Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2011 / Notices 9607 

Determinations Made by the Denver 

Museum 

• Based on non-destructive physical 

analysis and catalogue records, the 

human remains are determined to be 

Native American. 

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a 

relationship of shared group identity 

cannot be reasonably traced between the 

Native American human remains and 

any present-day Indian Tribe. 

• According to the final judgment of 

the Indian Claims Commission, the land 

from which the Native American human 

remains were removed is the aboriginal 

land of the Assiniboine and Sioux 

Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian 

Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne River 

Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River 

Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek 

Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek 

Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau 

Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower 

Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower 

Sioux Indian Community in the State of 

Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the 

Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; 

Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Ponca Tribe 

of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of 

Nebraska; Prairie Island Indian 

Community in the State of Minnesota; 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud 

Indian Reservation, South Dakota; 

Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; 

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 

Community of Minnesota; SissetonWahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse 

Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake 

Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; 

Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; 

and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South 

Dakota. 

• Multiple lines of evidence, 

including treaties, Acts of Congress, and 

Executive Orders, indicate that the land 

from which the Native American human 

remains were removed is the aboriginal 

land of the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind 

River Reservation, Wyoming; 

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort 

Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the 

Cheyenne River Reservation, South 

Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the 

Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South 

Dakota; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower 

Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Lower 

Sioux Indian Community in the State of 

Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the 

Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; 

Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Pawnee 

Nation of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of 

Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of 

Nebraska; Prairie Island Indian 

Community in the State of Minnesota; 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud 

Indian Reservation, South Dakota; 

Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; 

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 

Community of Minnesota; SissetonWahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse 

Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake 

Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; 

Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; 

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and 

Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota. 

• Finally, other credible lines of 

evidence, including consultation with 

Tribal representatives, indicate that the 

land from which the Native American 

human remains were removed is the 

aboriginal land of the Arapahoe Tribe of 

the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; 

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort 

Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; 

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, 

Oklahoma; Crow Tribe of Montana; HoChunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe 

of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of 

Oklahoma; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of 

the Lower Brule Reservation, South 

Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community 

in the State of Minnesota; Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern 

Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; 

Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge 

Reservation, South Dakota; Omaha Tribe 

of Nebraska; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of 

Indians, Oklahoma; Pawnee Nation of 

Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Indians of 

Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; 

Prairie Island Indian Community in the 

State of Minnesota; Rosebud Sioux 

Tribe of the Rosebud Indian 

Reservation, South Dakota; Sac & Fox 

Nation of Missouri in Kansas and 

Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; 

Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in 

Iowa; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; 

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 

Community of Minnesota; SissetonWahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse 

Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake 

Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; 

Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort 

Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; 

Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; 

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and 

Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota. 

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the 

human remains described above 

represent the physical remains of two 

individuals of Native American 

ancestry. 

• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the 

disposition of the human remains is to 

The Tribes. 

Additional Requestors and Disposition 

Representatives of any Indian Tribe 

that believes itself to be culturally 

affiliated with the human remains or 

any other Indian Tribe that believes it 

satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 

10.11(c)(1) should contact Dr. Chip 

Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Denver 

Museum of Nature & Science, 2001 

Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO 80205, 

telephone (303) 370–6378, before March 

21, 2011. Disposition of the human 

remains to The Tribes may proceed after 

that date if no additional requestors 

come forward. 

The Denver Museum of Nature & 

Science is responsible for notifying The 

Tribes that this notice has been 

published. 

Dated: February 15, 2011. 

Sherry Hutt, 

Manager, National NAGPRA Program. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3753 Filed 2–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection for Technical Evaluation 

Surveys 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing 

that the information collection request 

for its Technical Evaluation customer 

surveys has been forwarded to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and comment. The 

information collection request describes 

the nature of the information collection 

and the expected burden and cost. The 

OMB control number for this collection 

of information is 1029–0114 and is on 

the forms along with the expiration 

date. 

DATES: OMB has up to 60 days to 

approve or disapprove the information 

collection but may respond after 30 

days. Therefore, public comments 

should be submitted to OMB by March 

21, 2011, in order to be assured of 

consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attention: Department of the 

Interior Desk Officer, by telefax at (202) 

395–5806 or via e-mail to OIRA 

Docketomb.eop.gov. Also, please send a 

copy of your comments to John 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

9608 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2011 / Notices 

Trelease, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 

Constitution Ave., NW., Room 202— 

SIB, Washington, DC 20240, or 

electronically to jtrelease@osmre.gov. 

Please refer to OMB control number 

1029–0114 in your correspondence. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

receive a copy of the information 

collection request contact John Trelease 

at (202) 208–2783, or electronically at 

jtrelease@osmre.gov. You may also 

review this collection by going to 

http://www.reginfo.gov (Information 

Collection Review, Currently Under 

Review, Agency is Department of the 

Interior, DOI–OSMRE). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), 

require that interested members of the 

public and affected agencies have an 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection and recordkeeping activities 

[see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSM has 

submitted a request to OMB to renew its 

approval of the collection of information 

contained in a series of technical 

evaluation customer surveys. OSM is 

requesting a 3-year term of approval for 

the information collection activity. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

number for this collection of 

information is 1029–0114. 

As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a 

Federal Register notice soliciting 

comments on this collection of 

information was published on 

November 5, 2010 (75 FR 68376). No 

comments were received. This notice 

provides the public with an additional 

30 days in which to comment on the 

following information collection 

activity: 

Title: Technical Evaluation Surveys. 

OMB Control Number: 1029–0114. 

Summary: The series of surveys are 

needed to ensure that technical 

assistance activities, technology transfer 

activities and technical forums are 

useful for those who participate or 

receive the assistance. Specifically, 

representatives from State and Tribal 

regulatory and reclamation authorities 

are the primary respondents, although 

representatives of industry, 

environmental or citizen groups, or the 

public, may be recipients of the 

assistance or may participate in these 

forums. These surveys will be the 

primary means through which OSM 

evaluates its performance in meeting the 

performance goals outlined in its annual 

plans developed pursuant to the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act. 

Bureau Form Number: None. 

Frequency of Collection: Once. 

Description of Respondents: 

Individuals who request information or 

assistance, although generally States 

and Tribal employees. 

Total Annual Responses: 500. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 42. 

Send comments on the need for the 

collection of information for the 

performance of the functions of the 

agency; the accuracy of the agency’s 

burden estimates; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility and clarity of the 

information collection; and ways to 

minimize the information collection 

burdens on respondents, such as use of 

automated means of collections of the 

information, to the addresses listed 

under ADDRESSES. Please refer to the 

appropriate OMB control number in all 

correspondence. 

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. 

Dated: February 11, 2011. 

John A. Trelease, 

Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3595 Filed 2–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–920 (Review) 

(Remand)] 

Certain Welded Large Diameter Line 

Pipe From Mexico 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) hereby 

gives notice of its remand proceeding 

with respect to its negative 

determination in the five-year review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

welded large diameter line pipe from 

Mexico. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this 

proceeding and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subpart A (19 CFR 

part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: February 18, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl 

von Schriltz (202–205–3096), Office of 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record of 

Investigation No. 731–TA–920 (Review) 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—In October 2007, the 

Commission determined that revocation 

of the antidumping duty order covering 

certain welded large diameter line pipe 

from Mexico would not be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. On April 21, 2008, six months 

after completion of the Commission’s 

review, the Mexican producer Tuberias 

Procarsa, S.A. de C.V. (‘‘Procarsa’’) 

attempted to file with the Commission 

a revised foreign producers’ 

questionnaire response which sought to 

revise certain aspects of its originally 

reported capacity, production, and 

shipment data. On April 24, 2008, the 

Commission rejected the submission on 

the grounds that it was untimely filed. 

On November 21, 2007, the domestic 

producer United States Steel 

Corporation (‘‘U.S. Steel’’) filed a request 

for review of the Commission’s 

determination by a binational panel 

under Article 1904 of the North 

American Free Trade Agreement. The 

parties completed briefing in the 

proceeding in 2008 and 2009. The Panel 

held a hearing in the proceeding on July 

22, 2010. 

On January 18, 2011, the Panel issued 

an opinion in the matter. In its opinion, 

the Panel affirmed the Commission’s 

reliance on the existence of differing 

conditions of competition for Mexico 

and Japan when deciding not to exercise 

its discretion to cumulate the subject 

imports from those countries. The Panel 

also held that U.S. Steel was barred 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES