accession 1963-70). In 1974, the Burke Museum legally transferred the human remains to the Central Washington University, Department of Anthropology and Museum. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Based on skeletal morphology and geographic and accession documentation, the human remains are of Native American ancestry. Ferry County is located within the aboriginal territory of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington. Ethnographic sources identify Ferry County as an area associated with the Colville Band (Kennedy and Bouchard 1998; Mooney 1896; Ray 1936; Spier 1936; Swanton 1952). The Colville Band is one of the twelve tribes and bands that compose the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington. In 1960, human remains representing a minimum of four individuals were removed from land adjacent to Washington State Highway 20, three miles east of Tonasket in Okanogan County, WA, by a Washington State Highway Department crew. The Washington State Highway Department gave the human remains to the Okanogan County Sheriff's Office. The Okanogan County Sheriff sent the human remains to the University of Washington School of Medicine's Anatomy Department for identification. The Burke Museum accessioned the human remains in 1965 (Burke Accession 1965-55). In 1974, the Burke Museum legally transferred the human remains to Central Washington University, Department of Anthropology and Museum. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Based on morphological evidence, the human remains are Native American. The northern area of Okanogan County was part of the aboriginal and historic territory of the Okanogan people. Geographic affiliation is consistent with the historically documented territory of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington. The Okanogan Band is one of the twelve tribes and bands that compose the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington. Officials of Central Washington University, Department of Anthropology and Museum have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Central Washington University, Department of Anthropology and Museum have also determined that, 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 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Lourdes Henebry- DeLeon, NAGPRA Program Director, Central Washington University, Department of Anthropology and Museum, 400 East University Way, Ellensburg, WA 98926-7544, telephone
(509)963-2671, before March 9, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Central Washington University, Department of Anthropology and Museum is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington that this notice has been published. Dated: December 18, 2006. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E7-1970 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: Central Washington University, Department of Anthropology and Museum, Ellensburg, WA, and Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the control of the Central Washington University, Department of Anthropology and Museum, Ellensburg, WA, and Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum (Burke Museum), University of Washington, Seattle, WA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from a site upriver from the McNary Dam in Benton County, WA. 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 Burke Museum and Central Washington University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon; and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. In 1965, human remains representing a minimum of two individuals were removed from a rock shelter approximately six miles east of the McNary Dam (possibly site 45BN5) in Benton County, WA, by Ray Dunn and Fred Hendrix. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Hendrix donated the human remains to the Burke Museum in 1966 (Burke Accn. #1966-11). A portion of the human remains were transferred from the Burke Museum to Central Washington University in 1974. No known individuals were identified. The 107 associated funerary objects are 102 shell beads, 1 piece of cordage, and 4 wood fragments. Early and late ethnographic sources identify the area six miles east of the McNary Dam area territory of the Cayuse, Walla Walla, and Umatilla tribes (Hale 1841; Stern 1998; Ray 1936). The Cayuse, Walla Walla, and Umatilla were separate tribes prior to the treaty on June 9, 1855, but were removed to the Umatilla Reservation under the terms of the Walla Walla Treaty. The three tribes were officially confederated in 1949. The area east of McNary Dam was heavily utilized by the Umatilla, including the spring and summer camp *tu'woyepa* on the Oregon side of the Columbia River (Ray 1936), the Umatilla fishing site *wanaket* (Lane and Lane 1979), and the small fishing village *xululupa* on the Washington side of the Columbia River (Ray 1936). The human remains evidence extreme dental attrition, a trait that is common for Columbia plateau populations. The practice of burying individuals with personal belongings, including shell beads, is consistent with documented prehistoric and historic practices of the tribes that are members of the present-day Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon. The area six miles east from the McNary Dam is within the aboriginal territory of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon as determined by the Indian Claims Commission. The human remains have been determined to be Native American based on geographic, historical, and osteological evidence, and culturally affiliated to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon. Officials of the Burke Museum and Central Washington University have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Burke Museum and Central Washington University also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(A), the 107 objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. Lastly, officials of the Burke Museum and Central Washington University have determined that, 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 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary objects should contact Dr. Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195-3010, telephone
(206)685-2282 or Lourdes Henebry-DeLeon, NAGPRA Program Director, Department of Anthropology and Museum, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926-7544, telephone
(509)963-2671, before March 9, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Burke Museum is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; Confederated Tribes the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon; and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon that this notice has been published. Dated: January 18, 2007. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E7-1971 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Intent to Repatriate Cultural Items: Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items in the possession of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO that meet the definition of “unassociated funerary objects” under 25 U.S.C. 3001. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. The two cultural items are decorated animal bones, reportedly found with human remains. The human remains were repatriated to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida after publication of a Notice of Inventory Completion in the **Federal Register** on June 7, 2004 (FR Doc 04-12661, page 31841) and a corrected Notice of Inventory Completion on December 5, 2005 (FR Doc 05-23873, pages 73261-73262). Sometime between 1910 and 1911, the human remains came into the possession of Jesse H. Bratley. After Mr. Bratley's death in 1948, the cultural items came into the possession of Mr. Bratley's daughter, Hazel Bratley. In 1961, Mary W.A. Crane and Francis V. Crane purchased the cultural items from Ms. Bratley. In 1983, the Cranes donated the cultural items to the museum. Based on provenience, museum records, research, and consultation with the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, and Seminole Tribe of Florida, Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations, the cultural items have been determined to be Seminole. Mr. Bratley resided in Homestead, FL, in 1910 and moved to Miami, FL, in 1911. During this time, Mr. Bratley photographed Seminole people. His records for the cultural items say that he acquired “sacral & pubic bones and some smaller ones,” and recorded the culture of the cultural items as “Seminole.” Historical and archeological evidence establish that Seminole and Miccosukee people have been residents in central and southern Florida for several hundred years. In consultations, representatives of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and Seminole Tribe of Florida, Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations confirmed their affiliation with earlier historic American Indians in Florida and indicated that the cultural items were associated with human remains of an individual that was probably one of their ancestors. This individual was repatriated to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. Descendants of the Seminole are members of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and Seminole Tribe of Florida, Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations. Officials of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(B), the two cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of an Native American individual. Officials of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the cultural items and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and Seminole Tribe of Florida, Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the unassociated funerary objects should contact Dr. Stephen Nash, NAGPRA Officer, Department of Anthropology, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205, telephone
(303)370-6056, before March 9, 2007. Repatriation of the unassociated funerary items to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and Seminole Tribe of Florida, Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Denver Museum of Nature & Science is responsible for notifying the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and Seminole Tribe of Florida, Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations that this notice has been published. Dated: January 23, 2007. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E7-1965 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Regarding Cultural Items in the Possession of the Field Museum AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee: Findings and Recommendations. SUMMARY: At a November 3-4, 2006, public meeting in Denver, CO, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee (Review Committee) considered a dispute between the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the Field Museum. The dispute focused on whether 33 items (catalogue records) in the possession or control of the Field Museum are “objects of cultural patrimony” and whether the Field Museum has a “right of possession” to them under provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001 *et seq.* ]. The Review Committee finds that, by a preponderance of the evidence, these items are “objects of cultural patrimony” and that the Field Museum does not have a “right of possession” to them. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1993, the Field Museum provided the White Mountain Apache Tribe with a summary of its Apache collections as required under provisions of NAGPRA. White Mountain Apache Tribe representatives visited the Field Museum in 1995, 1997, and 2000. On May 30, 2002, the White Mountain Apache Tribe submitted a claim to the Field Museum for 33 items (catalogue records) identified by the tribe as both sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. The tribe asserted that the Field Museum did not have right of possession to the 33 items. On June 20, 2003, the Field Museum responded to the White Mountain Apache Tribe's claim. The museum concurred with the tribe's identification of the 33 items as sacred objects. The museum did not agree with the tribe's claim that the items were objects of cultural patrimony nor that the museum did not have right of possession. The museum offered to return the 33 items to the White Mountain Apache Tribe with the condition that if any of the items are ever alienated by the tribe they will be returned to the museum. On June 4, 2004, the Field Museum offered to remove the reversionary condition contingent on passage of tribal legislation, in a form agreed upon by the museum, which identifies the 33 items as sacred objects under NAGPRA, and that any item repatriated to the White Mountain Apache Tribe shall be considered inalienable property of the tribe. On March 17, 2006, the White Mountain Apache Tribe requested the assistance of the Review Committee in resolving its dispute with the Field Museum. On March 23, 2006, the Review Committee's Designated Federal Officer acknowledged receipt of the request and identified questions as to whether the 33 items are objects of cultural patrimony and whether the Field Museum has right of possession to the 33 items as issues of fact that the Review Committee might wish to assist in resolving. The White Mountain Apache Tribe's request for a recommendation as to whether the Field Museum's compromise provisions fully comply with statutory and regulatory requirements appeared to be beyond the Review Committee's purview. On March 24, 2006, the Review Committee's Designated Federal Officer requested additional information from the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the Field Museum for consideration by the Review Committee prior to determining if the matter should be considered by the Review Committee. The Review Committee Chair and the Designated Federal Officer decided jointly to place discussion of the matter on the agenda of the Review Committee's next meeting. At its May 30-31, 2006 meeting, the Review Committee considered the documents submitted by the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the Field Museum. The Review Committee recognized the possibility of a dispute, but was hopeful that the parties would come to a positive resolution. At the Review Committee's request, the Designated Federal Officer informed the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the Field Museum of the Review Committee's recommendations and asked that the parties notify him if they had not resolved the matter by August 1, 2006. On August 4, 2006, the White Mountain Apache Tribe informed the Review Committee's Designated Federal Officer that the matter regarding repatriation of the 33 items had not been resolved. On September 15, 2006, the Review Committee Chair and the Designated Federal Officer decided jointly that it was appropriate for the Review Committee to assist in the resolution of the dispute regarding whether the 33 items are objects of cultural patrimony and whether the Field Museum has right of possession of the 33 items. The White Mountain Apache Tribe and the Field Museum were notified that the matter would be considered by the Review Committee at its next meeting. Under Section 8 of NAGPRA [25 U.S.C. 3006 (c)], the Review Committee has the responsibility:
(1)to facilitate the resolution of any dispute among Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, or lineal descendants and Federal agencies or museums relating to the return of NAGPRA cultural items including convening the parties to the dispute if deemed desirable;
(2)to monitor the inventory and identification process conducted under Section 5 and 6 of NAGPRA to ensure a fair, objective consideration and assessment of all available relevant information and evidence; and
(3)upon the request of any affected party, review and make findings related to the identity or cultural affiliation of cultural items, or the return of such items. The issues considered by the Review Committee in this dispute between the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the Field Museum are within the responsibilities assigned to the committee under NAGPRA. The Review Committee has the authority to review and make findings related to the identity of the 33 items as well as the issue of right of possession, as it relates to the return of such items. FINDINGS: On November 3-4, 2006, the Review Committee considered the dispute as presented by representatives of the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the Field Museum and made the following findings:
(1)The identification of the 33 items as sacred objects and their cultural affiliation with the White Mountain Apache Tribe are not in dispute.
(2)The White Mountain Apache Tribe has asserted that these items are objects of cultural patrimony and the Field Museum has asserted that they are not objects of cultural patrimony.
(3)An object of cultural patrimony is defined as “an object having ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual Native American, and which, therefore, cannot be alienated, appropriated, or conveyed by any individual regardless of whether or not the individual is a member of the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and such object shall have been considered inalienable by such Native American group at the time the object was separated from such group” [25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(D)].
(4)There is conflicting evidence regarding whether the 33 items are of ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance to the White Mountain Apache Tribe. The Field Museum argued that, while the requested items have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance, the items themselves are not “central” to the culture. To substantiate their position that the claimed objects are not of “central importance,” the Field Museum offers the following arguments:
(a)that no controversy or confrontation occurred at the time of sale;
(b)that the masks are not named or recognized individually;
(c)that many masks are held in museums and private collections; and
(d)that many masks are sold and there have been no previous public complaints by the tribe. The White Mountain Apache Tribe's position on “central importance” is that the 33 items are needed to channel the supernatural powers that serve to promote the general well-being and survival of the tribe. On this matter, the Review Committee placed considerable weight on the testimony of the traditional religious leaders who said that objects are of central importance. The Review Committee recognized that there is a commercial market of masks that have not been ritually treated and that there have been a few instances in which ritually treated objects have been sold. Violations to rules occur among all societies, and the White Mountain Apache are apparently no exception.
(5)There is conflicting evidence regarding whether the White Mountain Apache Tribe considered the 33 items to be inalienable by individuals in 1901 and 1903. The Field Museum cited ethnographic accounts by Grenville Goodwin indicating that such items were individual property. The White Mountain Apache Tribe presented testimony from present-day elders and from an anthropologist indicating that such items could not legitimately be sold by individuals. Testimony from the White Mountain Apache Tribe indicated that the present-day elders acquired their information from individuals who were alive at the time the objects were collected and who were in a position to know the cultural norms at that time. They also presented evidence indicating plausible reasons why Dr. Goodwin's information from that period may have been incorrect. The Review Committee found the arguments by the White Mountain Apache Tribe to be persuasive.
(6)Based on the abovementioned information, the Review Committee finds that the 33 items are consistent with the definition of object of cultural patrimony.
(7)The Field Museum has asserted that it has right of possession to the 33 items, based on evidence that these items were purchased by an agent of the museum from individual members of the tribe. These purchases were made in the open and with the full knowledge of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. The Field Museum asserted that there is no evidence that the purchases were contested at the time, or that any sellers were challenged or punished.
(8)Right of possession is defined in part as “possession obtained with the voluntary consent of an individual or group that had authority of alienation.”
(9)There is no dispute that the Field Museum purchased these items from individuals, and no evidence was presented to indicate that these purchases were approved by the White Mountain Apache Tribe.
(10)Evidence presented by the White Mountain Apache Tribe and the Field Museum indicated that the 33 items were sold to the museum by individuals who did not have the authority of alienation. Items of cultural patrimony can only be alienated with the voluntary consent of the tribe. The Field Museum did not present evidence indicating that the sales were made with the voluntary consent of the tribe. Therefore, the Review Committee finds that the Field Museum has not presented evidence sufficient to overcome the inference established by the White Mountain Apache Tribe that the museum does not have a right of possession to the 33 items. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on these findings, the Review Committee recommends that:
(1)The Field Museum consider the oral testimony and written evidence provided by the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and change its determination of the 33 items to recognize their status as objects of cultural patrimony. (2)The Field Museum acknowledge that it lacks right of possession to the 33 items. The National Park Service publishes this notice as part of its administrative and staff support for the Review Committee. The findings and recommendations are those of the Review Committee and do not necessarily represent the views of the Secretary of the Interior. Neither the Secretary of the Interior nor the National Park Service has taken a position on these matters. Dated: December 1, 2006. Rosita Worl, Chair, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee. [FR Doc. E7-1964 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, Palo Alto, CA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGRPA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary object in the control of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, Palo Alto, CA. The human remains and associated funerary object were removed from an unknown location in the Southwestern United States. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administration 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 object. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo professional staff with assistance from the Anthropological Studies Center, Archaeological Collections Facility, Sonoma State University professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona. At an unknown time, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from an unknown location in the Southwestern United States. The human remains were donated at an unknown time by an unknown donor to the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. No known individual was identified. The one associated funerary object is a cremation urn. The antiquity of the human remains is unknown. No testing has been performed. The age, sex, and ethnicity of the individual are unknown due to the thoroughness of the cremation process. However, the cremation urn associated with the individual has been identified as Hohokam. The cremation urn is made of buffware ceramic with an exterior design traditional to the Hohokam tribe of the Southwestern United States. Archeological evidence has demonstrated a strong relationship of shared group identity between the Hohokam and the present-day O'odham (Pima and Papago) and Hopi. The O'odham people are currently represented by the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona. In 1990, representatives of the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona issued a joint policy statement claiming ancestral ties to the Hohokam cultural traditions. Hopi oral tradition places the origins of their Patki, Sun, Sand, Corn, and Tobacco Clans south of the Colorado plateau. While Hopi oral traditions do not identify specific locations, some of the descriptions are consistent with Hohokam settlements in central Arizona during the Classic period. O'odham oral traditions indicate that some of the Hohokam people migrated north and joined the Hopi. In 1994, representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona issued a statement claiming cultural affiliation with Hohokam cultural traditions. The oral traditions of the Zuni mention Hawikuh, a Zuni community, as a destination of settlers from the Hohokam area. Zuni language, prayers, and rituals used by the Zuni Shu maakwe medicine society have descended from the Hohokam. In 1995, representatives of the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico issued a statement claiming cultural affiliation with the Hohokam cultural traditions. Based on consultation with the tribes and the available archeological evidence, officials of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo reasonably believe that the human remains are of Native American ancestry, specifically Hohokam. There is no further museum documentation on the human remains and associated funerary object. Descendants of the Hohokam, Papago, and Pima are members of the present-day Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. Officials of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(A), the one associated funerary object described above 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. Lastly, the officials of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary object and the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary object described above should contact Robert De Geus, Recreation and Youth Service's Division Manager, 1305 Middlefield Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94301, telephone
(650)463-4908, before March 9, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object to the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo is responsible for notifying the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico that this notice has been published. Dated: December 14, 2006. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E7-1963 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, East Wenatchee, WA; Central Washington University, Department of Anthropology and Museum, Ellensburg, WA; and Thomas Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, University of Washington, Seattle, WA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the control of Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, East Wenatchee, WA, and in the possession of the Central Washington University, Department of Anthropology and Museum, Ellensburg, WA, and Thomas Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture (Burke Museum), University of Washington, Seattle, WA. The human remains were removed from Okanogan County, WA. 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 Central Washington University and Burke Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington. In 1963, human remains were removed from site 45-OK-52 in Okanogan County, WA, under the supervision of Garland Grabert, a University of Washington archeologist, as part of the fieldwork for the Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County Wells Dam Project. Museum records show the human remains from site 45-OK-52 were taken to the Anthropology Department at the University of Washington, and subsequently transferred to the Burke Museum (Accn. 1965-74). Many of the individuals were subsequently transferred to other museums and/or reburied. In 2004, Central Washington University identified a minimum of one individual from 45-OK-52 in their collection. Also in 2004, the Burke Museum identified a minimum of one individual from this site in their collection. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In 1963, human remains were removed from site 45-OK-66 in Okanogan County, WA, under the supervision of Garland Grabert, a University of Washington archeologist, as part of the fieldwork for the Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County Wells Dam Project. Museum records show the human remains, except for Burial 1, were taken to the Anthropology Department at the University of Washington, and subsequently transferred to the Burke Museum (Accn. 1955-74). Many of the individuals were subsequently transferred to other museums and/or reburied. The remainder of the individuals were subsequently transferred to other museums and/or reburied. In 2004, Central Washington University identified a minimum of three individuals from 45-OK-66 in their collection. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Site 45-OK-52 was a housepit village found along the shore of the Columbia River just upstream of the mouth of the Okanogan River on Cassimer Bar. Site 45-OK-66 is a cemetery, which paralleled the Columbia River, upstream from the mouth of the Okanogan River. Archeological evidence indicates that the burials found at sites 45-OK-52 and 45-OK-66 date to the prehistoric and historic period. The most common method of interment was tightly flexed in a supine position beneath a cedar cist and a rock cairn. This pattern is consistent in all details, except the cist, with the ethnohistorically reported mortuary practices of the Sinkaietk people of the southern Okanogan River. Descendants of the Sinkaietk are members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington. The geographical location of the burials are consistent with the prehistoric and historic territory of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington. Consultation evidence provided by representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington indicates that Okanogan County is part of the traditional and historically known occupation territory of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington. Officials of Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County also determined that, 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 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Lourdes Henebry-DeLeon, NAGPRA Program Director, Department of Anthropology and Museum, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926-7544, telephone
(509)963-2671 before March 9, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington this notice has been published. Dated: December 21, 2006. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E7-1966 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: Springfield Science Museum, Springfield, MA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Springfield Science Museum, Springfield, MA. The human remains were removed from Mississippi County, AR. 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 Springfield Science Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma. At an unknown date, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed by an unknown individual from the Central Mississippi River Valley of Arkansas. The human remains were donated to the museum by an unknown individual at an unknown date. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present. At an unknown date, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from Nodena Mound (3MS3 or 3MS4), Mississippi County, AR, by an unknown individual. In the 1960s, the human remains were donated to the museum by Herman Elston. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Based on the skeletal and dental morphology, the human remains have been identified as Native American. The Quapaw Tribe, prior to European contact and in the Historic period, resided along both sides of the Mississippi River until an epidemic swept through their villages in the latter part of the 17th century. The Quapaw consolidated their villages on the western side of the Mississippi River near the confluence of the White and Arkansas Rivers. The Quapaw maintained a presence in the Central Mississippi Valley until the tribe's removal to northwest Louisiana in 1824 when all of their land in the Territory of Arkansas was ceded to the United States. Present-day descendants of the Quapaw people are members of the Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma. Officials of the Springfield Science Museum have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S. C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Springfield Science Museum also have determined that, 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 Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact David Stier, Director, Springfield Science Museum, 220 State Street, Springfield, MA 01103,
(413)263-6800, ext. 321, before March 9, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains to the Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Springfield Science Museum is responsible for notifying the Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma that this notice has been published. Dated: December 28, 2006. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E7-1949 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Intent to Repatriate Cultural Items: Springfield Science Museum, Springfield, MA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items in the possession of the Springfield Science Museum, Springfield, MA, that meet the definition of “unassociated funerary objects” under 25 U.S.C. 3001. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibilities of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control over the cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. The 111 cultural items are unassociated funerary objects removed from multiple sites in Arkansas, Crittendon, Cross, Jefferson, Lee, Lincoln, Mississippi, Phillips, Poinsett, and St. Francis Counties, AR, by C.B. Moore. Mr. Moore donated the cultural items to the Springfield Science Museum in 1908, 1910, 1911, and 1912. At an unknown date, 18 cultural items were removed from Menard Mound (Arkansas site number 3AR4), Arkansas County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The 18 unassociated funerary objects are 1 pottery disk, 2 bird head pottery handles, 2 copper beads, 3 Mississippian Plain bottles, 1 Old Town bottle, 2 Carson Red on Buff bowls, 2 Mississippian Plain jars, 4 Mississippian Plain bowls, and 1 clay figurine with face. At an unknown date, two cultural items were removed from Old River Landing, (Arkansas site number 3AR14), Arkansas County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The two unassociated funerary objects are one small Mississippian Plain dish and one Nodena Red and White bottle. At an unknown date, one cultural item was removed from near Sawyer's Landing, Arkansas County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The one unassociated funerary object is a Mississippian Plain frog effigy bowl. At an unknown date, one cultural item was removed from Bradley Place (Arkansas site number 3CT7), Crittenden County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The one unassociated funerary object is a Bell Plain effigy jar. At an unknown date, four cultural items were removed from a mound in Crittenden County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The four unassociated funerary objects are pottery disks with drilled holes. At an unknown date, three cultural items were removed from a cemetery at Jones Place (Arkansas site number 3CS25), Cross County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The three unassociated funerary objects are one Bell Plain jar/bottle, one Mississippian Plain bowl, and one Bell Plain pedestal bottle. At an unknown date, one cultural item was removed from a cemetery at Parkin (Arkansas site number 3CS29), Cross County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The one unassociated funerary object is a Bell Plain bottle. At an unknown date, four cultural items were removed from a cemetery at Neely's Ferry (Arkansas site number 3CS24), Cross County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The four unassociated funerary objects are one Mississippian Plain pedestal bottle, one Mississippian Plain bottle, and two Parkin Punctated jars. At an unknown date, 16 cultural items were removed from Rose Mound (Arkansas site number 3CS27), Cross County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The 16 unassociated funerary objects are 2 Old Town red bottles, 1 small decorated bowl, 3 Bell Plain bottles, 2 Mississippian Plain bottles, 1 Bell Plain jar, 1 Bell Plain short bottle, 1 Mississippian Plain effigy jar, 1 Bell Plain fish effigy bottle, 1 Old Town red bowl, 1 Bell Plain tripod bottle, and 2 Mississippian Plain bowls. At an unknown date, two cultural items were removed from Turkey Island (Arkansas site number 3CS78), Cross County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The two unassociated funerary objects are one Bell Plain effigy bowl and one wide-mouth pedestal bottle. At an unknown date, three cultural items were removed from a mound near Turkey Island, Cross County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The three unassociated funerary objects are one sample of red ochre and two worked shells. At an unknown date, 18 cultural items were removed from the Greer site (Arkansas site number 3JE50), Jefferson County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The 18 unassociated funerary objects are 5 Wallace Incised bowls, 5 Mississippian Plain bowls, 5 Wallace Incised bottles, 2 Mississippian Plain bottles, and 1 Old Town red effigy bottle. At an unknown date, two cultural items were removed from a cemetery at Forest Place, Lee County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The two unassociated funerary objects are one Mississippian Plain teapot and one Mississippian Plain bottle. At an unknown date, one cultural item was removed from Kent Place (Arkansas site number 3LE8), Lee County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The one unassociated funerary object is an Old Town red bottle. At an unknown date, 11 cultural items were removed from a mound near Douglas (Arkansas site number 3LI19), Lincoln County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The 11 unassociated funerary objects are 1 Mississippian Plain bottle, 1 Mississippian Plain crucible, 1 Nodena Red and White bottle, and 8 shell beads. At an unknown date, one cultural item was removed from a mound in Mississippi County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The one unassociated funerary object is a pottery disk. At an unknown date, 13 cultural items were removed from Pecan Point (Arkansas site number 3MS78), Mississippi County, AR, by C. B. Moore. The 13 unassociated funerary objects are 6 pottery disks with drilled holes, 1 Bell Plain effigy bowl, 1 small Bell Plain jar, 1 wide mouth Bell Plain bottle, 1 Bell Plain bottle, 1 Carson Red on Buff bottle, and 2 Bell Plain pedestal bottles. At an unknown date, one cultural item was removed from Avenue (Arkansas site number 3PH3), Phillips County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The one unassociated funerary object is a Nodena Red and White bottle. At an unknown date, three cultural items were removed from a cemetery at Cummings Place, also known as Cummins Place (Arkansas site number 3PO5), Poinsett County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The three unassociated funerary objects are two Bell Plain bottles and one Mississippian Plain bottle. At an unknown date, two cultural items were removed from Miller Mound (Arkansas site number 3PO24), Poinsett County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The two unassociated funerary objects are one Bell Plain pedestal bottle and one Bell Plain jar. At an unknown date, four cultural items were removed from Castile Place (Arkansas site number 3SF12), St. Francis County, AR, by C.B. Moore. The four unassociated funerary objects are one Mississippian Plain bowl, two Mississippian Plain bottles, and one Parkin Punctated jar. The Quapaw Tribe, prior to European contact and during the Historic period, resided along both sides of the Mississippi River until an epidemic swept through their villages in the latter part of the 17th century. The Quapaw consolidated their villages on the western side of the Mississippi River near the confluence of the White and Arkansas Rivers. The Quapaw maintained a presence in the Central Mississippi Valley until the tribe's removal to northwest Louisiana in 1824 when all of their land in the Territory of Arkansas was ceded to the United States. European documentation concerning the geographical range of the Quapaw supports their presence in Arkansas, including the 10 counties listed above. Present-day descendants of the Quapaw people are members of the Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma. Officials of the Springfield Science Museum have determined that, pursuant to U.S.C. 3001 (3)(B), the 111 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual. Officials of the Springfield Science Museum also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the unassociated funerary objects should contact David Stier, Director, Springfield Science Museum, 220 State Street, Springfield, MA 01103,
(413)263-6800, ext. 321, before March 9, 2007. Repatriation of the unassociated funerary objects to the Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Springfield Science Museum is responsible for notifying the Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma that this notice has been published. Dated: December 28, 2006. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E7-1969 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Inventory Completion: Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum (Burke Museum), University of Washington, Seattle, WA. The human remains were removed from Walla Walla County, WA. 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 Burke Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; and Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group. In 1910, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from an island at Burbank on the Columbia River below Pasco, Walla Walla County, WA, by Mr. Herbert J. Mohr. In 1966, the human remains were received from Mr. Mohr and accessioned by the Burke Museum (Burke Accn. #1966-24). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains have been identified as Native American based on osteological analysis of the cranium, as well as geographic information. The specific burial context of this individual is unknown, however, the human remains were found on an island on the Columbia River, which is consistent with ethnographic burial practices documented among the Palouse, Walla Walla, Wanapum, and Yakama. Burbank is on the southeast bank of the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers in Walla Walla County, WA. This area is located within the overlapping aboriginal territory of the Nez Perce, Palouse, Walla Walla, Wanapum, and Yakama. According to Indian Land Areas Judicially Established by the Indian Court of Claims in 1978 (Index #96), as well as early and late ethnographic documentation, this area is within the aboriginal territory of the Walla Walla. Furthermore, early ethnographic evidence indicates that the Palouse, Wanapum, and Yakama also occupied this area. Descendants of the Palouse, Walla Walla, Wanapum, and Yakama are members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; and Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group. Officials of the Burke Museum have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains listed above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Burke Museum also have determined that, 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 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; and Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho. Furthermore, officials of the Burke Museum have determined there is a cultural relationship between the human remains and the Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Dr. Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195-3010, telephone
(206)685-2282, before March 9, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon; Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; and Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington on behalf of themselves and the Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group, may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The Burke Museum is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; and Wanapum Band, a non-federally recognized Indian group, that this notice has been published. Dated: January 10, 2007. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E7-1967 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Intent to Repatriate a Cultural Item: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison, WI AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate a cultural item in the possession of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (also known as the Wisconsin Historical Society), 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 cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. The one cultural item is a war bundle and its contents. This war bundle was purchased from Little Winneshiek, a member of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, by Albert Green Heath on an unknown date. In 1955, the Logan Museum of Anthropology, Beloit College, Beloit, WI, purchased the Albert Green Heath Collection from Mr. Heath's heirs. The State Historical Society of Wisconsin purchased a portion of the Heath Collection, including Little Winneshiek's war bundle (SHSW #1956.8352, Heath #1532), from the Logan Museum in March of 1956. During consultation, the Traditional Court of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin identified Mr. Clayton Winneshiek and Mr. William Winneshiek as the lineal descendants of Little Winneshiek, the last known keeper of the bundle. The Traditional Court further indicated that both Mr. Clayton Winneshiek and Mr. William Winneshiek are both members of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and practitioners of the clan bundle feast. The war bundle will be used by present-day practitioners of the clan bundle feast of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin. Officials of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin 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. Officials of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin also have determined that, 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 Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the sacred object should contact Jennifer Kolb, Deputy Director, Museum Division, Wisconsin Historical Society, 30 North Carroll Street, Madison, WI 53703, telephone
(608)261-2461, before March 9, 2007. Repatriation of the sacred object to the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward. The State Historical Society of Wisconsin is responsible for notifying the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, Mr. Clayton Winneshiek, and Mr. William Winneshiek that this notice has been published. Dated: December 21, 2006. Sherry Hutt, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. E7-1962 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-50-S DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Correction on Comment Request Deadline January 31, 2007. The Department of Labor
(DOL)submitted the following public information collection request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling Ira Mills on 202-693-4122 (this is not a toll-free number) or E-Mail: *Mills.Ira@dol.gov,* or by accessing *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.* Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Labor/Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll free number), within 30 days from January 30, 2007, the date this Notice was first published in the **Federal Register** . The deadline for comments was erroneously stated to be 45 days from the date of publication; the deadline is actually, as stated above, 30 days from the publication date of January 30, 2007. The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • 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; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Employment and Training Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Workforce Investment Act: National Emergency Grant
(NEG)Assistance—Application and Reporting Procedures. *OMB Number:* 1205-0439. *Frequency:* Quarterly. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Government. *Type of Response:* Reporting. *Number of Respondents:* 150. *Annual Responses:* 1,565. *Average Response Time:* 42 minutes. *Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,096. *Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs:* 0. *Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* 0. *Description:* These application and reporting procedures for states and local entities enable them to access funds for National Emergency Grant
(NEG)programs. NEGs are discretionary grants intended to complement the resources and service capacity at the state and local area levels by providing supplementary funding for workforce development and employment services and other adjustment assistance for dislocated workers and other eligible individuals as defined in sections 101, 134 and 173 of WIA: sections 113, 114, and 203 of the Trade Act of 2002 and 20 CFR 671.140. Ira L. Mills, Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-1901 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request February 2, 2007. The Department of Labor
(DOL)has submitted the following public information collection request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained at * http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PRAMain, * or contact Ira Mills on 202-693-4122 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail: *Mills.Ira@dol.gov.* Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Labor/Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • 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; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Employment and Training Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Job Corps Application Data. *OMB Number:* 1205-0025. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; and State, Local, or Tribal Government. *Type of Response:* Recordkeeping and Reporting. *Number of Respondents:* 87,943. *Annual Responses:* 92,159. *Average Response Time:* 11 minutes. *Total Annual Burden Hours:* 16,158. *Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs:* 0. *Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* 0. *Description:* ETA 652, 655, and 682 are used to obtain information for screening and enrollment purposes to determine eligibility for the Job Corps program in accordance with the requirements of the Workforce Investment Act. They concern questions of economic criteria, past behavior problems and to certify an applicant's arrangements for the care of a dependent child(ren) while the applicant is in Job Corps. Ira L. Mills, Departmental Clearance Officer/Team Leader. [FR Doc. E7-2012 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,841] Eagle Picher, Hillsdale Automotive, Traverse City, MI; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 26, 2007 in response to a worker petition filed by the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Region 1D and Local Union 3032 on behalf of workers at Eagle Picher, Hillsdale Automotive, Traverse City, Michigan. The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition (TA-W-60,821) filed on January 19, 2006 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Further investigation in this case would duplicate efforts and serve no purpose; therefore the investigation under this petition has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 26th day of January, 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1961 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,526; TA-W-60,526A] Hardwick Knitted Fabrics, Inc., West Warren, Massachusetts and Hardwick Knitted Fabrics, Inc., New York, NY; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on December 12, 2006, applicable to workers of Hardwick Knitted Fabrics, Inc., West Warren, Massachusetts. The group was certified based on the determination that the workers' firm was a supplier to a primary firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on December 27, 2006 (71 FR 77800-77802). The Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers of the firm located at Hardwick's West Warren, Massachusetts facility produced circular knit fabric. Hardwick Knitted Fabrics, Inc. also had a sales office in New York, New York, but no affiliates or subsidiaries. The New York, New York, sales office has closed and all employees have been separated from employment. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Hardwick Knitted Fabrics, Inc. who were secondarily affected by Hardwick's loss of business with a primary firm. Based on newly acquired information regarding separations at Hardwick's New York sales office, the Department is amending the certification to extend eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance and alternative trade adjustment assistance to the workers of Hardwick Knitted Fabrics, Inc., New York, New York, along with the firm's workers in West Warren, Massachusetts. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,526 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Hardwick Knitted Fabrics, West Warren, Massachusetts (TA-W-60,526), and Hardwick Knitted Fabrics, Inc., New York, New York (TA-W-60,526A), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after November 30, 2005 through December 12, 2008, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act. Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of January 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1958 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,832] Lear Corporation, Madisonville, KY; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 25, 2007 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of Lear Corporation, Madisonville, Kentucky. This petition is a photocopy of the petition filed on January 16, 2007, that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued (TA-W-60,764). Since this petition was initiated in error, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 29th day of January 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1960 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,739] Mega Brands, Rose Art Industries, LLC, Wood-Ridge, NJ; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 11, 2006, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Mega Brands, Rose Art Industries, Wood-Ridge, New Jersey. This worker group is covered by an existing certification. Workers of Rose Art Industries, LLC, which is a subsidiary of Mega Brands, Wood-Ridge, New Jersey, were certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance on January 29, 2007, under petition number TA-W-60,319. Consequently, further investigation would serve no purpose and the investigation is terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of January 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance [FR Doc. E7-1959 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA)by (TA-W) number issued during the period of January 15 through January 19, 2007. In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A), all of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B), both of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1)Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2)The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3)Either—
(A)The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B)A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. 1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. 2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable. 3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry ( *i.e.* , conditions within the industry are adverse). Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-60,305; Steven Labels, Inc., Main Plant, Santa Fe Springs, CA: October 16, 2005.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-60,449; Cambridge Lee Industries, LLC, Plant #2 and Plant #3 and Workers of Gage Personnal, Reading, PA: November 9, 2005.* *TA-W-60,449A; Cambridge Lee Industries, LLC, Corporate Office, Reading, PA: November 9, 2005.* *TA-W-60,644; ISM Fastening Systems, Butler, PA: May 6, 2006.* *TA-W-60,658; Victor Mill, Inc., Greenville, SC: December 14, 2005.* *TA-W-60,748; Eljer, Inc., Ford City, PA: October 5, 2006.* *TA-W-60,407; J.L. French Automotive Castings, Inc., Benton Harbor, MI: November 7, 2005.* *TA-W-60,568; Fiberweb, Inc., Bethune, SC: December 8, 2005.* *TA-W-60,633; Alexvale Furniture Co., Plant Offices, Taylorsville, NC: December 15, 2005.* *TA-W-60,648; Potlatch Forest Products Corp., Prescott, AR: December 19, 2005.* *TA-W-60,652; Celestica, Fulfillment Services Division, Charlotte, NC: December 19, 2005.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-60,598; Checkpoint Caribbean Limited, Ponce, PR: December 13, 2005.* *TA-W-60,603; Wetherill Associates, Inc., Royersford, PA: December 7, 2005.* *TA-W-60,619; Alcan Packaging, Inc., Lincoln Park, NJ: December 1, 2005.* *TA-W-60,628; Quadra Fab Corporation, Plattsburgh, NY: December 15, 2005.* *TA-W-60,646; Hollister, Inc., Kirksville Manufacturing Facility, Kirksville, MO: February 12, 2006.* *TA-W-60,686: Simonds Industries, Inc., File Division, Newcomerstown, OH: December 28, 2005.* *TA-W-60,688; Lego Systems, Inc., On-Site Workers From Staff Management, Enfield, CT: January 2, 2006.* *TA-W-60,735; Waterloo Industries, Inc., Pocahontas, AR: January 9, 2006.* *TA-W-60,583; Pulaski Furniture Corporation, Plant 1, Pulaski, VA: December 12, 2005.* *TA-W-60,583A; Pulaski Furniture Corporation, Administration Office, Pulaski, VA: December 12, 2005.* *TA-W-60,671; Dura Automotive Systems, Inc., Atwood Mobile Products, West Union, IA: December 21, 2005.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-60,582; Harodite Industries, Inc., Southern Division, Travelers Rest, SC: December 11, 2005.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-60,476; Ultraflex, Division of Hickory Springs Mfg., High Point, NC: November 22, 2005.* Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. The Department has determined that criterion
(1)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm are 50 years of age or older. *None.* The Department has determined that criterion
(2)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. *TA-W-60,305: Steven Labels, Inc., Main Plant, Santa Fe Springs, CA.* The Department has determined that criterion
(3)of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. *None.* Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified. Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met. *TA-W-60,618; Lockheed Martin MS2, Surface Systems Division, Moorestown, NJ.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-60,624; R and A Tool and Engineering, Westland, MI.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-60,305A; Steven Labels, Inc., Membrane Plant, Santa Fe Springs, CA.* *TA-W-60,305B; Steven Labels, Inc., Roll Label Plant, Santa Fe Springs, CA.* *TA-W-60,499; Eaton Corporation, Engine Air Management Operations, Belmond, IA.* *TA-W-60,683; Chesmore Seed Company, St. Joseph, MO.* The investigation revealed that the predominate cause of worker separations is unrelated to criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.C) (shift in production to a foreign country under a free trade agreement or a beneficiary country under a preferential trade agreement, or there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports). *None.* The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. *TA-W-60,488; Tellabs, Inc., Customer Distribution Center, Petaluma, CA.* *TA-W-60,698; Commonwealth Sprague Capacitor, Inc., North Adams, MA.* *TA-W-60,447; Honeywell International, Inc., Aerospace Information Technology Function, Phoenix, AZ.* The investigation revealed that criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA. *None.* I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of January 15 through January 19, 2007. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address. Dated: January 26, 2007. Ralph Dibattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1953 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-55,495] Tesco Technologies, LLC, Headquarters Office, Auburn Hills, MI; Notice of Revised Determination on Second Remand On November 9, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) remanded *Former Employees of Tesco Technologies, LLC* v. *United States* (Court No. 05-00264) to the Department of Labor (Department) for further investigation. In the August 19, 2004, Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)petition, three workers identified Tesco Engineering as the subject company and the article produced as “designs for tooling and production lines for General Motors automotive assembly plants.” The petitioners alleged that Tesco Engineering was shifting production to a foreign country. During the investigation, it was revealed that Tesco Engineering manufactured equipment, while workers at Tesco Technologies, LLC (“Tesco Technologies”), a subsidiary of Tesco Engineering, created mechanical designs used to build equipment for automotive part production. Since the petitioners created designs and did not produce equipment, the Department identified Tesco Technologies as the proper subject company. Because the Department considered design creation not to be production, the Department concluded that the designers of Tesco Technologies could be certified only if they supported an affiliated, TAA-certifiable, domestic, production facility. Although Tesco Technologies' designs accounted for an insignificant portion of the equipment produced at Tesco Engineering, the Department nonetheless fully investigated whether, during the relevant period, there were increased imports of production/assembly equipment or a shift of production from Tesco Engineering to an overseas facility. The expanded investigation revealed that Tesco Engineering neither shifted production to a foreign country nor imported any equipment during the relevant period. Further, a survey of Tesco Engineering's major declining customers revealed that, during the relevant period, no customer increased its import purchases while decreasing its purchases from the subject firm. On September 27, 2004, the Department issued a denial regarding workers' eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA for workers of Tesco Technologies, LLC, Headquarters Office, Auburn Hills, Michigan. The determination was based on the findings that there was neither an increase in imports of equipment by Tesco Engineering or its major declining customers, nor a shift of production overseas by Tesco Engineering. The Department published the Notice of determination in the **Federal Register** on October 26, 2004 (69 FR 62460). By application dated October 22, 2004, the petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's determination. On December 7, 2004, the Department issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration due to factual discrepancies identified during the review of the request and of previously-submitted documents. The Department's Notice was published in the **Federal Register** on December 20, 2004 (69 FR 76017). In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner identified the subject company as “Tesco Technologies, LLC, Auburn Hills, Michigan” and asserted that “we the petitioners are connected to General Motors tooling only,” reiterated that designs are a product, and inferred that designers are de facto production workers producing automobile parts for General Motors. The petitioner also implied that the subject company's major customer, General Motors, had outsourced work to India. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department contacted a Tesco Technologies official, the General Motors officials identified by the petitioner, and the General Motors official who supervised the design contract at issue. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed that the petitioners used application software to develop tooling designs which were used to build equipment for the production of automobile parts for General Motors; the designs are developed at Tesco Technologies, Auburn Hills, Michigan and sent to the customer via electronic means (such as the Internet) and tangible means (such as CD-ROM); and General Motors did not outsource work overseas but awarded the work to another domestic company and moved some design work in-house. On January 11, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration which stated there was neither a shift of production abroad by Tesco Technologies nor any outsourcing of design work overseas by General Motors. The Department's Notice was published in the **Federal Register** on January 21, 2005 (70 FR 3228). By letter dated February 8, 2005, the petitioners appealed to the USCIT for judicial review. On May 25, 2005, the USCIT granted the Department's motion for voluntary remand to clarify the Department's basis for the negative determination on reconsideration and to request additional information in the Department's efforts to clarify the reasons for the previous determinations. In the request for judicial review, the petitioners alleged that engineers were brought in from India to train at Tesco Technologies; later, the engineers were sent back to India to a General Motors facility; and “work is sent over to India via satellite in the evening and sent back for check and inspection in the morning” (implying that designs were being imported). In order for the Plaintiffs to be certified for TAA based on a shift of production, it must be shown that there was:
(1)A significant portion or number of workers at the subject company separated or threatened with separation during the relevant period; and
(2)either—(a) A shift in production of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject worker group to a country that is party to a free trade agreement with the United States, or a country that is named as a beneficiary under the Andean Trade Preference Act, the African Growth and Opportunity Act or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, or
(b)a shift of production abroad followed by actual or increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject worker group. Because it was shown that at least five percent of workers at Tesco Technologies were separated during the relevant period, the worker separation criterion was met. Because India is not a country that is party to a free trade agreement with the United States, or a country that is named as a beneficiary under the Andean Trade Preference Act, the African Growth and Opportunity Act or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, the only issue in the first remand investigation was whether, during the relevant period, there was a shift of production abroad of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by Tesco Technologies followed by actual or threatened increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those created at Tesco Technologies. Under the Department's interpretation of “like or directly competitive,” (29 CFR 90.2) “like” articles are those articles which are substantially identical in inherent or intrinsic characteristics and “directly competitive” articles are those articles which are substantially equivalent for commercial purposes (essentially interchangeable and adapted to the same uses), even though the articles may not be substantially identical in their inherent or intrinsic characteristics. During the first remand investigation, the Department determined that because each design created by the workers is “unique,” there could not be any articles which are like or directly competitive with any design produced by Tesco Technologies and, consequently, the shift of production criterion could not be met. The Notice of Negative Determination on Remand applicable to the subject workers was issued on July 25, 2005 and the Notice of determination was published in the **Federal Register** on August 5, 2005 (70 FR 45438). In its November 9, 2006 opinion, the USCIT remanded the case at hand to the Department for further investigation. Since the Notice of Negative Determination on Remand applicable to the subject firm was issued, the Department has clarified its policy to acknowledge that, under certain circumstances, there may be articles which are like or directly competitive to a “unique” article. Reviewing the relevant facts with the foregoing in mind, the Department has determined that, during the relevant period, a significant portion of workers was separated from the subject facility, design production shifted abroad, and the subject firm increased its imports of designs following the shift. In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA for older workers. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246 of the Trade Act must be met. The Department has determined in the case at hand that the requirements of Section 246 have been met. A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the facts generated through the second remand investigation, I determine that a shift in production abroad of articles like or directly competitive to that produced at the subject facilities followed by increased imports of such articles contributed to the total or partial separation of a significant number or proportion of workers at the subject facility. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Tesco Technologies, LLC, Headquarters Office, Auburn Hills, Michigan, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 19, 2003, through two years from the issuance of this revised determination, are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Signed at Washington, DC this 26th day of January 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1955 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-52,274] Thomson, Inc., Circlesville Glass Operations, Circleville, OH; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)on August 7, 2003, applicable to workers and former workers of Thomson, Inc., Circleville Glass Operations, Circleville, Ohio. The Department's Notice was published in the **Federal Register** on September 2, 2003 (68 FR 52228). The workers were engaged in the production of glass components of picture tubes prior to the subject firm's closure in June 2004. On March 8, 2005, the Department issued a certification of eligibility for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)covering workers of the subject firm separated from employment on or after June 27, 2002 through August 7, 2005. The Department's Notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16851). Even though production activity ceased in June 2004, the State of Ohio required the subject firm to submit within ninety days a cessation of operations plan and to undertake an 18-month process for the identification and remediation of any hazards left over from the manufacturing process. At the time of the shutdown, the subject firm retained fifteen employees (“shutdown workers”) solely for purposes of the shutdown process. The shutdown workers subsequently petitioned for TAA/ATAA benefits (TA-W-59,118), referring to TA-W-52,274 for support. The Department determined in TA-W-59,118 that the shutdown workers were ineligible for benefits because there was no production at the subject facility during the relevant period. The petitioners appealed the Department's negative determination to the U.S. Court of International Trade (Court No. 06-00266). The Department subsequently obtained a voluntary remand for the purpose of further review and a redetermination of the workers' eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance. During the ensuing remand process for TA-W-59,118, the Department determined that there was a causal nexus between the subject firm's shutdown of operations and the shutdown workers' separations and that, therefore, the separations of the workers through December 31, 2006 are attributable to the conditions specified in section 222 of the Trade Act. The Department has further determined that, given the particular facts presented, it is appropriate to amend the certification of the immediate petition to include those workers involved in cessation of operations activities who were separated after August 7, 2005. The Department's decision in this case is limited to the precise circumstances of this specific case and should not be considered as any indication of how the Department would proceed in other cases or in any subsequent rulemaking on this subject. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-52,274 is hereby issued as follows: “All workers of Thomson, Inc., Circleville Glass Operations, Circleville, Ohio (TA-W-52,274), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 27, 2002 through December 31, 2006, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act.” Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of January 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1954 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,118] Thomson, Inc., Circleville, OH; Notice of Termination of Investigation On October 27, 2006, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's consent motion for voluntary remand in *Former Employees of Thomson, Inc.* v. *United States* , Court No. 06-0266. On March 24, 2006, three workers filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)on behalf of workers and former workers of Thomson, Inc., Circleville, Ohio. The petition stated that the subject workers' task was “decommission facility,” that the facility closed on June 25, 2004, that the subject facility was previously certified (TA-W-52,274; expired), and that the “remaining employees should be considered for benefits.” On May 10, 2006, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a negative determination regarding the subject worker group's eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA, stating that the workers do not produce an article within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the **Federal Register** on May 24, 2006 (71 FR 29984). In a letter dated May 24, 2006, three workers requested administrative reconsideration by the Department. The workers implied that because the petitioning worker group is part of the group certified under TA-W-52,274 and remained working at the subject facility after production ceased and beyond the certification period for TA-W-52,274 (August 7, 2005), they should be considered eligible to apply for TAA and ATAA. By letter dated June 19, 2006, the Department dismissed the workers' request for reconsideration. The Department's Notice of dismissal was issued in June 20, 2006 and published in the **Federal Register** on July 6, 2006 (71 FR 38425). In a letter dated August 1, 2006, the workers requested judicial review. In the complaint, the workers stated that the subject firm ceased operations in April 2004, that they were employed past April 2004 to “perform mandated requirements under the Cessation of Regulations Operations,” and “our jobs were lost to foreign competition the same as the other employees of Thomson, Inc. in Circleville, Ohio.” In response to the complaint, the Department filed an administrative record. The Department subsequently moved for a voluntary remand, so that the Department could conduct a further review and make a redetermination of eligibility. On October 27, 2006, the Department's motion was granted. During the initial investigation for this petition, the Department was informed by a company official that the subject workers were employed in order for the company to satisfy a State-mandated plant closure process. This process required the company to submit a “Cessation of Regulated Operations”
(CRO)plan that addressed the removal of all hazardous materials. The State-approved CRO plan required an 18-month implementation schedule. The subject facility ceased production in April 2004 and entered the CRO phase in June 2004. After careful review during the remand investigation, the Department determines that the workers who continued their employment with the subject firm to execute the CRO plan and complete shutdown functions are part of the worker group covered by TA-W-52,274. The Department's determination is based on the causal nexus between the subject facility's closure and the workers' separations. On March 8, 2005, the Department issued a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA under petition TA-W-52,274. The Department's Notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16851). On January 25, 2007, the Department amended the TAA/ATAA certification of TA-W-52,274 to cover workers of the subject firm separated from employment on or after June 27, 2002 through December 31, 2006. Since the subject workers are covered by TA-W-52-274, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose and the investigation has been terminated. Conclusion After careful review of the findings of the remand investigation, I am terminating the investigation of the petition for worker adjustment assistance filed on behalf of workers and former workers of Thomson, Inc., Circleville, Ohio. Signed at Washington, DC this 25th day of January 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1957 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,623L; TA-W-58,623EE; TA-W-58,623FF] Westpoint Home, Inc., Formerly Westpoint Stevens, Inc., Sales and Marketing Office, New York, NY; Including Employees of Westpoint Home, Inc., Formerly Westpoint Stevens, Inc., Sales and Marketing Office, New York, NY Employees Working at the Following Locations: Malvern, PA, Santa Fe Springs, CA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on February 21, 2006, applicable to workers of WestPoint Home, Inc., formerly WestPoint Stevens, Inc., Sales and Marketing Office, New York, New York. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14549). At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that worker separations have occurred involving employees of the Sales and Marketing Office, New York, New York of WestPoint Home, Inc., formerly WestPoint Stevens, Inc. located in Malvern, Pennsylvania and Santa Fe Springs, California. Mr. Jim Connolly and Ms. Janice Antista provided support services for the manufacture of comforters, sheets, pillowcases, towels and blankets produced by WestPoint Home, Inc., formerly WestPoint Stevens, Inc. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include employees of the Sales and Marketing Office New York, New York facility of WestPoint Home, Inc., formerly WestPoint Stevens, Inc. located in Malvern, Pennsylvania and Santa Fe Springs, California. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of WestPoint Home, Inc., formerly WestPoint Stevens, Inc., Sales and Marketing Office, New York, New York who were adversely affected by increased company and customer imports. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-58,623L is hereby issued as follows: All workers of WestPoint Home, Inc., formerly WestPoint Stevens, Inc., Sales and Marketing Office, New York, New York (TA-W-58,623L), including employees reporting to this office but working in Malvern, Pennsylvania (TA-W-58,623EE) and Santa Fe Springs, California (TA-W-58,623FF), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 12, 2005, through February 21, 2008, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC this 31st day of January 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-1956 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bureau of Labor Statistics Proposed Collection, Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS)is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the “Report on Occupational Employment and Wages.” A copy of the proposed information collection request
(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the Addresses section of this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice on or before April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Amy A. Hobby, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Washington, DC 20212, 202-691-7628. (This is not a toll free number.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy A. Hobby, BLS Clearance Officer, 202-691-7628. (See ADDRESSES section.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES)survey is a Federal/State establishment survey of wage and salary workers designed to produce data on current occupational employment and wages. OES survey data assist in the development of employment and training programs established by the 1998 Workforce Investment Act (WIA), and the Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1998. The OES program operates a periodic mail survey of a sample of non-farm establishments conducted by all fifty States, Guam, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. Over three-year periods, data on occupational employment and wages are collected by industry at the four- and five-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) levels. The Department of Labor uses OES data in the administration of the Foreign Labor Certification process under the Immigration Act of 1990. II. Current Action Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES)program. Occupational employment data obtained by the OES survey are used to develop information regarding current and projected employment needs and job opportunities. These data assist in the development of State vocational education plans. OES wage data provide a significant source of information to support a number of different Federal, State, and local efforts. After being rigorously tested in six volunteer States, email collection has been implemented successfully in all fifty States. Currently, six percent of establishments submit data by email. These six percent of establishments account for twenty six percent of collected employment for the November 2005 panel. III. Desired Focus of Comments The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that: • 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. • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • 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. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Agency:* Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Title:* Report on Occupational Employment and Wages. *OMB Number:* 1220-0042. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, Federal Government, State, Local, or Tribal Government. *Total Respondents:* 315,900. *Frequency:* Semi-annually. *Total Responses:* 315,900. *Average Time Per Response:* 45 minutes. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 236,925. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $00.00. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $00.00. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record. Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of February, 2007. Cathy Kazanowski, Chief, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics. [FR Doc. E7-1984 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Meeting of National Council on the Humanities AGENCY: The National Endowment for the Humanities, NFAH. ACTION: Notice of meeting. Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public L. 92-463, as amended) notice is hereby given that the National Council on the Humanities will meet in Washington, DC on February 22-23, 2007. The purpose of the meeting is to advise the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities with respect to policies, programs, and procedures for carrying out his functions, and to review applications for financial support from and gifts offered to the Endowment and to make recommendations thereon to the Chairman. The meeting will be held in the Old Post Office Building, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. A portion of the morning and afternoon sessions on February 22-23, 2007, will not be open to the public pursuant to subsections (c)(4), (c)(6) and (c)(9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code because the Council will consider information that may disclose: trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency action. I have made this determination under the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority dated July 19, 1993. The agenda for the sessions on February 22, 2007 will be as follows: Committee Meetings (Open to the Public) Policy Discussion 9 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Education Programs—Room M-07 Federal/State Partnership—Room 510 Preservation and Access—Room 415 Public Programs—Room 420 Research Programs—Room 315 (Closed to the Public) Discussion of Specific Grant Applications and Programs Before the Council 10:30 a.m. until Adjourned Education Programs—Room M-07 Federal/State Partnership—Room 510 Preservation and Access—Room 415 Public Programs—Room 420 Research Programs—Room 315 2 p.m.-4 p.m. Jefferson Lecture—Room 527 The morning session of the meeting on February 23, 2007 will convene at 9 a.m., in the first floor Council Room M-09, and will be open to the public, as set out below. The agenda for the morning session will be as follows: A. Minutes of the Previous Meeting B. Reports 1. Introductory Remarks. 2. Staff Report. 3. Congressional Report. 4. Budget Report. 5. Reports on Policy and General Matters: a. Education Programs, b. Federal/State Partnership, c. Preservation and Access, d. Digital Humanities Initiative, e. Public Programs, f. Research Programs, g. Jefferson Lecture. The remainder of the proposed meeting will be given to the consideration of specific applications and will be closed to the public for the reasons stated above. Further information about this meeting can be obtained from Heather Gottry, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, or by calling
(202)606-8322, TDD
(202)606-8282. Advance notice of any special needs or accommodations is appreciated. Heather C. Gottry, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2004 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of the Availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment AGENCY: National Science Foundation. ACTION: Notice of availability of a draft Environmental Assessment for proposed activities in the Indian Ocean. SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation
(NSF)gives notice of the availability of a draft Environmental Assessment
(EA)for proposed activities in the Indian Ocean. The Division of Ocean Sciences in the Directorate for Geosciences (GEO/OCE) has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment for a low-energy marine seismic survey by the Research Vessel *Roger Revelle* in the northeastern Indian Ocean, in international waters (1600-5100 meters depth) roughly between 5° N and 25° S, along ~90° E during May-August 2007. The draft Environmental Assessment is available for public review for a 30-day period. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft Environmental Assessment are available upon request from; Dr. William Lang, National Science Foundation, Division of Ocean Sciences, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone:
(703)292-7857. The draft is also available on the agency's Web site at *http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/pubs/Scripps_NE_Indian_Ocean_EA.pdf.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), with research funding from the NSF, plans to conduct scientific research at nine sites in international waters on the Ninety East Ridge in the northeastern Indian Ocean for ~55 days during May-August 2007. Research activities will include rock-dredging and magnetic, bathymetric, and seismic surveys. The seismic survey will use a towed array of two generator/injector
(GI)airguns, totaling an air discharge volume of 90 in 3 . The GI guns will be used for ~49 h at each of 5 sites on the Ninety East Ridge in water depths of 1600 to 5100 meters. The results will be used to study the morphology, structure, and tectonics of ridge volcanoes, to infer the magmatic evolution of the ridge, and to survey broad characteristics of subseafloor in order to refine the planning of an Integrated Ocean Drilling Program
(IODP)drilling proposal. SIO has applied for the issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization
(IHA)from the National Marine Fisheries Services
(NMFS)to authorize the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals during the seismic survey. The information in this Environmental Assessment supports the IHA permit application process, provides information on marine species not covered by the IHA, and addresses the requirements of Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions”. Alternatives addressed in this EA consist of a corresponding seismic survey at a different time, along with issuance of an associated IHA; and the no action alternative, with no IHA and no seismic survey. Numerous species of cetaceans and sea turtles occur in the northeastern Indian Ocean. Several of the species are listed as Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), including humpback, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whales. Other species of special concern that could occur in the area include the endangered (under the ESA) leatherback and hawksbill turtles, and the threatened (under the ESA) loggerhead, olive ridley, and green turtles. The potential impacts of the seismic survey would be primarily a result of the operation of small airguns, although a multi-beam sonar and a sub-bottom profiler will also be operated. Impacts may include increased marine noise and resultant avoidance behavior by marine mammals, sea turtles, and fish; and other forms of disturbance. The operations of the project vessel during the study would also cause a minor increase in the amount of vessel traffic. An integral part of the planned survey is a monitoring and mitigation program designed to minimize the impacts of the proposed activities on marine mammals and sea turtles that may be present during the proposed research, and to document the nature and extent of any effects. Injurious impacts to marine mammals and sea turtles have not been proven to occur near airgun arrays; however, the planned monitoring and mitigation measures would minimize the possibility of such effects should they otherwise occur. Protection measures designed to mitigate the potential environmental impacts will include the following: A minimum of one dedicated marine mammal observer maintaining a visual watch during all daytime airgun operations, and two observers for 30 min. before start up. The small size of the airguns, restricting their use to deep (1600-5100 m) water, and ramp-up and shut-down procedures are also inherent mitigation measures. SIO and its contractors are committed to apply those measures in order to minimize disturbance of marine mammals and sea turtles, and also to minimize the risk of injuries or of other environmental impacts. With the planned monitoring and mitigation measures, unavoidable impacts to each of the species of marine mammal that might be encountered are expected to be limited to short-term localized changes in behavior and distribution near the seismic vessel. At most, such effects may be interpreted as falling within the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA)definition of “Level B Harassment” for those species managed by NMFS. No long-term or significant effects are expected on individual marine mammals, or the populations to which they belong, or their habitats. The agency is currently consulting with the NMFS regarding species within their jurisdiction potentially affected by this proposed activity. Copies of the draft EA, titled “Environmental Assessment of Planned Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the Northeast Indian Ocean, May-August 2007,” are available upon request from: Dr. William Lang, National Science Foundation, Division of Ocean Sciences, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone:
(703)292-7857 or at the agency's Web site at: *http://www.nsf.gov/oce/pubs/Scripps NE_Indian_Ocean_EA.pdf.* The NSF invites interested members of the public to provide written comments on this draft EA. Alexander Shor, Program Director, Environmental Operations, Division of Ocean Sciences, National Science Foundation. [FR Doc. 07-532 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 7
6 references not yet in our index
- 36 CFR 60
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 20 CFR 671.140
- 26 USC 2813
- 29 CFR 90.2
- Pub. L. 92-463
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
Cite36 CFR 60
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Cite20 CFR 671.140
Cite26 USC 2813
Cite29 CFR 90.2
Cites 13 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources