Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-12-03 · Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior · Notices

Notices. Notice of Proposed Finding

13,622 words·~62 min read·/register/2007/12/03/07-5901

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4311-AM-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Proposed Finding Against Acknowledgment of the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen (Petitioner #84A) AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Finding. SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h), the Department of the Interior (Department) gives notice that the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (AS-IA) proposes to determine that the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation (JBA, Petitioner #84A), c/o Anthony Rivera, Jr., 31411-A La Matanza Street, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675, is not an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law.
This notice is based on a determination that the petitioner does not satisfy all seven of the criteria set forth in Part 83 of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (25 CFR part 83), specifically criteria 83.7(a), 83.7(b), 83.7(c), and 83.7(e), and therefore, does not meet the requirements for a government-to-government relationship with the United States. DATES: Comments on this proposed finding
(PF)are due on or before June 2, 2008. Publication of this notice of the PF in the **Federal Register** initiates a 180-day comment period during which the petitioner and interested and informed parties may submit arguments and evidence to support or rebut the evidence relied upon in the PF. Interested or informed parties must provide a copy of their comments to the petitioner. The regulations, 25 CFR 83.10(k), provide petitioners a minimum of 60 days to respond to any submissions on the PFs received from interested and informed parties during the comment period. ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for a copy of the summary evaluation of the evidence should be addressed to the Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Attention: Office of Federal Acknowledgment, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 34B-SIB, Washington, DC 20240. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal Acknowledgment,
(202)513-7650. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department publishes this notice in the exercise of authority that the Secretary of the Interior delegated to the AS-IA by 209 DM 8. The JBA petitioner is located in the town of San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, California, approximately 40 miles south of Los Angeles and 20 miles south of the town of Santa Ana. A group known as the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians
(JBM)submitted a letter of intent to petition for Federal Acknowledgment as an Indian tribe to the AS-IA. The Department received the letter of intent on August 17, 1982. The Department designated the JBM as Petitioner #84. The JBM submitted its first documentation that included a narrative entitled “Petition for Federal Recognition of the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians in Compliance with CFR Part 83,” as well as photocopies of documents discussed in the JBM petitioner's narrative. The Department received this material on February 2, 1988. The group claimed to descend from the historical Indian tribe of San Juan Capistrano
(SJC)Mission, formed from residents of a pre-contact network of politically autonomous villages prior to Spanish colonization who spoke a Uto-Aztecan language. The Department conducted an initial technical assistance
(TA)review of the petition and sent an obvious deficiency
(OD)letter dated January 25, 1990, to the JBM. The JBM responded to the first OD letter on September 24, 1993, when it submitted additional materials and requested to be placed on the “Ready, Waiting for Active Consideration” (“Ready”) list. The Department placed JBM on the “Ready” list on September 24, 1993. An election in 1993 resulted in a dispute within the JBM. A group of members led by Sonia Johnston challenged the results of the election and the leadership of the chairman David Belardes. On December 17, 1994, the Johnston-led group held an election and elected Sonia Johnston chairperson. Belardes and Johnston simultaneously claimed to be the chairperson of the JBM. The Department removed the JBM from the “Ready” list on May 19, 1995, pending revision of the JBM membership list, because of the petitioner's stated intent to substantially revise its membership roll, making it not ready for evaluation. Following the submission of the revised membership list, the JBM, in a letter signed by Davis Belardes, requested the Department to place it on the “Ready for Active Consideration” list, and the Department determined that the Belardes-led group was ready for evaluation on February 12, 1996. On February 17, 1996, another group submitted a letter of intent to petition, signed by Sonia Johnston. Both groups claimed to be the legitimate successor of the JBM, both claimed the JBM petition narrative and research materials, and both used similar names (the Johnston-led group used the name “The Juaneño Band of Mission Indians,” while the Belardes-led group used “The Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation”). The Department designated the Belardes-led group Petitioner #84A (JBA), and the Johnston-led group Petitioner #84B (JBB). The Department placed the JBB petitioner on the “Ready” list on May 23, 1996. Another election within the JBA on April 19, 1997, resulted in the election of Jean Frietze as chairperson. David Belardes, however, disputed the election results. Both Jean Frietze and David Belardes claimed to be the legitimate leader of the JBA. On September 22, 1997, David Belardes requested “interested party” status if Jean Frietze were to form a “new” group. At the same time, he requested “interested party” status to the JBB petitioner. Neither the Belardes-led group nor the Frietz-led group submitted a separate letter of intent to petition. The Department determined that the disagreement over leadership was an internal issue. The Department takes no part in the internal disputes of petitioning groups. In 1998, 1999, and 2000, the JBA submitted additional documents including ones related to the disputed April 19, 1997, election and subsequent formation of a separate Belardes-led group. The JBA petitioner under the new leadership of Anthony Rivera, Jr., submitted new materials to OFA in April 2005, including a summary of documents the petitioner claimed supported its petition, as well as a new membership roll. In a letter dated July 19, 2005, the JBB requested that the AS-IA waive the regulations so that the JBA and the JBB could be considered simultaneously. On August 5, 2005, the Department responded that it would consider this request. OFA also conducted an informal TA meeting with JBA on August 29, 2005, in Washington, DC, and requested additional documentation. The Department waived the priority provisions of the regulations at 25 CFR 83.10(d) in order to consider the petition of JBA at the same time as the petition of JBB. Both petitioners went on “Active Consideration” on September 30, 2005. However, David Belardes still claimed to be the leader of Petitioner #84A. The Department assigned the Belardes-led group (JBMI-IP) “interested party” status when the JBA and JBB went on “Active Consideration” status on September 30, 2005. This action was consistent with Belardes' previous request for interested party status for both the JBA and the JBB. The Department received comments from other parties after the submission deadline. Consistent with the **Federal Register** notice of March 31, 2005 (70 FR 16513), the Department will consider these comments for the final determination (FD). The acknowledgment process is based on the regulations at 25 CFR part 83. Under these regulations, the petitioner has the burden to present evidence that it meets the seven mandatory criteria in section 83.7. The JBA petitioner did not satisfy criteria 83.7(a), 83.7(b), 83.7(c), and 83.7(e). The JBA petitioner satisfied criteria 83.7(d), 83.7(f), and 83.7(g). Criterion 83.7(a) requires that the petitioner be identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900. The evidence does not demonstrate that external observers identified the petitioning group or a group antecedent to the JBA petitioner as an Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis from 1900 to 1997. An identification of a group in the 1930's and identifications at least from 1959 to 1965 of groups Clarence Lobo headed have not been demonstrated to be identifications of the same entity as the JBA petitioner and do not constitute substantially continuous identification of an Indian entity. There were identifications of the similarly named JBM organization between 1979 and 1994. However, the JBA petitioner has a membership substantially different from JBM and one that has been much larger than JBM. Because the JBA petitioner is nearly contemporaneous with the JBM, has a substantially different membership, and other evidence does not show continuity in community or political influence between the JBM and the JBA petitioner, the identifications of the JBM between 1979 and 1994 cannot be considered identifications of the JBA petitioner. For the period since 1997, external observers have identified the JBA petitioner as an Indian entity. Therefore, the JBA meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(a) only from 1997 to the present. Criterion 83.7(b) requires that a predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community from historical times until the present. The available evidence does not demonstrate that the petitioner evolved from the historical SJC Indian tribe that lived at SJC Mission between 1776 and 1834. The petitioner's ancestors derive from the general population of residents of the town of SJC in the mid-19th century, which included non-Indians, individual SJC Indians, and non-SJC Indians. While some members of the current JBA petitioner do have SJC Indian ancestry, there is no evidence that the SJC Indian ancestors were part of an Indian entity that evolved from the SJC Indian tribe in 1834; rather, they appear to be Indian individuals who became part of the general, ethnically-mixed population. Some of the JBA petitioner's non-Indian and non-SJC Indian ancestors moved to the town of SJC during the mission period (1776-1834), arrived there soon after the 1834 secularization of the mission, or migrated to California around the time of the 1849 Gold Rush. Some of these ancestors established social relationships with SJC Indian descendants, including serving as godparents and confirmation sponsors. Some of these ancestors later married or entered into relationships with descendants of SJC Indians and established kin ties. The current composition of the JBA petitioner mirrors the composition of the mid-19th century general population of the town and differs from the JBB petitioner. The JBA group includes more of the lifelong residents of SJC town who claim descent from the historical SJC Indian tribe. The JBA group also includes more claimed SJC Indian descendants who maintained contact with people in the town even after they moved away. In contrast, the JBB group includes primarily members who claim descent from the historical SJC Indian tribe, but whose ancestors left the town decades ago and do not appear to have maintained contact with those who remained in the town, outside of a few close family members. There is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that a predominant portion of the ancestors of the petitioning group comprised a continuous community distinct from the other residents of SJC prior to 1920 and the establishment of the Mission Indian Federation (MIF). From 1920 to 1964, some of the petitioner's ancestors (and some living members) took part in a variety of activities related to the settlement of the 1928 Claims Act, particularly those organized by non-Indian Marcos H. Forster and SJC Indian descendant Clarence Lobo, but the evidence indicates that most of this interaction was limited to the claims activities. There is no evidence in the record of any organization of members between the 1964 settlement of the claims issue and the 1975 establishment of the Capistrano Indian Council (CIC), and little evidence that JBA members residing outside of SJC participated in the CIC organization or associated with any town residents other than close relatives. There is some evidence of social interaction and communication among some JBM members, especially those involved in archaeological site monitoring, between 1978 and 1995. This evidence occurred predominantly within the realm of the JBM organization and does not demonstrate the widespread significant interactions required to demonstrate the existence of a community under 83.7(b). The JBA petitioner has not explained the inclusion in the membership of many new people and families with no former connection to the JBM after the separation of the JBB and the formation of the JBA, or explained the absence of many of the former JBM members who are no longer present on the JBA group's membership lists (and who do not appear as members of the JBB or JBMI-IP). The JBA experienced another substantial change in membership when the JBMI-IP formed a group in 1997. The fluctuations in membership also demonstrate that the JBA is not the JBM under a different name, as the membership of the JBA has changed dramatically, and no other evidence demonstrates that a cohesive continuing social community remained in place throughout these membership fluctuations. From 1995 to the present, there is insufficient evidence that the petitioner's members comprise a distinct community. The historical SJC Indian tribe would meet this criterion until 1834, but the JBA petitioning group has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements of the criterion since 1834. Therefore, the JBA does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(b) at any time from 1834 to the present. Criterion 83.7(c) requires that the petitioner maintain political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present. The evidence in the record demonstrates that the JBA petitioner is not a continuation of the historical SJC Indian tribe present at the SJC Mission until 1834. Only a portion of the petitioner's members have demonstrated descent from Indians of the historical SJC Indian tribe, and these individuals appear to have left the historical SJC Indian tribe as individuals, often before 1834. There is also no available evidence from the early statehood period which demonstrates by a reasonable likelihood that representatives of a political entity of descendants from the historical SJC Indian tribe signed any of the 1852 unratified treaties. The petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of formal or informal leadership within an Indian group of which its ancestors were part during the late 19th century or early 20th century. The formation of the umbrella organization of the MIF in 1920 appears to have served as a catalyst for the organization of the local SJC MIF chapter. However, the information provided about the SJC MIF chapter indicates that it functioned predominantly as a claims organization, and does not indicate that the claims were of importance to the petitioner's ancestors prior to the founding of the MIF. There is no evidence in the petition to indicate that the leadership of the SJC chapter of the MIF addressed diverse issues of immediate importance to its membership. Evidence in the record related to claimed SJC leader Clarence Lobo's activities in the late 1940's through the mid-1960's provides little evidence of a bilateral political relationship between Lobo and the undefined group of people claiming to be SJC Indian descendants. His activities also appear to focus almost exclusively on claims activities, and in this regard, his advocacy on behalf of pan-Indian organizations and a discrete group of Indian descendants in the town of SJC is sometimes uncertain. The record included no evidence of Clarence Lobo's leadership outside of his involvement with a number of pan-Indian organizations and the California claims issues. Lobo himself complained that few SJC claimants joined him in his political activities, although some claimants provided limited financial support for his claims work. There is little evidence that SJC Indian claimants influenced or informed Lobo's actions. The record presents no evidence of any formal political activity between the settlement of the California Claims in 1964 and the establishment of the CIC. There is also no indication of any informal leadership during this time. After the 1975 establishment of the CIC, an organization which included non-Indians and non-SJC Indians, some information showed limited political organization among some of the SJC residents claiming to be SJC Indian descendants. However, the evidence indicated very little participation in the organization of people who lived outside the town, and there is no indication that the people outside of SJC formed any parallel organizations of their own. From 1975 until 1978, the CIC appears to have politically influenced some of the residents of the town of SJC. The JBM, which first organized in 1978 as a part of the CIC, quickly became a separate organization. From 1978 until approximately 1989, the JBM and CIC provided some leadership. These organizations appear to have represented two populations (with little crossover): The JBM was composed predominantly of those who lived outside the town of SJC, while the CIC was composed of those who lived inside the town of SJC. The 1989 change in leadership (from Raymond Belardes to his cousin, SJC town resident David Belardes) and the JBM involvement in the Floyd Nieblas dispute with the administration of the Catholic Church located at the historical SJC Mission in 1990 does appear to have opened a door of membership to local CIC members not previously identified as members of the JBM organization. From approximately 1990 to 1996, the JBM demonstrated some influence over its members, both inside and outside of the town of SJC, but rates of participation in its activities and decision-making were exceedingly low. This influence continued until a group of members under the leadership of Sonia Johnston separated in 1996. Both groups claimed to be JBM, and the Department designated the group under David Belardes as “JBA” and the Johnston-led group as “JBB.” In 1997, the JBMI-IP then separated from the JBA. From 1996 until the present, the JBA petitioner has not demonstrated political influence over its members that satisfies the requirements of the regulations. The historical SJC Indian tribe would meet this criterion until 1834, but the JBA petitioner has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements of the criterion since 1834. Further, it has not demonstrated political authority within such a continuously existing entity at any time since 1834. Therefore, the JBA does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(c) at any time from 1834 to the present. Criterion 83.7(d) requires that the petitioner provide a copy of the group's present governing document including its membership criteria. The JBA petitioner submitted a copy of its governing document which includes its membership criteria. Therefore, the JBA petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(d). Criterion 83.7(e) requires that the petitioner's membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity. The November 28, 2005, JBA membership list included 1,640 living, adult members. The list did not include minors under age 18. The evidence in the record demonstrates that most of the the JBA petitioner's members claim descent only from individuals who were not part of the historical Indian tribe at Mission SJC as it existed between 1776 and 1834. This PF finds that only 2 percent (37 of 1,640) of JBA members have actually demonstrated descent from one of the Indians of the historical SJC Indian tribe. Therefore, because the JBA petitioner's membership does not consist of individuals who descend from the historical SJC Indian tribe in 1834 (98 percent have not demonstrated descent), JBA does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(e). Criterion 83.7(f) requires that the membership of the petitioning group be composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian tribe. A review of the membership rolls of those mission Indian tribes in California that would most likely include the JBA petitioner's members revealed that the JBA membership is composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian tribe. Therefore, the JBA meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(f). Criterion 83.7(g) requires that neither the petitioner nor its members be the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship. No evidence has been found to indicate that the JBA petitioner was the subject of congressional legislation to terminate or prohibit a Federal relationship as an Indian tribe. The JBA petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(g). Based on this preliminary factual determination, the Department proposes not to extend Federal Acknowledgment as an Indian tribe under 25 CFR part 83 to the JBA petitioner known as the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation. As provided by 25 CFR 83.1(h), a report summarizing the evidence, reasoning, and analyses that are the basis for the PF will be provided to the petitioner and interested parties, and is available to other parties upon written request. Comments on the PF and/or requests for a copy of the summary evaluation of the evidence should be addressed to the Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Attention: Office of Federal Acknowledgment, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 34B-SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments on the PF should be submitted within 180 calendar days from the date of publication of this notice. Comments by interested and informed parties must be provided to the petitioner as well as to the Federal Government (83.10(h)). After the close of the 180-day comment period, the petitioner has 60 calendar days to respond to third-party comments (83.10(k)). After the expiration of the comment and response periods described above, the Department will consult with the petitioner concerning establishment of a schedule for preparation of the FD. The AS-IA will publish the FD of the petitioner's status in the **Federal Register** as provided in 25 CFR 83.10(1), at a time that is consistent with that schedule. On November 23, 2007, the AS-IA Carl J. Artman, approved the Proposed Finding Against Acknowledgment of the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation (Petitioner #84A). On November 26, 2007, he authorized his acting AS-IA to approve this **Federal Register** notice. Dated: November 26, 2007. Debbie Clark, Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. E7-23360 Filed 11-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-G1-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Proposed Finding Against Acknowledgment of the Juanen o Band of Mission Indians (Petitioner #84B) AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Finding. SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h), the Department of the Interior (Department) notice is hereby given that the Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs (AS-IA) proposes to determine that the Juanen o Band of Mission Indians (Petitioner #84B, JBB), c/o Joe Ocampo, 1108 East Fourth Street, Santa Ana, California 92701, and c/o Bud Sepulveda, P.O. Box 25628, Santa Ana, California 92799, is not an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. Due to the group's recent internal leadership conflict, this notice is addressed to both individuals who claim to be its leader. The Department has not addressed this dispute in this proposed finding (PF). These individuals hopefully will resolve this conflict by the time of the final determination (FD). This notice is based on a determination that the petitioner does not satisfy all seven of the criteria set forth in Part 83 of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (25 CFR part 83), specifically criteria 83.7(a), 83.7(b), 83.7(c), and 83.7(e), and therefore, does not meet the requirements for a government-to-government relationship with the United States. DATES: Comments on this PF are due on or before June 2, 2008. Publication of this notice of the PF in the **Federal Register** initiates a 180-day comment period during which the petitioner and interested and informed parties may submit arguments and evidence to support or rebut the evidence relied upon in the PF. Interested or informed parties must provide a copy of their comments to the petitioner. The regulations, 25 CFR 83.10(k), provide petitioners a minimum of 60 days to respond to any submissions on the PFs received from interested and informed parties during the comment period. ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for a copy of the summary evaluation of the evidence should be addressed to the Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, *Attention:* Office of Federal Acknowledgment, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 34B-SIB, Washington, DC 20240. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal Acknowledgment,
(202)513-7650. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department publishes this notice in the exercise of authority that the Secretary of the Interior delegated to the AS-IA by 209 DM 8. The JBB petitioner is located in the town of Santa Ana, Orange County, California, approximately 25 miles south of Los Angeles and 20 miles north of the town of San Juan Capistrano. A group known as the Juanen o Band of Mission Indians
(JBM)submitted a letter of intent to petition for Federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe to the AS-IA. The Department received the letter of intent on August 17, 1982. The Department designated the JBM as Petitioner #84. The JBM submitted its first documentation that included a narrative entitled “Petition for Federal Recognition of the Juanen o Band of Mission Indians in Compliance with CFR Part 83,” as well as photocopies of documents discussed in the JBM petitioner's narrative. The Department received this material on February 2, 1988. The group claimed to descend from the historical Indian tribe of San Juan Capistrano
(SJC)Mission, consisting of residents of a pre-contact network of politically autonomous villages prior to Spanish colonization who spoke a Uto-Aztecan language. The Department conducted an initial technical assistance
(TA)review of the petition, and sent an obvious deficiency
(OD)letter dated January 25, 1990, to the JBM. The JBM responded to the first OD letter on September 24, 1993, when it submitted additional materials, and requested to be placed on the “Ready, Waiting for Active Consideration” (“Ready”) list. The Department placed JBM on the “Ready” list on September 24, 1993. An election in 1993 resulted in a dispute within the JBM. A group of members led by Sonia Johnston challenged the results of the election and the leadership of the chairman David Belardes. On December 17, 1994, the Johnston-led group held an election and elected Sonia Johnston chairperson. Belardes and Johnston simultaneously claimed to be the chairperson of the JBM. The Department removed the JBM (Petitioner #84) from the “Ready” list on May 19, 1995, pending revision of the JBM's membership list, because of the petitioner's stated intent to revise substantially its membership roll, making it not ready for evaluation. Following the submission of the revised membership list, the JBM, in a letter signed by David Belardes, requested the Department to place it on the “Ready” list, and the Department determined that the Belardes-led group was ready for evaluation on February 12, 1996. On February 17, 1996, another group submitted a letter of intent to petition, signed by Sonia Johnston. Both groups claimed to be the legitimate successor of the JBM, both claimed the JBM petition narrative and research materials, and both used similar names (the Johnston- led group used the name “The Juanen o Band of Mission Indians,” while the Belardes-led group used “The Juanen o Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation”). The Department designated the Johnston-led group Petitioner #84B
(JBB)and the Belardes-led group Petitioner #84A (JBA). The Department placed the JBB petitioner on the “Ready” list on May 26, 1996. On April 19, 1997, the JBA experienced a contested election, resulting in the formation of two groups, one led by David Belardes and the other by Jean Frietze, both of whom claimed to be the legitimate leader of Petitioner #84A (JBA). On September 22, 1997, David Belardes requested “interested party” status if Jean Frietze were to form a “new” group, and also requested “interested party” status to the JBB petitioner. Neither the Belardes-led group nor the Frietze-led group submitted a separate letter of intent to petition. The Department determined that the disagreement over leadership was an internal issue. The Department takes no part in the internal disputes of petitioning groups. The JBB submitted material in March 1996, and OFA conducted a technical assistance
(TA)review of these documents. OFA sent a TA review letter to JBB on May 15, 1996. This letter identified obvious deficiencies in the JBB's submitted materials. In 2004, the JBB submitted additional materials in response to the 1996 TA review letter. OFA considered the petitioner ready for evaluation and placed it on the “Ready” list effective May 23, 1996, following the petitioner's written request of May 31, 1996. In a letter dated July 19, 2005, the JBB requested that the AS-IA waive the regulations so that the JBB and JBA could be considered simultaneously. On August 5, 2005, the Department responded that it would consider this request. OFA also conducted informal TA with the JBB on September 6, 2005, by telephone. The Department waived the priority provisions of the regulations at 25 CFR 83.10(d) in order to consider the petition of Petitioner #84B
(JBB)at the same time as the petition of Petitioner #84A (JBA). Both petitioners went on “Active Consideration” on September 30, 2005. However, David Belardes still claimed to be the leader of Petitioner #84A. The Department assigned the Belardes-led group (JBMI-IP) “interested party” status when the JBB and JBA went on “Active Consideration” status on September 30, 2005. This action was consistent with David Belardes' previous request for “interested party” status for both the JBB and the JBA. On November 21, 2005, JBB submitted a letter requesting a temporary suspension of consideration of its petition in order to secure additional documentation. This suspension was not granted. On November 27, 2005, JBB timely submitted new materials to its petition. The Department received comments from other parties after the submission deadline. Consistent with the **Federal Register** notice of March 31, 2005 (70 FR 16513), the Department will consider these comments for the FD. The acknowledgment process is based on the regulations at 25 CFR part 83. Under these regulations, the petitioner has the burden to present evidence that it meets the seven mandatory criteria in section 83.7. The JBB petitioner did not satisfy criteria 83.7(a), 83.7(b), 83.7(c), and 83.7(e). The JBB petitioner satisfied criteria 83.7(d), 83.7(f), and 83.7(g). Criterion 83.7(a) requires that the petitioner be identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900. The available evidence does not demonstrate that external observers identified the petitioning group or a group antecedent to the JBB petitioner as an Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis from 1900 to 1997. An identification of a group in the 1930's and identifications at least from 1959 to 1965 of groups Clarence Lobo headed have not been demonstrated to be identifications of the same entity as the JBB petitioner and do not constitute substantially continuous identification of an Indian entity. There were identifications of the similarly named JBM organization between 1979 and 1994. However, the JBB petitioner has a membership substantially different from JBM and one that has been much larger than JBM. Because the JBB petitioner is nearly contemporaneous with the JBM, has a substantially different membership, and other evidence does not show continuity in community or political influence between the JBM and the JBB petitioner, the identifications of the JBM between 1979 and 1994 cannot be considered identifications of the JBB petitioner. For the period since 1997, external observers have identified the JBB petitioner as an Indian entity. Therefore, the JBB petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(a) only from 1997 to the present. Criterion 83.7(b) requires that a predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community from historical times until the present. The available evidence does not demonstrate that the petitioner evolved from the historical SJC Indian tribe that lived at SJC Mission between 1776 and 1834. The petitioner's ancestors derive from the general population of the residents of the town of SJC in the mid-19th century, which included non-Indians, individual SJC Indians, and non-SJC Indians. While some members of the current JBB petitioner do have SJC Indian ancestry, there is no evidence that the SJC Indian ancestors were part of an Indian entity that evolved from the SJC Indian tribe in 1834; rather, they appear to be Indian individuals who became part of the general, ethnically-mixed population. Some of the JBB petitioner's non-Indian and non-SJC Indian ancestors moved to the town of SJC during the mission period (1776-1834), arrived there soon after the 1834 secularization of the mission, or migrated to California around the time of the 1849 Gold Rush. Some of these ancestors established social relationships with SJC Indian descendants, including serving as godparents and confirmation sponsors. Some of these ancestors later married or entered into relationships with descendants of SJC Indians and established kin ties. The current composition of the JBB petitioner mirrors the composition of the mid-19th century general population of the town and differs from the JBA petitioner. The JBB group includes primarily members who claim descent from the historical SJC Indian tribe, but whose ancestors left the town many years ago and do not appear to have maintained contact with those who remained in the town, outside of close family members. In contrast, the JBA group includes more of the lifelong residents of SJC town. These residents claim to be descendants of the historical SJC Indian tribe. The JBA group also includes more claimed SJC Indian descendants who maintained contact with people in the town even after they moved away. There is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that a predominant portion of the ancestors of the petitioning group comprised a continuous community distinct from the other residents of SJC prior to 1920 and the establishment of the Mission Indian Federation (MIF). From 1920 to 1964, some of the petitioner's ancestors (and some living members) took part in a variety of activities related to the settlement of the 1928 Claims Act, particularly those organized by non-Indian Marcos H. Forster and SJC Indian descendant Clarence Lobo, but the evidence indicates that most of this interaction was limited to the claims activities. There is no evidence in the record of any organization of members between the 1964 settlement of the claims issue and the 1975 establishment of the Capistrano Indian Council (CIC), and little evidence that members outside of SJC participated in the CIC organization or associated with any town residents other than close relatives. There is some evidence of social interaction and communication among some JBM members, especially those involved in archaeological site monitoring, between 1978 and 1995. This evidence occurred predominantly within the realm of the JBM organization, and does not demonstrate the widespread significant interactions required to demonstrate the existence of a community under 83.7(b). The JBB petitioner has not explained the inclusion of many new people and families with no former documented connection to the JBM, after the group separated from the JBM in 1996, or has it explained the absence of some of the other JBM members who are no longer present on the JBB group's membership lists (other than those who are now members of the JBA or JBMI-IP). The fluctuations in membership also demonstrate that the JBB is not the JBM under a different name, as the membership of the JBB has changed dramatically and no other evidence demonstrates that a cohesive continuing social community remained in place throughout these membership fluctuations. From 1996 to the present, there is insufficient evidence that the petitioner's members comprise a distinct community. The historical SJC Indian tribe would meet this criterion until 1834, but the JBB petitioning group has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements of the criterion since 1834. Therefore, the JBB petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(b) at any time from 1834 to the present. Criterion 83.7(c) requires that the petitioner maintain political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present. The evidence in the record demonstrates that the JBB petitioner is not a continuation of the historical SJC Indian tribe present at SJC Mission until 1834. Only a portion of the petitioner's members have demonstrated descent from Indians of the historical SJC Indian tribe, and these individuals appear to have left the historical SJC Indian tribe as individuals, often before 1834. There is also no available evidence from the early statehood period which demonstrates by a reasonable likelihood that representatives of a political entity of descendants from the historical SJC Indian tribe signed any of the 1852 unratified treaties. The petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of formal or informal leadership within an Indian group of which its ancestors were part during the late 19th century or early 20th century. The formation of the umbrella organization of the MIF in 1920 appears to have served as a catalyst for the organization of the local SJC MIF chapter. However, the information provided about the SJC MIF chapter indicates that it functioned predominantly as a claims organization, and does not indicate that the claims were of importance to the petitioner's ancestors prior to the founding of the MIF. There is no evidence in the petition to indicate that the leadership of the SJC chapter of the MIF addressed diverse issues of immediate importance to its membership. Evidence in the record related to claimed SJC leader Clarence Lobo's activities in the late 1940's through the mid-1960's provides little evidence of a bilateral political relationship between Lobo and the undefined group of people claiming to SJC Indian descendants. His activities also appear to focus almost exclusively on claims activities, and in this regard, his advocacy on behalf of pan-Indian organizations and a discrete group of Indian descendants in the town of SJC is sometimes uncertain. The record included no evidence of Clarence Lobo's leadership outside of his involvement with a number of pan-Indian organizations and the California claims issues. Lobo himself complained that few SJC claimants joined him in his political activities, although some claimants provided limited financial support for his claims work. There is little evidence that SJC Indian claimants influenced or informed Lobo's actions. The record presents no evidence of any formal political activity between the settlement of the California Claims in 1964 and the establishment of the CIC. There is also no indication of any informal leadership during this time. After the 1975 establishment of the CIC, an organization which included non-Indians and non-SJC Indians, some information showed limited political organization among some of the SJC residents claiming to be SJC Indian descendants. However, the evidence indicated very little participation in the organization of people who lived outside the town, and there is no indication that the people outside of SJC formed any parallel organizations of their own. From 1975 until 1978, the CIC appears to have politically influenced some of the residents of the town of SJC. The JBM, which first organized in 1978 as a part of the CIC, quickly became a separate organization. From 1978 until approximately 1989, the JBM and CIC provided some leadership. These organizations appear to have represented two populations (with little crossover): The JBM was composed predominantly of those who lived outside the town of SJC, while the CIC was composed of those who lived inside the town of SJC. The 1989 change in leadership (from Raymond Belardes to his cousin, SJC town resident David Belardes) and the JBM involvement in the Floyd Nieblas dispute with the administration of the Catholic Church located at the historical SJC Mission in 1990 does appear to have opened a door of membership to local CIC member not previously identified as members of the JBM organization. From approximately 1990 to 1996, the JBM demonstrated some influence over its members, both inside and outside of the town of SJC, but rates of participation in its activities and decision-making were exceedingly low. This influence continued until a group of members under the leadership of Sonia Johnston separated in 1996. Both groups claimed to be JBM, and the Department designated the Johnston-led group as “JBB” and the group under David Belardes as “JBA.” From 1996 until the present, the JBB petitioner has not demonstrated political influence over its members that satisfies the requirements of the regulations. The historical SJC Indian tribe would meet this criterion until 1834, but the JBB petitioner has not demonstrated that it meets the requirements of the criterion since 1834. Further, it has not demonstrated political authority within such a continuously existing entity at any time since 1834. Therefore, the JBB petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(c) at any time from 1834 to the present. Criterion 83.7(d) requires that the petitioner provide a copy of the group's present governing document including its membership criteria. The JBB petitioner submitted a copy of its current governing document which includes its membership criteria. Therefore, the JBB petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(d). Criterion 83.7(e) requires that the petitioner's membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity. The November 28, 2005, JBB membership list included 908 living adult members. The JBB petitioner indicated that nearly 600 of its members did not appear on the membership list submitted for this PF. The evidence in the record demonstrates that most of the JBB petitioner's members claim descent only from individuals who were not part of the historical Indian tribe at Mission SJC as it existed between 1776 and 1834. This PF finds that only 4 percent (36 of 908) of JBB members have actually demonstrated descent from one of the Indians of the historical SJC Indian tribe. Therefore, because the petitioner's membership does not consist of individuals who descend from the historical SJC Indian tribe in 1834 (96 percent have not sufficiently demonstrated descent), JBB petitioner does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(e). Criterion 83.7(f) requires that the membership of the petitioning group be composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian tribe. A review of the membership rolls of those mission Indian tribes in California that would most likely include the JBB petitioner's members revealed that the JBB membership is composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian tribe. Therefore, the JBB petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(f). Criterion 83.7(g) requires that neither the petitioner nor its members be the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship. No evidence has been found to indicate that the JBB petitioner was the subject of congressional legislation to terminate or prohibit a Federal relationship as an Indian tribe. The JBB petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(g). Based on this preliminary factual determination, the Department proposes not to extend Federal Acknowledgment as an Indian tribe under 25 CFR part 83 to the JBB petitioner known as the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians. As provided by 25 CFR 83.1(h), a report summarizing the evidence, reasoning, and analyses that are the basis for the PF will be provided to the petitioner and interested parties, and is available to other parties upon written request. Comments on the PF and/or requests for a copy of the summary evaluation of the evidence should be addressed to the Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Attention: Office of Federal Acknowledgment, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 34B-SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments on the PF should be submitted within 180 calendar days from the date of publication of this notice. Comments by interested and informed parties must be provided to the petitioner as well as to the Federal Government (83.10(h)). After the close of the 180-day comment period, the petitioner has 60 calendar days to respond to third-party comments (83.10(k)). After the expiration of the comment and response periods described above, the Department will consult with the petitioner concerning establishment for a schedule for preparation of the FD. The AS-IA will publish the FD of the petitioner's status in the **Federal Register** as provided in 25 CFR 83.10(1), at a time that is consistent with that schedule. On November 23, 2007, the AS-IA, Carl J. Artman, approved the Proposed Finding Against Acknowledgment of the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians (Petitioner #84B). On November 26, 2007, he authorized his acting AS-IA to approve this **Federal Register** notice. Dated: November 26, 2007. Debbie Clark, Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. E7-23361 Filed 11-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-G1-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-060-1320-EL, WYW155132] Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the Eagle Butte West Coal Lease-by-Application, Wyoming AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Availability. SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)regulations and policies, the BLM announces the availability of the Record of Decision
(ROD)for the Eagle Butte West Coal Lease-by-Application
(LBA)located in the Casper Field Office (CFO). ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD/Final EIS are available via the internet at *http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/cfodocs/eaglebutte-westcoal.html* or upon request from the following BLM office locations: • Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming. • Bureau of Land Management, Casper Field Office, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, Wyoming. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bob Janssen, Wyoming Coal Coordinator,
(307)775-6206 or Ms. Julie Weaver, Land Law Examiner,
(307)775-6260. Both Mr. Janssen's and Ms. Weaver's offices are located at the BLM Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ROD covered by this Notice of Availability
(NOA)is for the LBA WYW155132 known as the Eagle Butte West Coal LBA Tract and addresses leasing coal administered by the BLM Casper Field Office in Campbell County, Wyoming. The BLM adopts Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, the Eagle Butte West LBA Tract, as modified by BLM, would be offered for competitive sale. The Eagle Butte West LBA Tract, as modified by BLM, includes 1,427.77 acres, more or less, and contains an estimated 255 million tons of mineable coal. A competitive coal lease sale will be announced in the **Federal Register** . This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals
(IBLA)as provided in 43 CFR part 4 within thirty
(30)days from the date of publication of this NOA in the **Federal Register** . The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA. Dated: October 18, 2007. Robert A. Bennett, State Director. [FR Doc. E7-23344 Filed 11-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR [AK-910-1310-DB-NSSI-241A] North Slope Science Initiative Science Technical Advisory Panel: Notice of Intent To Renew Charter and Call for Nominations AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior. ACTION: Notice of intent to renew and call for nominations for the North Slope Science Initiative Science Technical Advisory Panel. SUMMARY: This notice announces the renewal of the North Slope Science Initiative Science Technical Advisory Panel (Science Panel) by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) and calls for nominations to serve on the Science Technical Advisory Panel in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA)of 1972, 5 U.S.C. Appendix. A copy of the renewed Science Panel charter will be filed with the appropriate committees of Congress and the Library of Congress in accordance with Section 9(c) of FACA. DATES: Submit a completed nomination form and nomination letters to the address listed below no later than January 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John F. Payne, Ph.D., Executive Director, North Slope Science Initiative (AK-910), c/o Bureau of Land Management; 222 W. Seventh Ave., #13; Anchorage, AK 99513, telephone
(907)271-3431. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Science Panel is to advise the North Slope Science Initiative
(NSSI)Oversight Group on issues such as identifying and prioritizing inventory, monitoring and research needs, and providing other scientific advice as requested by the Oversight Group. The Oversight Group consists of the Alaska Regional Directors of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Minerals Management Service, National Park Service, Geological Survey, and National Marine Fisheries Service; the BLM-Alaska State Director; The Commissioners of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Fish and Game; the Mayor of the North Slope Borough; and the President of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. Advisory entities to the Oversight Group include the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Arctic Research Commission. The Science Panel shall consist of a representative group of not more than 15 scientists and technical experts from diverse professions and interests, including the oil and gas industry, subsistence users, Alaska Native entities, conservation organizations, wildlife management organizations, and academia, as determined by the Secretary. The members will be selected from among, but not limited to, the following disciplines: North Slope traditional and local knowledge, landscape ecology, petroleum engineering, civil engineering, geology, botany, hydrology, limnology, habitat biology, wildlife biology, biometrics, sociology, cultural anthropology, economics, ornithology, oceanography, fisheries biology, and climatology. The duties of the Science Panel are solely advisory to the Oversight Group, which will give direction to the Science Panel regarding priorities for decisions needed for the Department of the Interior's management. Duties could include the following: a. Advise the Oversight Group on science planning and relevant research and monitoring projects; b. Advise the Oversight Group on scientific information relevant to the Oversight Group's mission; c. Review selected reports to advise the Oversight Group on their content and relevance; d. Review ongoing scientific programs of NSSI member organizations on the North Slope at the request of the member organizations to promote compatibility in methodologies and compilation of data; e. Advise the Oversight Group on how to ensure that scientific products generated through NSSI activities are of the highest technical quality; f. Periodically review the North Slope Science Plan and provide recommendations for changes to the Oversight Group; g. Provide recommendations for proposed NSSI-funded inventory, monitoring and research activities to the Oversight Group; h. Provide other scientific advice as requested by the Oversight Group; and i. Coordinate with groups and committees appointed or requested by the Oversight Group to provide science advice, as needed. The Executive Director for the NSSI shall serve as the Designated Federal Officer for the Science Panel. Specifically, the membership will consist of professionals with advanced degrees and a minimum of five years of work experience in their field in Alaska, preferably in the North Slope region. Professionals will be selected from among those disciplines and entities described above. Any individual or organization may nominate one or more persons to serve on the Science Panel. Members will be appointed for three-year terms. At the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, Science Panel members may be reappointed indefinitely. Individuals may nominate themselves to the Science Panel. You may obtain nomination forms from the Executive Director, NSSI (see address above), or from *www.northslope.org* . To make a nomination, you must submit a completed nomination form with a letter of reference that describes the nominee's qualifications to serve on the Science Panel. The professional discipline the nominee would like to represent should be identified in the letter of nomination and in the nomination form. Nominees may be scientists and technical experts from diverse professions and interests, including the oil and gas industry, subsistence users, Alaska Native entities, conservation organizations, wildlife management organizations, and academia. Nominees selected to serve on the Science Panel will serve only in their professional capacity and will not serve to represent any group, agency or entity with whom they may be affiliated. The Executive Director shall collect the nomination forms and letters of reference and distribute them to the Oversight Group for the NSSI. The Oversight Group will submit their recommendations through the BLM to the Secretary of the Interior who has responsibility for making the appointments. Members on the Science Panel will serve without monetary compensation. Members will be reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses at current rates for Government employees. Certification I hereby certify that the establishment of the Science Technical Advisory Panel for the NSSI is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the Secretary of the Interior's responsibilities to manage the lands, resources and facilities by the Department of the Interior, and in compliance with Section 348, Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58). Dated: November 8, 2007. Thomas P. Lonnie, State Director, Alaska. [FR Doc. E7-23347 Filed 11-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-100-08-1610-DJ] Notice of Call for Nominations for the Pinedale Anticline Working Group
(PAWG)as Part of the Adaptive Management Program for the Pinedale Anticline Project Area in Southwestern Wyoming AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice. DATES: All nominations should be postmarked by January 17, 2008. Final appointments will be made by the Secretary of the Interior. ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent to Caleb Hiner, Pinedale Field Office, 1625 West Pine Street, P.O. Box 768, Pinedale, Wyoming 82941. SUMMARY: On June 26, 2006, the Secretary of the Interior renewed the Charter for the PAWG. Representatives of the public-at-large, the State of Wyoming, Office of the Governor, and the landowners within or bordering the Pinedale Anticline area are being solicited. Individuals or groups interested in becoming a member of the PAWG should submit the specified information by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caleb Hiner, PAWG and Task Groups Coordinator, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, P.O. Box 768, Pinedale, Wyoming 82941, telephone
(307)367-5352. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 26, 2006, the Secretary of the Interior renewed the Charter for the Pinedale Anticline Working Group and Task Groups (PAWG). Nine members representing interest groups, governmental agencies, and local interests are appointed to the PAWG to serve a 2-year term. Representatives of the public-at-large, the State of Wyoming, and the adjacent landowners have resigned. Nominations are being taken for these three positions. Additional information can be found at: *http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Pinedale/pawg.html.* The charter established several membership selection criteria and operational procedures were developed once the Working Group became active. These are listed as follows: 1. The PAWG is composed of nine members and six additional representatives who reside in the State of Wyoming. The PAWG members will be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of the Interior. 2. Members to be selected to serve on the PAWG are as follows: a. A representative from the State of Wyoming, Office of the Governor. b. A representative from the landowners within or bordering the Pinedale Anticline area. c. A representative of the public-at-large. 3. All members should have demonstrated an ability to analyze and interpret data and information, evaluate proposals, identify problems, and promote the use of collaborative management techniques (such as, long term planning, management across jurisdictional boundaries, data sharing, information exchange, and partnerships), and a knowledge of issues involving oil and gas development activities. 4. The service of the PAWG members shall be as follows: a. PAWG members will be appointed to 2-year terms, subject to removal by the Secretary of the Interior. At the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, members may be reappointed to additional terms. b. The Chairperson of the PAWG will be selected by the PAWG. c. The term of the Chairperson will not exceed 2 years. Individuals, or representatives of groups, who wish to become members of the Pinedale Anticline Working Group should complete and submit the following information to this office by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice. 1. Representative Group to be considered for: 2. Nominee's Full Name: 3. Business Address: 4. Business Phone: 5. Home Address: 6. Home Phone: 7. Occupation/Title: 8. Qualifications (education including colleges, degrees, major field of study and/or training): 9. Career highlights (significant related experience, civil and professional activities, elected offices, prior advisory committee experience, or career achievements related to the interest to be represented): 10. Experience in collaborative management techniques, such as long term planning, management across jurisdictional boundaries, data sharing, information exchange and partnerships: 11. Experience in data analysis and interpretation, problem identification and evaluation of proposals: 12. Knowledge of issues involving oil and gas development: 13. Indicate specific area of interest to be represented from the following: a. A representative from the State of Wyoming, Office of the Governor; b. A representative from the landowners within or bordering the Pinedale Anticline area; and c. A representative from the public-at-large. 14. List any leases, licenses, permits, contracts or claims that you hold which involve lands or resources administered by the BLM: 15. Attach two or three letters of reference from interests or organization(s) to be represented: 16. Nominated by: Include nominator's name, address, and telephone number(s): 17. Date of nomination. Groups that nominate more than one person should indicate their preferred order of appointment selection. Dated: October 19, 2007. Robert A. Bennett, State Director. [FR Doc. E7-23324 Filed 11-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Privacy Act of 1974 as Amended; Notice of Proposed Addition of a New System of Records AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)is issuing public notice of its intent to add a new electronic Bureau-wide system of records, the Wild Horse and Burro Program System (WHBPS). This system supports the management of the Wild Horse and Burro
(WHB)program and will contain data covered by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552A). The WHBPS is a centrally hosted Web-based application that is only accessible by authorized government users through the BLM intranet for the purpose of administering the WHB program. This action is necessary to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act to publish in the **Federal Register** notice of the existence and character of records systems maintained by the agency (5 U.S. C. 552a(e)(4)). DATES: *Effective Date:* 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11) requires that the public be provided a 30-day period in which to comment on the agency's intended use of the information in the system of records. The Office of Management and Budget, in its Circular A-130, requires an additional 10-day period (for a total of 40 days) in which to make these comments. Any persons interested in commenting on this proposed system of records may do so by submitting comments in writing to the Bureau of Land Management Privacy Act Officer, Information Resources Management Governance Division, Department of the Interior, WO560/725 LS, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. Comments received within 40 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** will be considered. The system will be effective as proposed at the end of the comment period unless comments are received which would require a contrary determination. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Bureau of Land Management Privacy Act Officer, Information Resources Management Governance Division, Department of the Interior, WO560/725 LS, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. Hand deliver comments to the Information Resources Management Policy Group, Room 725, 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. Comments may be submitted by e-mail to Ms. Laura F. Bell, via *lfbell@blm.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Glenn, Group Manager, Wild Horse and Burro Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 18th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20240. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM is proposing to add a new system of records, the Wild Horse and Burro Program System (WHBPS), to support management of the Wild Horse and Burro
(WHB)program. This system will replace the legacy Wild Horse and Burro Information System (WHBIS) as the WHBIS is no longer technologically supported. The WHBPS is a centrally hosted web-based application that is only accessible by authorized government users through the BLM intranet. The new system covers the full range of activities related to management of wild horses and burros. As a part of managing those activities, the WHBPS will contain information on adopters and buyers of wild horses or burros and information on government employees, contractors, volunteers and service providers supporting WHB program activities. A copy of the system notice for the “Wild Horse and Burro Program System, (WHBPS)” follows: Laura F. Bell, Freedom of Information Act Officer. SYSTEM NAME: Wild Horse & Burro Program System (WHBPS) System location: The WHBPS is a centrally hosted web-based application that is only accessible by authorized government users through the BLM intranet. The hardware and database supporting the system is located at: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Information Resources Management Center (NIRMC), Building 40, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Categories of individuals covered by the system:
(1)Applicants to adopt wild horse(s) and burro(s), persons who have adopted one or more wild horse(s) or burro(s) and buyers of wild horses and burros that meet sale criteria as outlined under law.
(2)Contractors and contract operators of facilities; veterinarians who are serving the program; volunteers; service providers, and BLM, Forest Service
(FS)and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) employees with WHB Program responsibilities. This system may also contain records on corporation and other business entities but those records are not subject to the Privacy Act. Categories of records in the system:
(1)For category 1, the records contain the potential adopter's, adopter's, or buyer's identification and qualifications to obtain custody of a wild horse or burro (as detailed on the Adopt A Wild Horse or Burro Internet web application, Application for Adoption of Wild Horse(s) or Burro(s) (OMB Form 4710-10) or Bill of Sale for Wild Horse(s) and Burro(s) (BLM Form 4710-23)), the record of the disposition of the application, the cooperative agreement when custody is granted, evidence of title or sale when ownership transfers, information on fees assessed, and information on the person's compliance with the terms of the agreement.
(2)For category 2, the record contains information for use internal to the program regarding an individual's identification and contact information, job qualifications/certifications, services supplied, system access roles and approval authorities. This information is necessary to administer the WHB program and identify suppliers of services or products necessary for WHB program administration. Authority for maintenance of the system: The Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, The Public Rangelands Improvement Act, 43 CFR 4700, 16 U.S.C. 1333. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: The WHBPS will include information on applicants for adoption, buyers of animals, adopters and those individuals listed in category 2 above. The primary uses of the records are to
(1)Identify individuals who have applied to obtain custody of a wild horse or burro through adoption or sale;
(2)Document the rejection, suspension or granting of the request for adoption or sale;
(3)Monitor compliance with laws/regulations concerning maintenance of adopted animals;
(4)Identify contractors/employees/volunteers/service providers required to perform program functions;
(5)Provide necessary program management information to other agencies involved in management of wild horses and burros on public lands (FS and APHIS); and
(6)Identify and assign level of system access required by BLM, FS and APHIS WHB program personnel. Disclosures outside the Department of the Interior may be made to:
(1)Organizations and members of the general public as to the disposition of wild horses or burros;
(2)The U.S. Department of Justice or in a proceeding before a court or adjudicative body when:
(a)The United States, the Department of the Interior, a component of the Department, or, when represented by the government, an employee of the Department is a party to litigation or anticipated litigation or has an interest in such litigation;
(b)The Department of the Interior determines that the disclosure is relevant or necessary to the litigation and is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled; and
(c)Information indicating a violation or potential violation of a statute, regulation, rule, order or license, to appropriate Federal, State, local or foreign agencies responsible for investigation or prosecuting the violation or for enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, order or license.
(3)A Congressional office for the record of an individual in response to an inquiry the individual has made to the Congressional office; and
(4)Appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when the:
(a)Agency suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
(b)Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; or
(c)Disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies: Disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12): Disclosures may be made to consumer reporting agencies as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)). Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Manually through file folders arranged alphabetically by name and electronically in the computer data base management system. Retrievability: Indexed by name or other identifying information. Safeguards: Steps were taken to comply with Department of the Interior Privacy Act regulations on safeguard requirements detailed at 43 CFR 2.51. In accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, a Privacy Impact Assessment was completed to ensure that privacy risks and safeguard measures were assessed in the creation, development and maintenance of the systems maintaining WHB program information. Retention and disposal: Records will be maintained in accordance with BLM Manual 1220, Records and Information Management, Appendix 2—GRS BLM Combined Records Schedules. Individual data elements will be destroyed when superseded or no longer needed for administrative purposes. Computer files are archived periodically and the archive media stored securely. System manager(s) and address: Group Manager, Wild Horse and Burro Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 18th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20240. Notification procedure: To determine whether records are maintained on you in this system, write to the System Manager at the address above. For additional information see 43 CFR 2.60. Record access procedures: To see your records, write to the System Manager at to the address above. Describe as specifically as possible the records sought. If copies are desired, indicate the maximum you are willing to pay. For additional information see 43 CFR 2.63. Contesting record procedures: To request corrections or the removal of material from your files, write the System Manager. For additional information see 43 CFR 2.71. Record source categories:
(1)Category 1: Individuals applying for adoption of a wild horse or burro either in hard copy form or through the web application; individuals adopting a wild horse or burro; or buyers of wild horses or burros: Personal information is provided by the individual.
(2)Category 2: Contractors and contract operators of facilities; veterinarians who are serving the program; volunteers; service/supply providers and BLM, FS and APHIS employees with WHB Program responsibilities. Personal information will be provided by the individual. [FR Doc. E7-23357 Filed 11-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Environmental Assessment (EA), Liberty Development and Production Plan
(DPP)Ultra Extended Reach Drilling From Endicott Satellite Drilling Island (SDI)—MMS 2007-054 AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. SUMMARY: The Minerals Management Service
(MMS)is in receipt of a Development and Production Plan
(DPP)from British Petroleum
(BP)that proposes an ultra extended reach drilling project in the Beaufort Sea Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)scheduled for construction in 2009. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), MMS has prepared an environmental assessment
(EA)that concludes that with required mitigation no significant adverse effects (40 CFR 1508.27) on the quality of the human environment would occur. Therefore MMS has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). In accordance with 40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2)(i), MMS is making the FONSI available for public review for 30 days before making a final determination whether to prepare an EIS and before taking final action on the proposed Liberty DPP. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, #500, Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5820, or Jeff Walker at
(907)334-5300. *EA Availability:* To obtain a copy of the EA and FONSI, you may contact the Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region, Attention: Public Information, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, #500, Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5820, telephone 1-800-764-2627. You may also view the EA and FONSI on the MMS Web site at *http://www.mms.gov/alaska.* Dated: November 5, 2007. John T. Goll, Regional Director, Alaska OCS Region. [FR Doc. E7-23325 Filed 11-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Preparation of an Environmental Assessment
(EA)for Proposed Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)Oil and Gas Lease Sale 207 in the Western Gulf of Mexico
(GOM)Planning Area
(2008)AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. ACTION: Preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA). SUMMARY: The MMS is issuing this notice to advise the public, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* , that MMS intends to prepare an EA for proposed OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 207 in the Western GOM Planning Area (Lease Sale 207) scheduled for August 2008. The MMS is issuing this notice to facilitate public involvement. The preparation of this EA is an important step in the decision process for Lease Sale 207. The proposal for Lease Sale 207 was identified by the Call for Information and Nominations published in the **Federal Register** on April 28, 2006, and was analyzed in the *Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales:* 2007-2012; *Western Planning Area Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218; Central Planning Area Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222—Final Environmental Impact Statement; Volumes I and II* (Multisale Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-018). This EA for proposed Lease Sale 207 will reexamine the potential environmental effects of the proposed lease sale and its alternatives (excluding the unleased blocks near biologically sensitive topographic features, use of a nomination and tract selection leasing system, and no action) based on any new information regarding potential impacts and issues that were not available at the time the Multisale EIS was prepared. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dennis Chew, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, Mail Stop 5410, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394. You may also contact Mr. Chew by telephone at
(504)736-2793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In April 2007, the MMS published a Multisale EIS that addressed 11 proposed Federal actions that would offer for lease areas on the GOM OCS that may contain economically recoverable oil and gas resources. Federal regulations allow for several related or similar proposals to be analyzed in one EIS (40 CFR 1502.4). Since each proposed lease sale and its projected activities are very similar each year for each planning area, a single EIS was prepared for the 11 Western Planning Area
(WPA)and Central Planning Area
(CPA)lease sales scheduled in the proposed OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012 (5-Year Program). The Multisale EIS addressed WPA Lease Sale 204 in 2007, Sale 207 in 2008, Sale 210 in 2009, Sale 215 in 2010, and Sale 218 in 2011; and CPA Lease Sale 205 in 2007, Sale 206 in 2008, Sale 208 in 2009, Sale 213 in 2010, Sale 216 in 2011, and Sale 222 in 2012. Although the Multisale EIS addresses 11 proposed lease sales, at the completion of the EIS process, Records of Decision were published in July and August 2007 for only proposed WPA Lease Sale 204 and proposed CPA Lease Sale 205, respectively. Prior to each of the nine subsequent proposed lease sales, including Lease Sale 207, an additional NEPA review (an EA) will be conducted to address any new information relevant to that proposed lease sale. After completion of the EA, the MMS will determine whether to prepare a Finding of No New Significant Impact (FONNSI) or a Supplemental EIS. The MMS prepares a Consistency Determination
(CD)to determine whether the lease sale is consistent with each affected state's federally-approved coastal zone management program. Finally, the MMS will solicit comments via the Proposed Notice of Sale
(PNOS)from the governors of the affected states on the size, timing, and location of the lease sale. The tentative schedule for the prelease decision process for Lease Sale 207 is as follows: EA/FONNSI or Supplemental EIS decision, March 2008; CD's sent to affected states, March 2008; PNOS sent to governors of the affected states, March 2008; Final Notice of Sale published in the **Federal Register** , July 2008; and Lease Sale 207, August 2008. Public Comments: Interested parties are requested to send within 30 days of this Notice's publication, comments regarding any new information or issues that should be addressed in the EA. Comments may be submitted in one of the following two ways: 1. In written form enclosed in an envelope labeled “Comments on WPA Lease Sale 207 EA” and mailed (or hand-carried) to the Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment (Mail Stop 5410), Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394. 2. Electronically to the MMS e-mail address: *http://www.environment@mms.gov.* To obtain single copies of the Multisale EIS, you may contact the Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Attention: Public Information Office (Mail Stop 5034), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, Room 114, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 (1-800-200-GULF). You may also view the Multisale EIS or check the list of libraries that have copies of the Multisale EIS on the MMS Web site at *http://www.gomr.mms.gov.* Dated: November 9, 2007. Chris C. Oynes, Associate Director for Offshore Minerals Management. [FR Doc. E7-23332 Filed 11-30-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Capital Region; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to analyze the impacts associated with the exchange of lands owned by Georgetown University and the National Park Service and the impacts associated with the construction of a proposed boathouse for Georgetown University. SUMMARY: The National Park Service
(NPS)announces its intention to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)and to conduct scoping to analyze the impacts associated with a land exchange between Georgetown University (University) and the NPS and the impacts associated with the construction of a proposed boathouse for the University on a site within the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park (C&O Canal NHP). In 1995 the NPS conducted an Environmental Assessment
(EA)on a proposed land exchange of the site owned by the University within the boundaries of the C&O Canal NHP). In 1995 the NPS conducted an Environmental Assessment
(EA)on a proposed land exchange of the site owned by the University within the boundaries of the C&O Canal NHP and a site located within the non-motorized boathouse zone established by the Georgetown Waterfront Park Plan. This EA resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The three primary land use goals evaluated were:
(1)Precluding development of a boathouse on the University's largely undisturbed inholding in the park with existing significant natural and cultural resources;
(2)Extinguishing nearly a mile of private access over the Capital Crescent Trail; and
(3)Placing the boathouse on property within the boathouse zone in furtherance of the recreational mandate of C&O Canal NHP Act and Georgetown Waterfront Park Plan. In 1997, the NPS signed a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA)with the District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office that contained a provision that the proposed University Boathouse would not have a footprint greater than 15,000 square feet. Since the University subsequently proposed an 18,600 square foot boathouse, an amendment to the MOA was required. As part of that process, the NPS conducted public meetings in June and July 2004 to determine whether to revise the MOA. As a result of those meetings and additional written comments, the NPS determined that an EA should be undertaken for the construction of the proposed boathouse. NPS released an EA on the proposed boathouse for public comment from April 25 thorough June 15, 2006, and held a public open house on the EA. Approximately 2,500 comments were received. Based on comments received on the 2006 EA, and pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), NPS has determined a EIS that will evaluate both the proposed land exchange and the construction impacts of the proposed boathouse is the proper NEPA compliance document. For this reason, NPS announces its intent to prepare an EIS to analyze potential environmental impacts from the proposed action, the range of reasonable alternatives, and mitigation options. This EIS will consider alternative actions. Those alternatives may include:
(1)Construction of a boathouse with a footprint of 18,682 square feet on the NPS-owned site within the C&O Canal NHP, which is described as Alternative C in the 2006 EA;
(2)Construction of a boathouse with a footprint of 15,000 square feet on the NPS-owned site within the C&O Canal NHP;
(3)Construction of a University Boathouse east of 34th Street on an NPS-owned site within the Georgetown Waterfront Park;
(4)Construction of a University Boathouse upon the site owned by the University; and
(5)A No Action alternative, which would not require this land exchange and would involve the continued use of the Thompson's Boat Center to house the University's rowing program. Topics for analysis may include the constructability of the boathouse and/or by-right development on the University-owned site; natural, cultural and intangible resource values of the University-owned site; hydrology within the project area; possible impacts on wildlife; possible wetlands; balancing uses on the Capital Crescent Trail; and the cumulative impacts of the project in combination with the Washington Canoe Club, Potomac Boat Club, Jacks Boats, Dempsey's boathouse site, potential George Washington University boathouse and Thompson's Boat Center. The EIS will be prepared in compliance with NEPA and applicable regulations, including NPS Director's Order 12 and Interior Departmental Manual at 516 DM. DATES: The NPS will conduct an additional scoping meeting for this EIS on December 11, 2007, 6:30-9 p.m. at St. John's Church, 3240 O Street, NW., Washington, DC., which will be widely announced in newspapers of general circulation as well as through the extensive mailing list developed during the EA process. NPS invites interested agencies, organization, and members of the public to submit comments or suggestions to assist in identifying significant environmental issues and in determining the appropriate scope of the EIS. Written comments on the scope of the EIS are invited. The public scoping period will continue for at least 45 days from the date of publication of this notice. NPS will hold at least one public meeting during the public scoping period, which will be widely announced in newspapers of general circulation as well as through the extensive mailing list developed during the EA process. ADDRESSES: Comments and suggestions on the scope of the EIS should be addressed to: Kevin Brandt, Superintendent, C&O Canal NHP, 1850 Dual Highway, Suite 100, Hagerstown, Maryland 21742; or by electronic mail at *NCR_Georgetownboathouse@nps.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Brandt, Superintendent, C&O Canal NHP, 1850 Dual Highway, Suite 100, Hagerstown, Maryland 21742. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 1986 plan for the Georgetown Waterfront Park, which was established in 1984 by the National Capital Planning Commission as part of the Park System of the Nation's Capital, includes a non-motorized boathouse zone, as detailed below, in the proximity of Key Bridge where boathouses had been located historically. The University Boathouse was proposed for location within this boathouse zone which encompasses portions of the C&O Canal NHP as well as the Georgetown Waterfront Park. To accommodate the growth of the historic sport of rowing on the Potomac River, the Georgetown Waterfront Plan, which was approved in 1986, established a non-motorized boathouse zone along the shoreline in Georgetown from 34th Street to approximately 1,250 feet above Key Bridge, at roughly the historic location of boathouses dating back to the 19th century. A total of five boathouses would be located in the boathouse zone, including the University (future, private), Washington Canoe Club (existing, private), Potomac Boat Club (existing, private), NPS boathouse for singles, doubles, canoes and kayaks (future, public), and George Washington University (future, private). Additionally, Thompson's Boat Center (NPS concessioner) would continue to provide space for scholastic and privately-owned shells. In 1989 the University acquired a one-acre boathouse site with a one-mile long perpetual access easement over the Capital Crescent Trail. Because its collegiate rowing program is housed at Thompson's Boat Center which is inadequate for its purposes, the University evaluated building a University boathouse on the site and using its easement to access the site. The NPS, concerned about the proposal of the University to build a boathouse outside the boathouse zone upon the sensitive site owned by the University, has been engaged in negotiations with the University since 1989. Dated: November 8, 2007. Joseph M. Lawler, Regional Director, National Capital Region. [FR Doc. 07-5901 Filed 11-30-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 7
12 references not yet in our index
  • 25 CFR 83
  • 43 CFR 4
  • Pub. L. 109-58
  • 5 USC 552A
  • 43 CFR 4700
  • 43 CFR 2.51
  • 43 CFR 2.60
  • 43 CFR 2.63
  • 43 CFR 2.71
  • 40 CFR 1508.27
  • 40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2)(i)
  • 40 CFR 1502.4
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Proposed Finding
C.F.R.§ 83.10
C.F.R.§ 83.1
U.S.C.§ 552a
U.S.C.§ 1333
U.S.C.§ 1681a
U.S.C.§ 3701
U.S.C.§ 4321
Cite25 CFR 83
Cite43 CFR 4
Pub. L.Pub. L. 109-58
Cite5 USC 552A
Cite43 CFR 4700
Cites 19 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.