Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Notices 49027

pendant; bone beads and fragments,

shell beads, copper tube with wood

insets, and shell hairpipes.

The Leary site has been identified as

having multiple occupations through

the early historic period. The

individuals recovered during the 1936

and 1965 excavations have been

identified with the Oneota component

of this site based on location, manner of

internment, and associated funerary

objects. Based on continuities of

technology and material culture, the

Oneota culture has been identified as

ancestral to the present-day OtoeMissouria, Ioway, and Kaw (Kansa)

tribes.

Based on the above mentioned

information, officials of the Nebraska

State Historical Society have

determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR

10.2 (d)(1), the human remains listed

above represent the physical remains of

40 individuals of Native American

ancestry. Officials of the Nebraska State

Historical Society have also determined

that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(A),

the 342 objects listed above are

reasonably believed to have been placed

with or near individual human remains

at the time of death or later as part of

the death rite or ceremony. Lastly,

officials of the Nebraska State Historical

Society have determined that, pursuant

to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a

relationship of shared group identity

which can be reasonably traced between

these Native American human remains

and associated funerary objects and the

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, the

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, the Kaw

Nation of Oklahoma, and the OtoeMissouria Tribe of Oklahoma.

This notice has been sent to officials

of the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and

Nebraska, the Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma,

the Kaw Nation of Oklahoma, and the

Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Oklahoma.

Representatives of any other Indian tribe

that believes itself to be culturally

affiliated with these human remains and

associated funerary objects should

contact Rob Bozell, Associate Director,

Nebraska State Historical Society, 1500

R Street, P.O. Box 82554, Lincoln, NE

68501–2554; telephone: (402) 471–4789,

before October 20, 1997. Repatriation of

the human remains and associated

funerary objects to the culturally

affiliated tribes may begin after that date

if no additional claimants come

forward.

Dated: September 10, 1997.

Francis P. McManamon,

Departmental Consulting Archeologist,

Manager, Archeology and Ethnography

Program.

[FR Doc. 97–24824 Filed 9–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

Contra Costa Water District MultiPurpose Pipeline Project, Contra Costa

County, CA

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare a

draft environmental impact statement

and notice of scoping meeting;

correction.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Interior published a document in the

Federal Register, on September 2, 1997,

concerning intent to prepare a draft

environmental impact statement and

notice of scoping meeting. The

document contained an incorrect day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Steve Edmondson, telephone (209) 487–

5049 or Ms. Christina Ko Hartinger,

telephone (510) 688–8335.

Correction

In the Federal Register issue of

September 2, 1997, in FR Doc 97–23132,

on page 46372, Volume 62, Number 169;

in the first column, correct the DATES

heading to read:

DATES: A scoping meeting is scheduled

for the project on Thursday, September

18, 1997, at 7:00 p.m, at the Bay Point

Ambrose Community Center, 3105

Willow Pass Road, Bay Point, California.

Dated: September 10, 1997.

Susan Kelly,

Acting Area Manager, for South-Central

California Area Office.

[FR Doc. 97–24833 Filed 9–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–94–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

Prineville Reservoir Reallocation,

Crooked River Project; Oregon

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)

proposes to conduct a study to identify

alternatives to the current allocation of

space in Prineville Reservoir and to

evaluate the alternatives, including no

action, in an environmental impact

statement (EIS).

ADDRESSES: Bureau of Reclamation,

Pacific Northwest Regional Office, 1150

N Curtis Road, Boise, ID 83706–1234.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information on the study contact

David Bradley, Activity Manager,

telephone (208) 378–5084. For

information regarding the NEPA process

contact Lola Sept, Environmental

Specialist, telephone (208) 378–5032.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prineville

Reservoir, a feature of Reclamation’s

Crooked River Project, is located on the

Crooked River, a tributary of the

Deschutes and Columbia Rivers in

Oregon. The reservoir was created by

the construction of Arthur R. Bowman

Dam (Bowman Dam) which was

completed in 1961. It is located about 20

miles southeast of the city of Prineville,

near the geographic center of the State

of Oregon.

As the project is now authorized, all

of the active capacity can be placed

under contract for irrigation use.

Although no reservoir space is

specifically allocated for recreation or

fish and wildlife uses, these purposes

are included as part of the Crooked

River project and are considered during

annual evaluation of reservoir

operations. Reclamation presently

manages the noncontracted space for inreservoir use, instream flow, and dryyear supplemental irrigation uses.

During recent years, the high water

levels in Prineville Reservoir, together

with a scenic location, pleasant summer

weather, good fishing, and the

development of a State park and small

resort, have led to the popularity of the

reservoir area for recreation. The State

park ranks in Oregon’s top five for

occupancy, and the resort is popular

during the summer when reservoir

water levels are conducive to waterbased recreation. Recreation use is the

second highest of any Reclamation

reservoir in Oregon.

Currently, the authorized minimum

flow in the Crooked River below

Bowman Dam is 10 cubic feet per

second (cfs). In order to benefit the

downstream fishery and Wild and

Scenic River values, Reclamation made

an administrative decision to release up

to 75 cfs minimum flows below

Bowman Dam from uncontracted
49028 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 181 / Thursday, September 18, 1997 / Notices

storage whenever contractual

obligations can also be met.

Reclamation has received requests for

sale of about 26,000 acre-feet of the

noncontracted storage for irrigation and

requests have been made that all

noncontracted storage be reserved for

agricultural use.

Clearly, there is controversy

concerning the ‘‘best’’ use for the

noncontracted storage in Prineville

Reservoir. Any changes in storage

allocation for uses other than irrigated

agriculture would require the Congress

to amend the authorization. This study

is designed to explore alternatives,

including no action, to water allocations

in Prineville Reservoir.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Reclamation plans

to conduct public scoping meetings to

identify issues and concerns which will

be used in the development of

alternatives. These meetings will be

held in the late fall of this year. The

dates, times, and locations of public

scoping meetings will be noted in

newspapers of general circulation in

Prineville and surrounding

communities.

Dated: September 2, 1997.

John W. Keys, III,

Regional Director, Pacific Northwest Region.

[FR Doc. 97–24831 Filed 9–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–94–M

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

COOPERATION AGENCY

Agency For International Development

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

SUMMARY: U.S. Agency for International

Development (USAID) is making efforts

to reduce the paperwork burden. USAID

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following proposed and/or continuing

information collections, as required by

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Comments are requested concerning: (a)

Whether the proposed or continuing

collections of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Send comments on or before

September 30, 1997.

ADDRESS INFORMATION TO: Mary Ann

Ball, Bureau of Management, Office of

Administration Services, Information

and Records Division, U.S. Agency for

International Development, Washington,

D.C. (202) 712–1765 or via e-mail

MBall@USAID.Gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Number: OMB 0412–0551.

Form Number: N/A.

Title: U.S. Agency for International

Development Acquisition Regulations

(AIDAR) Clause 752.70.26 Reports.

Type of Submission: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Purpose: Section 635(b) of the Foreign

Assistance Act (FAA) authorizes USAID

to contract with any corporation,

international organization, or other body

or persons in or out of the United States

in furtherance of the purposes and

within the limitations of the FAA. To

determine how well contractors are

performing to meet the requirements of

the contract, USAID requires periodic

performance reports from contractors.

The performance reporting requirements

are contained in the USAID clause New

AIDAR reports (October 1996).

Annual Reporting Burden:

Respondents: 350. Total annual

responses: 2,000. Total annual hours

requested: 8,000.

Dated: September 11, 1997.

Willette L. Smith,

Acting Chief, Information and Records

Division, Office of Administrative Services,

Bureau of Management.

[FR Doc. 97–24828 Filed 9–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116–01–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 332–383]

Advice Concerning Possible

Modifications to the U.S. Generalized

System of Preferences

AGENCY: United States International

Trade Commission

ACTION: Institution of investigation and

scheduling of hearing

SUMMARY: On September 5, 1997, the

Commission received a request from the

United States Trade Representative

(USTR) for an investigation under

section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930

for the purpose of providing advice

concerning possible modifications to the

Generalized System of Preferences

(GSP). Following receipt of the request

and in accordance therewith, the

Commission instituted Investigation No.

332–383 in order to provide as

follows—

(1) In accordance with sections

503(a)(1)(A), 503(e) and 131(a) of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended (‘‘the

1974 Act’’), and pursuant to authority of

the President delegated to the United

States Trade Representative by sections

4(c) and 8 (c) and (d) of Executive Order

11846 of March 31, 1975, as amended,

the articles identified in Part A of the

attached Annex are being considered for

designation as eligible articles for

purposes of the United States GSP, as

set forth in Title V of the 1974 Act. In

accordance with sections 503(a)(1)(A),

503(e) and 131(a) of the 1974 Act and

under the authority delegated by the

President, pursuant to section 332(g) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, the Commission

is requested to provide its advice with

respect to the articles in Part A of the

attached Annex, as to the probable

economic effect on the United States

industries producing like or directly

competitive articles and on consumers

of the elimination of United States

import duties under the GSP;

(2) In accordance with section

503(c)(2)(E) of the 1974 Act, which

exempts from one of the competitive

need limits in section 503(c)(2)(A) of the

1974 Act articles for which no like or

directly competitive articles was being

produced in the United States on

January 1, 1995, advice as to whether

products like or directly competitive

with the articles in Part A of the

attached annex were being produced in

the United States on January 1, 1995;

(3) With respect to the article listed in

Part B of the attached annex, advice as

to the probable economic effect on U.S.

industries producing like or directly

competitive articles and on consumers

of the removal of the article in Part B of

the attached annex from eligibility for

duty-free treatment under the GSP;

(4) In accordance with section

503(d)(1)(A) of the 1974 Act, advice as

to whether any industry in the United

States is likely to be adversely affected

by a waiver of the competitive need

limits specified in section 503(c)(2)(A)

of the 1974 Act for the country specified

with respect to the articles in Part C of

the attached annex.

In providing its advice under (1) the

Commission will assume, as requested

by USTR, that the benefits of the GSP

would not apply to imports that would

be excluded from receiving such

benefits by virtue of the competitive

need limits specified in section 503(c)

(2)(A) of the 1974 Act. With respect to

the competitive need limit in section

503(c)(2)(A)(I)(I) of the 1974 Act, the