Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2012 / Notices 10767 

Dated: February 16, 2012. 

Nancy Finley, 

Field Supervisor, Arcata Fish and Wildlife 

Office, Arcata, CA. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4169 Filed 2–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation 

Projects 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of rate adjustments. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) owns, or has an interest in, 

irrigation projects located on or 

associated with various Indian 

reservations throughout the United 

States. We are required to establish 

irrigation assessment rates to recover the 

costs to administer, operate, maintain, 

and rehabilitate these projects. We are 

notifying you that we have adjusted the 

irrigation assessment rates at several of 

our irrigation projects and facilities to 

reflect current costs of administration, 

operation, maintenance, and 

rehabilitation. 

DATES: Effective Date: The irrigation 

assessment rates shown in the tables as 

final are effective as of January 1, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

details about a particular BIA irrigation 

project or facility, please use the tables 

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section to contact the regional or local 

office where the project or facility is 

located. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice 

of Proposed Rate Adjustment was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 20, 2011 (76 FR 58293) to 

propose adjustments to the irrigation 

assessment rates at several BIA 

irrigation projects. The public and 

interested parties were provided an 

opportunity to submit written 

comments during the 60-day period that 

ended November 21, 2011. 

Did the BIA defer or change any 

proposed rate increases? 

No. 

Did the BIA receive any comments on 

the proposed irrigation assessment rate 

adjustments? 

Written comments were received 

related to the proposed rate adjustment 

for the San Carlos Irrigation Project for 

2013. 

What issues were of concern to the 

commenter? 

The commenter raised concerns 

specific to the San Carlos Irrigation 

Project on the proposed rates about the 

following issues: (1) The methodology 

for O&M rate setting; and (2) the 

appropriateness of specific O&M budget 

items relating to obligated cash, staffing 

levels, encroachment permit fees, resurvey of the reservoir area/capacity 

table, emergency reserves, cylinder gate 

replacement at Coolidge Dam, and 

periodic adjustments in Project budgets. 

The Following Comments Are Specific 

to the San Carlos Irrigation Project 

Written comments relating to the 

proposed rate adjustment for the San 

Carlos Irrigation Project-Joint Works 

(Project) were received by letters dated 

July 15, 2011, August 26, 2011, and 

November 21, 2011, from the San Carlos 

Irrigation and Drainage District 

(District). The District raised several 

issues in its letters. The BIA’s summary 

of the District’s issues and the BIA’s 

responses are provided below. 

Comment: The BIA’s methodology for 

setting the 2013 O&M assessment rate 

was unreasonable. 

Response: The methodology used by 

the BIA to determine the 2013 O&M 

assessment rate was reasonable. Based 

on a review of historical income and 

expenditures, a budget of projected 

income and expenditures is developed 

approximately two years before the 

O&M assessments are collected and 

expenses incurred. The BIA relies on 

financial reports generated by the 

Federal Financial System for reviewing 

past expenditures and projecting a 

future budget and expenditures. 

Procurement files and records 

maintained by the Project are also 

reviewed and considered. For example, 

with regard to development of the 2013 

budget, the BIA reviewed: (1) The yearend reconciled income and expenditure 

information for 2010; (2) available 

income and expenditure information for 

2011; (3) previous budget projections for 

2013; and (4) other information relevant 

to potential future Project expenses, 

such as cost information for 

replacement of Coolidge Dam cylinder 

gates. 

The BIA provided the District with 

draft budget and supporting information 

and held budget fact-finding meetings 

on November 22, 2010, January 14, 

2011, February 22, 2011, and March 23, 

2011. The Project received feedback 

from the District and other water users 

during these meetings, and the Project 

finalized its recommendation to the 

Western Regional Director for the 2013 

O&M assessment rate on May 5, 2011. 

In addition, in accordance with BIA 

policy, the BIA held meetings with 

Project water users (including the 

District) to discuss O&M rates and 

maintenance needs. 

Issue: The BIA does not manage 

obligated cash properly, specifically 

with regard to the Transcon Contract. 

Response: The Transcon Contract 

ended on September 30, 2011, and the 

Project de-obligated $56,335.15 of 

unexpended funds in the contract. 

These funds will be carried over as 

available cash for Project use in FY 

2012. 

Issue: The District objects to current 

and future staffing levels for the 

Project’s Irrigation System Operators. 

Response: The Project has been 

discussing the Irrigation System 

Operator (ISO) staffing levels with the 

water users, including the District, in 

recent years in response to the 

accidental deaths of two Project ISOs in 

2006 and 2010. At the end of the Project 

fact finding process for 2010, the Project 

re-evaluated the ISO staffing levels, 

reduced the number of positions from 

four to three, and established the 

positions at GS 04/05 levels. The 

discussion with the water users on this 

matter, including the District, helped 

the Project to re-evaluate and implement 

appropriate measures for ISO staffing. 

The Project is in the process of 

recruiting the vacant ISO positions. The 

Project anticipates an annual savings of 

approximately $80,000 from this change 

in ISO staffing levels. The proposed 

O&M budget for 2013 reflects three ISO 

positions at the Project. The BIA 

understands that the ISO staffing levels 

may need to be re-evaluated in 3–5 

years when rehabilitation of the Project 

Joint Works is completed by the District 

and the Gila River Indian Community 

pursuant to section 203(d) of the 

Arizona Water Settlements Act (Pub. L. 

108–451). 

Issue: The BIA should not use O&M 

collections to defray the Project costs for 

reviewing encroachment permit 

requests. 

Response: Environmental compliance 

activities associated with the Project 

O&M responsibilities, such as 

encroachment permit requests, are 

funded through O&M assessments and 

collections from the District and from 

Federal appropriations on behalf of the 

Indian Works. The BIA is legally 

obligated to perform these compliance 

activities and they benefit Project water 

users by ensuring that the 

environmental effects of Project 

activities, are understood. The Project 

will continue to use either contracts or 

staff for Federal environmental 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

10768 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2012 / Notices 

compliance duties in furtherance of its 

O&M activities. The Project recently 

proposed a fee for encroachment 

permits and is in the process of 

finalizing a decision on the proposed 

fee. The Project notes that, historically, 

encroachment permits involve lands 

within the District. At the request of the 

water users, including the District, the 

Project is considering permit fees for 

encroachment permits which would 

help defray the Project costs for the 

permits. 

Issue: The BIA should not use O&M 

collections to pay for the updated area/ 

capacity table for San Carlos Reservoir. 

Response: Coolidge Dam (Dam) and 

San Carlos Reservoir (Reservoir) are 

essential features of the Project. The 

Project’s water delivery obligations from 

the Dam and Reservoir, pursuant to the 

Gila Decree and the Project’s 

authorizing documents, require an 

accurate and up-to-date area/capacity 

table for the Reservoir. Therefore, the 

Project’s use of O&M collections to 

update the Reservoir’s area/capacity 

table is an appropriate use of O&M 

collections. 

Issue: The Project’s emergency reserve 

fund should be reduced. 

Response: The Project’s emergency 

reserve fund is within the range 

specified in the Emergency Reserve 

Fund Determination Guidelines in the 

August 2008 BIA National Irrigation 

Handbook. The BIA previously reduced 

the reserve fund from $800,000 to 

$400,000 following the transfer of 

certain maintenance responsibilities to 

the Joint Control Board. The BIA 

continues to be responsible for 

maintenance of Project wells and 

Coolidge Dam. Replacement of a single 

well is projected to cost between 

$250,000 and $300,000, and well 

replacement locations are being 

evaluated now based on technical 

assessments prepared by the Project and 

shared with the water users. The 

contract for well maintenance and 

repair services, which was awarded 

recently for the Project, involves routine 

annual well maintenance and repair and 

not well replacement costs. The BIA 

believes the reserve funds should be 

maintained as proposed, consistent with 

the Guidelines. 

Issue: The amount budgeted for 

replacement of the Coolidge Dam 

cylinder gate should be reduced. 

Response: Replacing the cylinder 

gates at Coolidge Dam with a single 

bulkhead gate is not appropriate. 

Replacing inoperable gates with a 

bulkhead gate for each tower provides 

the greatest security to Project water 

users. Using a single bulkhead gate to 

close both cylinder gates is inadvisable 

for several reasons: (1) The bulkhead 

gate may not fit in both gate towers 

because the towers likely do not have 

the same dimensions; (2) a crane 

capable of lifting the bulkhead gate may 

not be available locally or within a 

reasonable timeframe; (3) the single 

bulkhead gate could close only one 

conduit at a time; and (4) the road 

crossing the crest of the dam would 

need to be closed when the bulkhead 

gate is removed or installed. 

The Project completed a technical 

review process with the water users, 

including the District, whereby all 

available technical and cost information 

related to the cylinder gates was 

reviewed and discussed. The Project’s 

next step in the planning process is to 

update and finalize the detailed 

technical specifications and a 

government cost estimate. These 

documents will be used by the Project 

for construction solicitation pursuant to 

the Federal procurement process. 

Issue: The Project makes material 

deviations from approved budgets 

without providing documentation and 

consultation with the District. 

Response: The budget shared by the 

BIA during the Fact Finding process is 

not binding on the BIA. The BIA must 

update its O&M budget regularly to 

reflect actual expenditures and 

unplanned contingencies. The initial 

O&M budget cannot be expected to 

remain unchanged because it is 

prepared two years in advance of the 

fiscal year in which the Project performs 

the actual O&M work. The BIA provides 

the District with an update on the 

Project’s budget at nearly every monthly 

District Board meeting, at regularly 

scheduled water user meetings, and 

upon specific request from the District. 

For the 2012 and 2013 O&M budgets, 

the BIA used templates proposed by the 

District to display the budget 

information. 

Does this notice affect me? 

This notice affects you if you own or 

lease land within the assessable acreage 

of one of our irrigation projects, or if 

you have a carriage agreement with one 

of our irrigation projects. 

Where can I get information on the 

regulatory and legal citations in this 

notice? 

You can contact the appropriate 

office(s) stated in the tables for the 

irrigation project that serves you, or you 

can use the Internet site for the 

Government Printing Office at 

www.gpo.gov. 

What authorizes you to issue this 

notice? 

Our authority to issue this notice is 

vested in the Secretary of the Interior by 

5 U.S.C. 301 and the Act of August 14, 

1914 (38 Stat. 583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The 

Secretary has in turn delegated this 

authority to the Assistant Secretary— 

Indian Affairs under Part 209, Chapter 

8.1A, of the Department of the Interior’s 

Departmental Manual. 

Whom can I contact for further 

information? 

The following tables are the regional 

and project/agency contacts for our 

irrigation projects and facilities: 

Project name Project/Agency contacts 

Northwest Region Contacts 

Stanley Speaks, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Regional Office, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232–4169, 

Telephone: (503) 231–6702 

Fort Hall Irrigation Project ......................... Dean Fox, Superintendent, Fort Hall Agency, P.O. Box 220, Fort Hall, ID 83203–0220, Telephone: 

(208) 238–2301. 

Wapato Irrigation Project .......................... Edwin Lewis, Project Administrator, Wapato Irrigation Project, P.O. Box 220, Wapato, WA 98951– 

0220, Telephone: (509) 877–3155. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2012 / Notices 10769 

Project name Project/Agency c6ontacts 

Rocky Mountain Region Contacts 

Ed Parisian, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 316 North 26th Street, Billings, Montana 59101, 

Telephone: (406) 247–7943. 

Blackfeet Irrigation Project ........................ Stephen Pollock, Superintendent, Greg Tatsey, Irrigation Project Manager, Box 880, Browning, MT 

59417, Telephones: (406) 338–7544, Superintendent, (406) 338–7519, Irrigation Project Manager. 

Crow Irrigation Project .............................. Vianna Stewart, Superintendent, Vacant, Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 69, Crow Agency, MT 

59022, Telephones: (406) 638–2672, Superintendent, (406) 638–2863, Irrigation Project Manager. 

Fort Belknap Irrigation Project .................. Cliff Hall, Superintendent, Vacant, Irrigation Project Manager, (Project operations and management 

contracted to Tribes), R.R.1, Box 980, Harlem, MT 59526, Telephones: (406) 353–2901, Superintendent, (406) 353–8454, Irrigation Project Manager (Tribal Office). 

Fort Peck Irrigation Project ....................... Rhonda Knudsen, Superintendent, P.O. Box 637, Poplar, MT 59255, Huber Wright, Acting Irrigation 

Project Manager, 602 6th Avenue North, Wolf Point, MT 59201, Telephones: (406) 768–5312, Superintendent, (406) 653–1752, Irrigation Project Manager. 

Wind River Irrigation Project ..................... Ed Lone Fight, Superintendent, Vacant, Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 158, Fort Washakie, 

WY 82514, Telephones: (307) 332–7810, Superintendent, (307) 332–2596, Irrigation Project Manager. 

Southwest Region Contacts 

William T. Walker, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Regional Office, 1001 Indian School Road, Albuquerque, New Mexico 

87104, Telephone: (505) 563–3100. 

Pine River Irrigation Project ...................... John Waconda, Superintendent, Reginald Howe, Irrigation Systems Operator, Irrigation Engineer, 

P.O. Box 315, Ignacio, CO 81137–0315, Telephones: (970) 563–4511, Superintendent, (970) 

563–9484, Irrigation Engineer. 

Western Region Contacts 

Bryan Bowker, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office, 2600 N. Central Ave., 4th Floor Mailroom, Phoenix, Arizona 

85004, Telephone: (602) 379–6600. 

Colorado River Irrigation Project .............. Janice Staudte, Superintendent, Gary Colvin, Acting Irrigation Project Manager, 12124 1st Avenue, 

Parker, AZ 85344, Telephone: (928) 669–7111. 

Duck Valley Irrigation Project ................... Joseph McDade, Superintendent, 1555 Shoshone Circle, Elko, NV 89801, Telephone: (775) 738– 

0569. 

Fort Yuma Irrigation Project ...................... Irene Herder, Superintendent, 256 South Second Avenue, Suite D, Yuma, AZ 85364, Telephone: 

(928) 782–1202. 

San Carlos Irrigation Project Joint Works Ferris Begay, Acting Project Manager, Clarence Begay, Irrigation Manager, P.O. Box 250, Coolidge, 

AZ 85228, Telephone: (520) 723–6203. 

San Carlos Irrigation Project Indian 

Works.

Cecilia Martinez, Superintendent, Joe Revak, Supervisory General Engineer, Pima Agency, Land 

Operations, P.O. Box 8, Sacaton, AZ 85247, Telephone: (520) 562–3326, Telephone: (520) 562– 

3372. 

Uintah Irrigation Project ............................ Dinah Peltier, Acting Superintendent, Dale Thomas, Irrigation Manager, P.O. Box 130, Fort 

Duchesne, UT 84026, Telephone: (435) 722–4300, Telephone: (435) 722–4341. 

Walker River Irrigation Project .................. Athena Brown, Superintendent, 311 E. Washington Street, Carson City, NV 89701, Telephone: (775) 

887–3500. 

What irrigation assessments or charges 

are adjusted by this notice? 

The rate table below contains the 

current rates for all irrigation projects 

where we recover costs of 

administering, operating, maintaining, 

and rehabilitating them. The table also 

contains the final rates for the 2012 

season and subsequent years where 

applicable. An asterisk immediately 

following the name of the project notes 

where the 2012 rates are different from 

the 2011 rates. 

Project name Rate category Final 2011 

rate 

Final 2012 

rate 

Fort Hall Irrigation Project * ........................................................................ Basic per acre ................................. $42.00 $45.50 

Minimum Charge per tract .............. 31.50 32.50 

Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Minor Units * .................................................. Basic per acre ................................. 22.50 23.50 

Minimum Charge per tract .............. 31.50 32.50 

Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Michaud * ...................................................... Basic per acre ................................. 43.00 45.00 

Pressure per acre ............................ 59.50 62.00 

Minimum Charge per tract .............. 31.50 32.50 

Wapato Irrigation Project—Toppenish/Simcoe Units * .............................. Minimum Charge for per bill ............ 17.00 20.00 

Basic per acre ................................. 17.00 20.00 

Wapato Irrigation Project—Ahtanum Units * .............................................. Minimum Charge per bill ................. 17.00 20.00 

Basic per acre ................................. 17.00 20.00 

Wapato Irrigation Project—Satus Unit * ..................................................... Minimum Charge for per bill ............ 63.00 65.00 

‘‘A’’ Basic per acre .......................... 63.00 65.00 

‘‘B’’ Basic per acre .......................... 70.00 70.00 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

10770 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2012 / Notices 

Project name Rate category Final 2011 

rate 

Final 2012 

rate 

Wapato Irrigation Project—Additional Works ............................................ Minimum Charge per bill ................. 67.00 67.00 

Basic per acre ................................. 67.00 67.00 

Wapato Irrigation Project—Water Rental .................................................. Minimum Charge ............................. 72.00 72.00 

Basic per acre ................................. 72.00 72.00 

Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table 

Blackfeet Irrigation Project ......................................................................... Basic-per acre ................................. 19.00 19.00 

Crow Irrigation Project—Willow Creek O&M (includes Agency, Lodge 

Grass #1, Lodge Grass #2, Reno, Upper Little Horn, and Forty Mile 

Units) *.

Basic-per acre ................................. 22.80 23.30 

Crow Irrigation Project—All Others (includes Bighorn, Soap Creek, and 

Pryor Units) *.

Basic-per acre ................................. 22.50 23.00 

Crow Irrigation Two Leggins Drainage District .......................................... Basic-per acre ................................. 2.00 2.00 

Fort Belknap Irrigation Project ................................................................... Basic-per acre ................................. 14.75 14.75 

Fort Peck Irrigation Project ........................................................................ Basic-per acre ................................. 24.70 24.70 

Wind River Irrigation Project ...................................................................... Basic-per acre ................................. 20.00 20.00 

Wind River Irrigation Project—LeClair District * (see Note #1) ................. Basic-per acre ................................. 21.00 20.00 

Wind River Irrigation Project—Crow Heart Unit ........................................ Basic-per acre ................................. 14.00 14.00 

Wind River Irrigation Project—Riverton Valley Irrigation District .............. Basic-per acre ................................. 16.00 16.00 

Southwest Region Rate Table 

Pine River Irrigation Project ....................................................................... Minimum Charge per tract .............. 50.00 50.00 

Basic-per acre ................................. 15.00 15.00 

Project name Rate category Final 2011 rate Final 2012 rate Final 2013 rate 

Western Region Rate Table 

Colorado River Irrigation 

Project.

Basic per acre up to 5.75 

acre-feet.

$54.00 ............................... $54.00 ............................... To be determined. 

Excess Water per acrefoot over 5.75 acre-feet.$17.00 ............................... $17.00.

Duck Valley Irrigation 

Project.

Basic per acre ................... $5.30 ................................. $5.30.

Fort Yuma Irrigation 

Project (See Note #2).

Basic per acre up to 5.0 

acre-feet.

$86.00 ............................... $86.00—BIA rate is final, 

Reclamation rate to be 

determined, see Note #2.

Excess Water per acrefoot over 5.0 acre-feet.$14.00 ............................... $14.00—BIA rate is final, 

Reclamation rate to be 

determined, see Note #2.

Basic per acre up to 5.0 

acre-feet (Ranch 5).

$86.00 ............................... $86.00—BIA rate is final, 

Reclamation rate to be 

determined, see Note #2.

San Carlos Irrigation 

Project (Joint Works) * 

(See Note #3).

Basic per acre ................... $25.00 ............................... $30.00 ............................... $30.00. 

Proposed 2012—2013 Construction Water Rate Schedule: 

Off Project Construction .... On Project Construction— 

Gravity Water.

On Project Construction— 

Pump Water 

Administrative Fee ............ $300.00 ............................. $300.00 ............................. $300.00 

Usage Fee ........................ $250.00 per month ............ No Fee .............................. $100.00 per acre-foot. 

Excess Water Rate † ........ $5 per 1000 gal ................. No charge ......................... No charge. 

† The excess water rate applies to all water used in excess of 50,000 gallons in any one month. 

San Carlos Irrigation 

Project (Indian Works) * 

(See Note #4).

Basic per acre ................... $68.00 ............................... $73.00 ............................... To be determined. 

Uintah Irrigation Project * ... Basic per acre ................... $15.00 ............................... $16.00.

Minimum Bill ...................... $25.00 ............................... $25.00.

Walker River Irrigation 

Project *.

Indian per acre .................. $22.00 ............................... $25.00.

non-Indian per acre ........... $22.00 ............................... $25.00.

* Notes irrigation projects where rates are proposed for adjustment. 

Note #1—The O&M rate varies yearly based upon the budget submitted by the LeClair District. 

Note #2—The O&M rate for the Fort Yuma Irrigation Project has two components. The first component is the O&M rate established by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the owner and operator of the Project. The BOR rate for 2012 is yet to be determined. The second component is for 

the O&M rate established by BIA to cover administrative costs including billing and collections for the Project. The 2012 BIA rate has been reduced to $1.50/acre. The rates shown include the 2011 Reclamation rate and the 2012 BIA rate. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2012 / Notices 10771 

Note #3—The 2012 rate was established by final notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER on May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26759). In addition, a Construction 

Water Rate Schedule for the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Joint Works is now being formally established. The rate schedule establishes the 

fees assessed for use of irrigation water for non-irrigation purposes. 

Note #4—The 2012 O&M rate for the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Indian Works has three components. The first component is the O&M rate

established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Indian Works, the owner and operator of the Project; this rate is proposed to be $35 per acre. 

The second component is for the O&M rate established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project—Joint Works and is determined to be $30 per acre. 

The third component is the O&M rate established by the San Carlos Irrigation Project Joint Control Board and is proposed to be $8 per acre. 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Tribal Governments (Executive Order 

13175) 

To fulfill its consultation 

responsibility to tribes and tribal 

organizations, BIA communicates, 

coordinates, and consults on a 

continuing basis with these entities on 

issues related to water delivery, water 

availability, and costs of administration, 

operation, maintenance, and 

rehabilitation of projects that concern 

them. This is accomplished at the 

individual irrigation project by Project, 

Agency, and Regional representatives, 

as appropriate, in accordance with local 

protocol and procedures. This notice is 

one component of our overall 

coordination and consultation process 

to provide notice to these entities when 

we adjust irrigation assessment rates. 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 

13211) 

The rate adjustments will have no 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use (including a 

shortfall in supply, price increases, and 

increase use of foreign supplies) as this 

rate adjustment is implemented. This is 

a notice for rate adjustments at BIAowned and operated irrigation projects, 

except for the Fort Yuma Irrigation 

Project. The Fort Yuma Irrigation Project 

is owned and operated by the Bureau of 

Reclamation with a portion serving the 

Fort Yuma Reservation. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

These rate adjustments are not a 

significant regulatory action and do not 

need to be reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

These rate adjustments are not a rule 

for the purposes of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act because they establish ‘‘a 

rule of particular applicability relating 

to rates.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601(2). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

These rate adjustments do not impose 

an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

on the private sector, of more than $130 

million per year. The rule does not have 

a significant or unique effect on State, 

local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector. Therefore, the 

Department of the Interior (Department) 

is not required to prepare a statement 

containing the information required by 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Takings (Executive Order 12630) 

The Department has determined that 

these rate adjustments do not have 

significant ‘‘takings’’ implications. The 

rate adjustments do not deprive the 

public, state, or local governments of 

rights or property. 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

The Department has determined that 

these rate adjustments do not have 

significant Federalism effects because 

they will not affect the States, the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among various levels of 

government. 

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 

12988) 

In issuing this rule, the Department 

has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct, as required by section 

3 of Executive Order 12988. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

These rate adjustments do not affect 

the collections of information which 

have been approved by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. The OMB Control Number is 

1076–0141 and expires December 31, 

2012. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Department has determined that 

these rate adjustments do not constitute 

a major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment and that no detailed 

statement is required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370(d)). 

Data Quality Act 

In developing this notice, we did not 

conduct or use a study, experiment, or 

survey requiring peer review under the 

Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106– 

554). 

Dated: February 9, 2012. 

Larry Echo Hawk, 

Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4200 Filed 2–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[NPS–WASO–NRNHL–0212–9442; 2200– 

3200–665] 

National Register of Historic Places; 

Notification of Pending Nominations 

and Related Actions 

Nominations for the following 

properties being considered for listing 

or related actions in the National 

Register were received by the National 

Park Service before January 28, 2012. 

Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 

60, written comments are being 

accepted concerning the significance of 

the nominated properties under the 

National Register criteria for evaluation. 

Comments may be forwarded by United 

States Postal Service, to the National 

Register of Historic Places, National 

Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, 

Washington, DC 20240; by all other 

carriers, National Register of Historic 

Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye 

St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 

20005; or by fax, 202–371–6447. Written 

or faxed comments should be submitted 

by March 9, 2012. Before including your 

address, phone number, email 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES