Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2004 / Notices 67169

bunkhouse, and employee residence 

will also be built at Panther Junction. 

The natural resources and collection 

management building should 

adequately provide for the collection 

storage needs for the duration of this 

plan. If additional storage collection 

space is needed, the other new storage 

areas will be evaluated to accommodate 

this need. One employee residence and 

one employee bunkhouse will be 

removed from Chisos Basin to reduce 

human water use at the area. At Rio 

Grande Village the RV campground will 

be enlarged by about 40% in area, with 

no more than 30 total sites. Cottonwood 

Campground campsites will be 

relocated away from bank cave-in areas, 

and a new egress road will be 

constructed. Fifteen percent of park 

personnel will be moved to gateway 

communities where offices and 

residences will be built or leased. This 

course of action and two alternatives 

were analyzed in the Draft and Final 

Environmental Impact Statements. The 

full range of foreseeable environmental 

consequences was assessed, and 

appropriate mitigating measures 

identified. The full Record of Decision 

includes a statement of the decision 

made, synopses of other alternatives 

considered, the basis for the decision, a 

description of the environmentally 

preferable alternative, a finding on 

impairment of park resources and 

values, a listing of measures to 

minimize environmental harm, an 

overview of public involvement in the 

decisionmaking process, and a 

statement of findings. 

Basis for Decision 

In reaching its decision to select the 

preferred alternative, NPS managers 

considered the purposes for which the 

park was established and other laws and 

policies that apply to lands in the park, 

including the NPS Organic Act, 

National Environmental Policy Act, NPS 

Director’s Order 12 (Conservation 

Planning, Environmental Impact 

Analysis, and Decisionmaking), and the 

NPS Management Policies 2001. The 

NPS also carefully considered public 

comments received during the planning 

process. 

To develop a preliminary preferred 

alternative, the planning team evaluated 

the alternatives that had been reviewed 

by the public. The alternatives were 

tested against the decision points and 

issues identified by the public and park 

to determine their relative advantages. 

The following conclusions were 

reached: 

• The preferred alternative includes 

more actions that are beneficial to the 

cultural and natural resources than 

other alternatives. 

• The preferred alternative will 

enhance the visitor’s experience by 

providing multiple opportunities for 

visitors to make intellectual and 

emotional connections to the park. 

Enhanced interpretation, programs, and 

activities will enable visitors to link 

tangible resources with the intangible 

meanings and significance of the park. 

The proposed development will provide 

opportunities for the interpretive 

division to fully address the various 

themes and complexities of the park. 

Findings on Impairment 

The NPS has determined that 

implementation of the proposal will not 

constitute an impairment to Big Bend 

National Park’s resources and values. 

This conclusion is based on a thorough 

analysis of the environmental impacts 

described in the Environmental Impact 

Statement, the public comments 

received, relevant scientific studies, and 

the professional judgment of the 

decision-maker guided by the direction 

in the NPS Management Policies. 

Overall, the plan results in benefits to 

park resources and values and 

opportunities for their enjoyment, and it 

does not result in their impairment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

H. King, Big Bend National Park, P.O. 

Box 129, Big Bend National Park, TX 

79834–0129, (915) 477–2251.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of 

the Record of Decision may be obtained 

from the contact listed above.

Dated: November 8, 2004. 

Bernard C. Fagan, 

Deputy Chief, NPS Office of Policy .

[FR Doc. 04–25354 Filed 11–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service 

National Park System Advisory Board; 

Meeting

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

Notice is hereby given in accordance 

with the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix, that the 

National Park System Advisory Board 

will meet November 29–30, 2004, in 

Coral Gables, Florida. On November 29, 

the Board will tour Everglades National 

Park and will be briefed regarding 

environmental, education and 

partnership programs of Everglades 

National Park and Big Cypress National 

Preserve. The Board will convene its 

business meeting on November 30 at 9 

a.m., e.s.t., in the Prado Room of The 

Biltmore Hotel, 1200 Anastasia Avenue, 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134, telephone 

305–445–1926. The meeting will be 

adjourned at 4:30 p.m. The Board will 

be addressed by National Park Service 

Director Fran Mainella and will receive 

the reports of its Education Committee, 

Partnerships Committee, National 

Landmarks Committee, Director’s 

Council, and National Parks Science 

Committee. The Board also will receive 

reports on national park philanthropic 

issues and the HealthierFeds Physical 

Activity Challenge. 

Other officials of the National Park 

Service and the Department of the 

Interior may address the Board, and 

other miscellaneous topics and reports 

may be covered. The order of the agenda 

may be changed, if necessary, to 

accommodate travel schedules or for 

other reasons. 

The Board meeting will be open to the 

public. Space and facilities to 

accommodate the public are limited and 

attendees will be accommodated on a 

first-come basis. Anyone may file with 

the Board a written statement 

concerning matters to be discussed. The 

Board also may permit attendees to 

address the Board, but may restrict the 

length of the presentations, as necessary 

to allow the Board to complete its 

agenda within the allotted time. 

Anyone who wishes further 

information concerning the meeting, or 

who wishes to submit a written 

statement, may contact Mr. Loran 

Fraser, Office of Policy, National Park 

Service; 1849 C Street, NW., Room 7250; 

Washington, DC 20240; telephone 202–

208–7456. 

Draft minutes of the meeting will be 

available for public inspection about 12 

weeks after the meeting, in room 7252, 

Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street, 

NW., Washington, DC.

Dated: November 8, 2004. 

Bernard Fagan, 

Deputy Chief, Office of Policy.

[FR Doc. 04–25434 Filed 11–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Notice of Intent to Repatriate a Cultural 

Item: Heard Museum, Phoenix, AZ

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

Notice is here given in accordance 

with the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act 

67170 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2004 / Notices 

1The report is available on the SAMHSA Web 

site at http://oas.samhsa.gov/NHSDA/2k3NSDUH/

2k3results.htm.

(NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent 

to repatriate a cultural item in the 

possession of the Heard Museum, 

Phoenix, AZ, that meets the definition 

of ‘‘cultural patrimony’’ under 25 U.S.C. 

3001.

This notice is published as part of the 

National Park Service’s administrative 

responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 

U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations 

in this notice are the sole responsibility 

of the museum that has control of the 

cultural item. The National Park Service 

is not responsible for the determinations 

in this notice.

The one cultural item is a Dilzini 

Gaan headdress made of painted wood 

and cloth.

It is not known exactly when, where, 

or by whom the headdress was 

collected, or under what circumstances 

the Heard Museum acquired the 

headdress. The museum probably 

acquired the headdress before 1952, 

since the museum’s collections were 

re-cataloged after 1951, and the 

headdress appears to match a catalog 

description that was probably written 

between 1931 and 1947.

Representatives of the Mescalero 

Apache Tribe of the Mescalero 

Reservation, New Mexico; San Carlos 

Apache Tribe of the San Carlos 

Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache 

Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain 

Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache 

Reservation, Arizona; and 

Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp 

Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona 

examined the museum’s collections, 

consulted with museum staff, and 

identified the headdress as an object of 

cultural patrimony eligible for 

repatriation under NAGPRA. The White 

Mountain Apache Tribe demonstrated 

that the cultural item has ongoing 

traditional and cultural importance to 

the tribe and could not have been 

conveyed by any individual tribal 

member.

Officials of the Heard Museum have 

determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 

3001 (3)(D), the cultural item has 

ongoing historical, traditional, or 

cultural importance central to the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort 

Apache Reservation, Arizona, rather 

than property owned by an individual. 

Officials of the Heard Museum also have 

determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 

3001 (2), there is a relationship of 

shared group identity that can be 

reasonably traced between the object of 

cultural patrimony and the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort 

Apache Reservation, Arizona.

Representatives of any other Indian 

tribe that believes itself to be culturally 

affiliated with the object of cultural 

patrimony should contact Frank 

Goodyear, Director, Heard Museum, 

2301 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 

85004, telephone (602) 252-8840, before 

December 16, 2004. Repatriation of the 

object of cultural patrimony to the 

White Mountain Apache Tribe of the 

Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona may 

proceed after that date if no additional 

claimants come forward.

The Heard Museum is responsible for 

notifying the Apache Tribe of 

Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of 

Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New 

Mexico; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the 

Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; 

San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San 

Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto 

Apache Tribe of Arizona; White 

Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort 

Apache Reservation, Arizona; and the 

Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp 

Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona that 

this notice has been published.

Mary Downs,

Acting Manager, National NAGPRA Program

[FR Doc. 04–25353 Filed 11–15–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4312–50–S

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. DEA–258S] 

Dispensing of Controlled Substances 

for the Treatment of Pain

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), Department of 

Justice.

ACTION: Interim policy statement.

SUMMARY: In August 2004, DEA 

published on its Office of Diversion 

Control Web site a document entitled: 

‘‘Prescription Pain Medications: 

Frequently Asked Questions and 

Answers for Health Care Professionals 

and Law Enforcement Personnel’’

(August 2004 FAQ). The August 2004 

FAQ was not published in the Federal 

Register and was not an official 

statement of the agency. DEA 

subsequently withdrew the document 

because it contained misstatements. 

This interim policy statement explains 

how some of the statements in the 

August 2004 FAQ were erroneous. In 

addition, this interim statement 

explains how DEA plans to address in 

a future Federal Register document the 

issue of dispensing controlled 

substances for the treatment of pain.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William J. Walker, Deputy Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Diversion 

Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Washington, DC 20537; 

Telephone: (202) 307–7165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In August 

2004, DEA published on its Office of 

Diversion Control Web site a document 

entitled: ‘‘Prescription Pain 

Medications: Frequently Asked 

Questions and Answers for Health Care 

Professionals and Law Enforcement 

Personnel’’ (August 2004 FAQ). For the 

reasons provided below, the August 

2004 FAQ was not an official statement 

of the agency and DEA subsequently 

withdrew the document because it 

contained misstatements. Nonetheless, 

the subject matter—dispensing 

controlled substances for the treatment 

of pain—is extremely important to the 

public health and welfare. As the 

agency primarily responsible for 

enforcement and administration of the 

federal laws and regulations governing 

controlled substances, DEA believes that 

further discussion of the subject is 

warranted for two fundamental reasons. 

First, the abuse of pharmaceutical 

narcotics and other prescription 

controlled substances is increasing in 

the United States. According to the 

latest National Survey on Drug Use and 

Health, which is published by the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration 

(SAMHSA), the number of Americans 

aged 12 or older who have engaged in 

illicit (nonmedical) use of pain relievers 

during their lifetime has risen to more 

than 31 million.1 A portion of this type 

of drug abuse is directly facilitated by a 

small number of physicians who 

dispense controlled substances for other 

than legitimate medical purposes and 

then fraudulently claim that the drugs 

were dispensed for the treatment of 

pain.

Second, chronic pain is a serious 

problem for many Americans. It is 

crucial that physicians who are engaged 

in legitimate pain treatment not be 

discouraged from providing proper 

medication to patients as medically 

justified. DEA recognizes that the 

overwhelming majority of physicians 

dispense controlled substances lawfully 

for legitimate medical reasons, 

including the treatment of pain. 

Accordingly, DEA plans to address the 

subject of dispensing controlled 

substances for the treatment of pain in 

a future Federal Register document, 

taking into consideration the views of 

the medical community. The document 

will be aimed at providing guidance and 

reassurance to physicians who engage in