Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Notices 13149 

two sites in any given year. If two are 

nominated, at least one must be a 

natural site or a cultural landscape. 

Neither inclusion in the Tentative List 

nor inscription as a World Heritage Site 

imposes legal restrictions on owners or 

neighbors of sites, nor does it give the 

United Nations any management 

authority or ownership rights in U.S. 

World Heritage Sites, which continue to 

be subject only to U.S. laws. Inclusion 

in the Tentative List merely indicates 

that the property may be further 

examined for possible World Heritage 

nomination in the future. 

The World Heritage Committee’s 

Operational Guidelines ask 

participating nations to provide 

Tentative Lists, which aid in evaluating 

properties for the World Heritage List on 

a comparative international basis and 

help the Committee to schedule its work 

over the long term. 

In order to guide the U.S. World 

Heritage Program effectively and in a 

timely manner, NPS prepared and 

submitted (through the Secretary of the 

Interior and the Secretary of State) to the 

World Heritage Centre of UNESCO on 

January 24, 2008, the previously 

referenced Tentative List of properties 

that appear to meet the criteria for 

nomination. Information on how the 

Tentative List was developed is 

available on the Office of International 

Affairs Web site at http://www.nps.gov/ 

oia/topics/worldheritage/ 

worldheritage.htm. 

In order to be included, a proposed 

site must meet several U.S. prerequisites 

in addition to appearing to meet the 

stringent World Heritage criteria of 

international importance. The U.S. 

prerequisites include the written 

agreement of all property owners to the 

nomination of their property, a prior 

official determination that the property 

is nationally important (such as by 

designation as a National Historic or 

National Natural Landmark), and 

effective legal protection. Support from 

stakeholders, including elected officials, 

is also considered important. 

U.S. World Heritage Tentative List 

Cultural Sites (9) 

Civil Rights Movement Sites, Alabama 

Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist 

Church, Montgomery 

Bethel Baptist Church, Birmingham 

16th Street Baptist Church, Birmingham 

Dayton Aviation Sites, Ohio 

Dayton Aviation Heritage National 

Historical Park, including: 

—Huffman Prairie (part of WrightPatterson Air Force Base) 

—Wright Cycle Company and Wright & 

Wright Printing, Dayton 

—Wright Hall (housing the Wright Flyer 

III), Dayton 

—Hawthorn Hill, Dayton 

Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks, Ohio 

Fort Ancient State Memorial, Warren 

County 

Hopewell Culture National Historical 

Park, near Chillicothe 

Newark Earthworks State Historic 

Site, Newark and Heath, including: 

—Wright Earthworks 

—The Octagon Earthworks 

—Great Circle Earthworks 

Jefferson (Thomas) Buildings, Virginia 

Poplar Forest, Bedford County 

Virginia State Capitol, Richmond 

(Proposed jointly as an extension to 

the World Heritage listing of Monticello 

and the University of Virginia Historic 

District) 

Mount Vernon, Virginia 

Poverty Point National Monument and 

State Historic Site, Louisiana [Selected 

To Prepare a Nomination in 2011; Draft 

Nomination in Preparation] 

San Antonio Franciscan Missions, 

Texas 

Mission San Antonio de Valero (The 

Alamo) 

San Antonio Missions National 

Historical Park, including: 

—Mission Concepcion 

—Mission San Jose 

—Mission San Juan 

—Mission Espada (including Rancho de 

las Cabras) 

Serpent Mound, Ohio 

Wright (Frank Lloyd) Buildings 

[Selected To Prepare a Nomination in 

2011; Draft Nomination in Preparation] 

Taliesin West, Scottsdale, Arizona 

Hollyhock House, Los Angeles, 

California 

Marin County Civic Center, San Rafael, 

California 

Frederick C. Robie House, Chicago, 

Illinois 

Unity Temple, Oak Park, Illinois 

Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New 

York, New York 

Price Tower, Bartlesville, Oklahoma 

Fallingwater, Mill Run, Pennsylvania 

S. C. Johnson and Son, Inc., 

Administration Building and 

Research Tower, Racine, Wisconsin 

Taliesin, Spring Green, Wisconsin 

Herbert and Katherine Jacobs House, 

Madison, Wisconsin 

Natural Sites (4) 

Fagatele Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary, American Samoa 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, 

Georgia 

Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona 

White Sands National Monument, New 

Mexico 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 470 a–1, a–2, d; 36 

CFR 73. 

Dated: February 10, 2012. 

Rachel Jacobson, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5191 Filed 3–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1105–0091 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested: Office of Tribal 

Justice; Assumption of Concurrent 

Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Certain 

Areas of Indian Country 

ACTION: 30-Day notice of information 

collection under review. 

The Department of Justice, Office of 

Tribal Justice, 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. This proposed 

information collection was previously 

published in the Federal Register 

Volume 76, Number 250, pages 81966– 

81967, on December 29, 2011, allowing 

for a 60 day comment period. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comment until April 4, 2012. 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 additional information, please 

contact Mr. Tracy Toulou, Director, 

Office of Tribal Justice, Department of 

Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Room 2310, Washington, DC 20530. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Comments 

should address one or more of the 

following four points: 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13150 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Notices 

—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: 

Extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Request to the Attorney General for 

Assumption of Concurrent Federal 

Criminal Jurisdiction. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: No form. Component: Office 

of Tribal Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Tribal governments. 

Other: None. 

Abstract: The Department of Justice is 

publishing a proposed rule to establish 

the procedures for an Indian tribe whose 

Indian country is subject to State 

criminal jurisdiction under Public Law 

280 (18 U.S.C. 1162(a)) to request that 

the United States accept concurrent 

criminal jurisdiction within the tribe’s 

Indian country, and for the Attorney 

General to decide whether to consent to 

such a request. The purpose of the 

collection is to provide information 

from the requesting tribe sufficient for 

the Attorney General to make a decision 

whether to consent to the request. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: Fewer than 350 respondents; 

80 hours. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: There are an estimated 

28,000 annual total burden hours 

associated with this collection. 

Fewer than 350 Indian tribes are 

eligible for the assumption of 

concurrent criminal jurisdiction by the 

United States. The Department of Justice 

does not know how many eligible tribes 

will, in fact, make such a request. The 

information collection will require 

Indian tribes seeking assumption of 

concurrent criminal jurisdiction by the 

United States to provide certain 

information relating to public safety 

within the Indian country of the tribe. 

If additional information is required, 

contact: Jerri Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning 

Staff, Justice Management Division, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street NE., Suite 2E–508, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Jerri Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United 

States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5246 Filed 3–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Third Amendment 

to Consent Decree Under the Clean Air 

Act 

Under 28 U.S.C. 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that on February 28, 2012, a 

proposed Third Amendment to the 

Consent Decree entered in the case of 

United States, et al. v. ConocoPhillips 

Company, Civil Action No. H–05–0258, 

was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the Southern District 

of Texas. 

Under the original Consent Decree, 

ConocoPhillips Company (‘‘COPC’’) 

agreed to implement innovative 

pollution control technologies to reduce 

emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, and particulate matter from 

refinery process units at nine refineries 

owned and operated by COPC. COPC 

also agreed to adopt facility-wide 

enhanced benzene waste monitoring 

and fugitive emission control programs. 

Subsequently, the Court entered First 

and Second Amendments to the 

Consent Decree and a new owner (WRB 

Refining) of two of the refineries—the 

Wood River and Borger Refineries—was 

added as a defendant. COPC remained 

a defendant with respect to those two 

refineries because it continued to 

operate them. 

COPC still is obligated to comply with 

the Consent Decree as amended. 

However, under the Third Amendment, 

COPC will undertake a demonstration 

project and emissions tests at a recently 

installed delayed coking unit at its 

Wood River Refinery in order to enable 

the parties to establish new limits and 

controls for the coke drum steam vents 

and coker quench water tank. COPC also 

will pay civil penalties of $249,000, 

$98,500, and $21,000 to resolve alleged 

Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP 

(‘‘BWON’’) violations at its Borger, 

Trainer, and Wood River Refineries, 

respectively. In addition, for the 

resolution of the BWON claims at its 

Wood River Refinery, COPC will 

perform a Supplemental Environmental 

Project valued at $77,000 to retrofit 

diesel school buses with pollution 

controls. Finally, several minor and 

non-material modifications are included 

in the Third Amendment. 

In the Third Amendment, the United 

States is joined by all Co-Plaintiffs to the 

original Consent Decree: the State of 

Illinois, the State of Louisiana, the State 

of New Jersey, the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, and the Northwest Clean 

Air Agency in the State of Washington. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the Third Amendment. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either mailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States, et al. v. ConocoPhillips 

Company, D. J. Ref. No. 90–5–2–1– 

06722/1. 

During the public comment period, 

the Third Amendment may be examined 

on the following Department of Justice 

Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Third Amendment may also be obtained 

by mail from the Consent Decree 

Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department 

of Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611, 

or by faxing or emailing a request to 

‘‘Consent Decree Copy’’ 

(EESCDCopy.ENRD@usdoj.gov), fax 

number (202) 514–0097; phone 

confirmation number (202) 514–5271. If 

requesting a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library by mail, please enclose 

a check in the amount of $13.75 (25 

cents per page reproduction cost) 

payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if 

requesting by email or fax, forward a 

check in that amount to the Consent 

Decree Library at the address given 

above. 

Robert D. Brook, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5199 Filed 3–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES