14070 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices 

of Wisconsin; Saginaw Chippewa Indian 

Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie 

Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan; 

Sokaogon Chippewa Community, 

Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of 

Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and 

White Earth Band of the Minnesota 

Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘The Tribes’’). 

On October 21, 2010, the Office of the 

State Archaeologist received a letter 

from the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of 

Chippewa Indians requesting 

disposition of the human remains and 

associated funerary objects from Fayette 

Historic State Park. However, the 

associated funerary objects are not part 

of this disposition. The Little Traverse 

Bay Bands of Odawa Indians expressed 

interest in the remains, but had no 

objections to the disposition to the Sault 

Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians 

and did not submit a request for 

disposition. No objections or other 

disposition requests from the Indian 

Tribes that have Delta County, MI, as 

their aboriginal land have been 

received. 

History and Description of the Remains 

In 1972, human remains representing 

a minimum of seven individuals were 

removed from Fayette State Historic 

Park, in Delta County, MI, by Dr. Marla 

Buckmaster, an archeologist at Northern 

Michigan University, in cooperation 

with State park officials. In 1993, Dr. 

Buckmaster transferred the remains and 

entire assemblage, except for some 

potsherds, to the Office of the State 

Archaeologist, which manages cultural 

resources on State-owned lands. No 

known individuals were identified. No 

associated funerary objects are being 

transferred. 

Prior to 1972, a cranium at the base 

of a cliff found by a visitor to the Fayette 

State Historic Park was sent to the 

University of Michigan; this cranium is 

not part of the Office of the State 

Archaeologist’s collection. Later, park 

officials determined that human 

remains were eroding out of a small 

cave in the cliff, about 20 feet above the 

shoreline of Snailshell Harbor. Dr. 

Buckmaster found that the human 

remains were incomplete secondary 

burials covered with a layer of rocks. 

The mandibles were lying together in a 

niche at the back of the shallow cave. It 

is likely that part of the cave and some 

of the human remains were destroyed 

either by erosion or by quarrying that 

took place on the cliff in the 19th 

century. The use of caves for burial was 

a practice of Native Americans in the 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan for at least 

2,000 years. A Middle Woodland camp 

is located across the harbor from the 

burial cave at Fayette State Historic 

Park. The types of funerary objects 

found in the cave are consistent with 

the Middle Woodland period (circa 100 

B.C. to circa 400 A.D.). In 1994, David 

Barondess, physical anthropologist at 

Michigan State University, examined 

the remains and found that some of the 

teeth were shovel-shaped incisors. 

In 1986, human remains representing 

a minimum of one individual were 

removed from Fayette State Historic 

Park, in Delta County, MI. The remains 

were limited to a few fragments that 

were unearthed while archeologists 

from the Office of the State 

Archaeologist were looking for the 

former porch foundations on the mid19th century Supervisor’s House, a 

historic building in the park. In 2001, 

one additional bone was found while 

working on the foundation of House 3, 

another historic structure close to the 

Supervisor’s House. It is uncertain if 

these remains are from the same 

individual, but the single additional 

bone may be associated with the 1986 

fragments based on its proximity to 

them. Therefore, the park believes that 

the 1986 fragments and 2001 bone 

belong to one individual. No known 

individual was identified. No associated 

funerary objects are present. 

The earliest known Euro-American 

settlement in this location dates to the 

mid-19th century. The bones were 

included in soil that had been disturbed 

when the foundation of the Supervisor’s 

House was built in the 1860s. This 

suggests that house construction had 

damaged all or part of an older grave. 

The condition of the bones suggested 

great age. A Middle Woodland camp 

was located on this side of the park, and 

Middle Woodland burials were found in 

a cave across the harbor. It seems likely 

that the human remains around the two 

houses date to the same period, and, 

therefore, are Native American. At the 

time the human remains were removed, 

the land was the property of the State 

of Michigan. 

Determinations Made by the Office of 

the State Archaeologist 

Officials of the Office of the State 

Archaeologist have determined that: 

• For the human remains removed in 

1972, the burial practices, types of 

funerary objects, and the shovel-shaped 

incisors are all indicative of Native 

American remains. For the human 

remains removed in 1986 and 2001, 

based on the manner of disturbance, age 

of the remains, proximity and location, 

the remains are believed to represent 

one Native American individual. 

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a 

relationship of shared group identity 

cannot be reasonably traced between the 

Native American human remains and 

associated funerary objects and any 

present-day Indian Tribe. 

• At the time the remains were 

removed, the sites were on State-owned 

land within the aboriginal territory of 

The Tribes, as indicated by 19th-century 

treaties (see ‘‘Present-Day Tribes 

Associated with Indian Land Cessions 

1784–1894’’ database on the National 

Park Service’s National NAGPRA 

Program Web site.) 

• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the 

human remains described above 

represent the physical remains of a 

minimum of eight individuals of Native 

American ancestry. 

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

disposition of the human remains is to 

the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa 

Indians of Michigan. 

Additional Requestors and Disposition 

Representatives of any Indian Tribe 

that believes itself to be culturally 

affiliated with the human remains and/ 

or associated funerary objects, or any 

other Indian Tribe that believes it 

satisfies the criteria in 43 CFR 

10.11(c)(1) should contact the Office of 

the State Archaeologist’s representative, 

Scott M. Grammer, Michigan State 

Historic Preservation Office, P.O. Box 

30740, 702 W. Kalamazoo St., Lansing, 

MI 48909–8240, telephone (517) 373– 

4765, before April 14, 2011. Disposition 

of the human remains to the Sault Ste. 

Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of 

Michigan may proceed after that date if 

no additional requestors come forward. 

The Office of the State Archaeologist 

is responsible for notifying The Tribes 

that this notice has been published. 

Dated: March 9, 2011. 

Sherry Hutt, 

Manager, National NAGPRA Program. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5866 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–50–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–722] 

In the Matter of Certain Automotive 

Vehicles and Designs Therefore; 

Notice of Commission Issuance of 

Limited Exclusion Order and Cease 

and Desist Orders Against Infringing 

Products of Respondents Found in 

Default; Termination of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices 14071 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has terminated the abovecaptioned investigation under section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and has 

issued the following remedial orders 

against respondents previously found in 

default: a cease and desist order against 

infringing products of Vehicles Online, 

Inc. (‘‘Vehicles’’) of Charlotte, North 

Carolina, and a limited exclusion order 

and a cease and desist order against 

infringing products of Shanghai Tandem 

Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai 

Tandem’’) of China. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2310. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on June 17, 2010, based on a complaint 

filed by Chrysler Group LLC (‘‘Chrysler’’) 

of Auburn Hills, Michigan. 75 FR 

34483–84 (June 17, 2010). The 

complaint alleges violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain automotive vehicles and designs 

therefor by reason of infringement of 

U.S. Patent No. D513,395 (‘‘the ’395 

patent’’). The complaint further alleges 

the existence of a domestic industry. 

The Commission’s notice of 

investigation named several 

respondents including Vehicles, Boat N 

RV Supercenter (‘‘Boat N RV’’) of 

Rockwood, Tennessee, and Shanghai 

Tandem. 

On July 7, 2010, Chrysler moved, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 210.16, for: (1) An 

order directing respondents Vehicles 

and Boat N RV to show cause why they 

should not be found in default for 

failure to respond to the complaint and 

notice of investigation as required by 19 

CFR 210.13, and (2) the issuance of an 

initial determination (‘‘ID’’) finding 

Vehicles and Boat N RV in default upon 

their failure to show cause. On July 19, 

2010, the ALJ issued Order No. 8, which 

required Vehicles and Boat N RV to 

show cause no later than August 2, 

2010, as to why they should not be held 

in default and judgment rendered 

against them pursuant to § 210.16. Boat 

N RV responded to Order No. 8, but no 

response was received from Vehicles. 

The presiding administrative law 

judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued an ID on August 11, 

2010, finding Vehicles in default, 

pursuant to §§ 210.13 and 210.16, 

because Vehicles did not respond to the 

complaint and notice of investigation or 

to Order No. 8’s instruction to show 

cause. On September 9, 2010, the 

Commission issued notice of its 

determination not to review the ALJ’s ID 

finding Vehicles in default. 

On August 19, 2010, Chrysler moved, 

pursuant to § 210.16, for: (1) An order 

directing respondent Shanghai Tandem 

to show cause why it should not be 

found in default for failure to respond 

to the complaint and notice of 

investigation as required by § 210.13, 

and (2) the issuance of an ID finding 

Shanghai Tandem in default upon its 

failure to show cause. On August 31, 

2010, the ALJ issued Order No. 12, 

which required Shanghai Tandem to 

show cause no later than September 14, 

2010, as to why it should not be held 

in default and judgment rendered 

against it pursuant to § 210.16. 

The ALJ issued an ID on September 

22, 2010, finding Shanghai Tandem in 

default, pursuant to §§ 210.13 and 

210.16, because Shanghai Tandem did 

not respond to the complaint and notice 

of investigation or to Order No. 12’s 

instruction to show cause. On October 

14, 2010, the Commission issued notice 

of its determination not to review the 

ALJ’s ID finding Shanghai Tandem in 

default. 

On October 29, 2010, complainant 

Chrysler filed declarations requesting 

immediate relief against the defaulting 

respondents. On November 15, 2010, 

the Commission determined not to 

review an ID (Order No. 17) terminating 

the last remaining respondents, 

including Boat N RV, on the basis of a 

consent order. On November 29, 2010, 

the Commission issued a Notice that 

requested briefing from interested 

parties on remedy, the public interest, 

and bonding with respect to 

respondents found in default. 75 FR 

75184–85 (Dec. 2, 2010). 

Chrysler and the Commission 

investigative attorney submitted briefing 

responsive to the Commission’s request 

on December 6 and 14, 2010, 

respectively. Each proposed a cease and 

desist order directed to Vehicles’ 

infringing products, and a limited 

exclusion order and a cease and desist 

order directed to Shanghai Tandem’s 

infringing products. Neither party 

requested bonding during the period of 

Presidential review. 

The Commission found that the 

statutory requirements of section 

337(g)(1)(A)–(E) (19 U.S.C. 

1337(g)(1)(A)–(E)) were met with respect 

to the defaulting respondents. 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 

337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and 

Commission rule 210.16(c) (19 CFR 

210.16(c)), the Commission presumed 

the facts alleged in the complaint to be 

true. The Commission has determined 

that the appropriate form of relief is the 

following: (1) Cease and desist orders 

prohibiting Vehicles and Shanghai 

Tandem from conducting any of the 

following activities in the United States: 

importing, selling, marketing, 

advertising, distributing, offering for 

sale, transferring (except for 

exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents 

or distributors for automotive vehicles 

and designs therefor that infringe the 

’395 patent; and (2) a limited exclusion 

order prohibiting the unlicensed entry 

of automotive vehicles and designs 

therefore that infringe the ’395 patent, 

which are manufactured abroad by or on 

behalf of, or are imported by or on 

behalf of, Shanghai Tandem, or any of 

its affiliated companies, parents, 

subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or 

other related business entities, or its 

successors or assigns. 

The Commission has further 

determined that the public interest 

factors enumerated in section 337(g)(1) 

(19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) do not preclude 

issuance of the limited exclusion order 

or the cease and desist orders. Finally, 

the Commission has determined that no 

bond is required during the period of 

Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). 

The Commission’s orders were 

delivered to the President and to the 

United States Trade Representative on 

the day of their issuance. 

The Commission has terminated this 

investigation. The authority for the 

Commission’s determination is 

contained in section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 

1337), and in sections 210.16(c) and 

210.41 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.16(c) and 210.41). 

By order of the Commission. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
14072 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices 

Issued: March 10, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5999 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

National Institute of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

[OMB Number 1121–NEW] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Teen Dating 

Relationships: Opportunities for Youth 

To Define What’s Healthy and 

Unhealthy. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and 

Office of Justice Programs (OJP) will be 

submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. Comments 

are encouraged and will be accepted for 

‘‘sixty days’’ until May 16, 2011. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

If you have comments especially on 

the estimated public burden or 

associated response time, suggestions, 

or need a copy of the proposed 

information collection instrument with 

instructions or additional information, 

please contact Carrie Mulford, National 

Institute of Justice, 810 7th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20531. 

Written comments concerning this 

information collection should be sent to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer. The best 

way to ensure your comments are 

received is to e-mail them to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or fax 

them to 202–395–7285. All comments 

should reference the 8 digit OMB 

number for the collection or the title of 

the collection. If you have questions 

concerning the collection, please call 

Carrie Mulford at 202–307–2959 or the 

DOJ Desk Officer at 202–395–3176. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

New collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Teen 

Dating Relationships: Opportunities for 

Youth To Define What’s Healthy and 

Unhealthy. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Form Number: ATF F 3312.1 

and ATF F 3312.2. National Institute of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Youth, ages 11–22 

and adult practitioners, advocates and 

researchers in professions related to 

youth and youth relationships. A recent 

review of the teen dating violence 

research indicated that youth are rarely 

involved in research designed to better 

understand this issue. The purpose of 

this data collection is to better 

understand how youth conceptualize 

healthy and unhealthy dating 

relationships by intentionally involving 

youth in the research process. In the 

first phase of the study, concept 

mapping will be used to create a visual 

representation of the ways youth and 

adults perceive teen dating 

relationships. Concept mapping is a 

well-documented method of applied 

research that makes explicit, implicit 

theoretical models that can be used for 

planning and action. The process 

requires respondents to brainstorm a set 

of statements relevant to the topic of 

interest (‘‘brainstorming’’ task), 

individually sort these statements into 

piles based on perceived similarity 

(‘‘sorting’’ task), rate each statement on 

one or more scales (‘‘rating’’ task), and 

interpret the graphical representation 

that result from several multivariate 

analyses. The collection of data for all 

concept mapping activities will be 

facilitated via a dedicated project Web 

site. The second phase of the study 

includes a series of eight face-to-face 

facilitated discussions with relevant 

stakeholder groups, practitioners, 

researchers and youth. Guiding 

questions and discussion prompts, 

derived from the concept mapping 

results, will be used to gather 

information from the respondents on the 

meaning and potential use of the 

concept mapping results. This input 

will be aggregated and linked to the 

emerging conceptual framework that 

will result in a better understanding of 

adolescent relationship features, 

including the range of healthy, 

unhealthy, and abusive characteristics, 

from the standpoint of youth, and 

determine how prevention and 

intervention efforts can effectively target 

relationship characteristics related to 

abusive behavior. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: It is estimated that 400 

respondents total will participate in the 

concept mapping phase of this 

collection, and that 80 respondents total 

will participate in the facilitated 

discussions. The table below shows the 

estimated number of respondents for 

each portion of the collection: 

Task Preteens 

(11–13) 

Teens 

(14–18) 

Young adults 

(19–22) Adults Total task target 

Concept Mapping Participation Targets 

Brainstorming ....................................................................... 50 100 100 150 400 

Sorting .................................................................................. 0 25 25 50 100 

Rating ................................................................................... 0 125 125 150 400 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES