Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Notices 33271

Blanche, Natchitoches Parish, LA, by

H.F. Gregory and Randall Pleasant, who

donated them to the Williamson

Museum, Northwestern State University

of Louisiana. No known individual was

identified. No associated funerary

objects are present.

The remains were collected from the

backdirt of a pot-hunter’s excavation.

Sherd collections from this midden

seem to date it to the Caddo III–IV

periods (A.D. 1200–1400). The Adaes

were the nearest historic Caddoan

group. To the north were historic Yatasi

villages, and about 16 miles east were

the Natchitoches villages. All of these

groups are Caddoan speakers.

Based on the above-mentioned

information, officials of the Williamson

Museum, Northwestern State University

of Louisiana, have determined that,

pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2 (d)(1), the

human remains listed above represent

the physical remains of four individuals

of Native American ancestry. Officials of

the Williamson Museum, Northwestern

State University of Louisiana, also have

determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR

10.2 (e), there is a relationship of shared

group identity that can be reasonably

traced between these Native American

human remains and the Caddo Indian

Tribe of Oklahoma.

This notice has been sent to officials

of the Caddo Indian Tribe of Oklahoma.

Representatives of any other Indian tribe

that believes itself to be culturally

affiliated with these human remains

should contact Dr. Pete Gregory,

Director, Williamson Museum,

Northwestern State University of

Louisiana, Natchitoches, LA 71497,

telephone (318) 357–8170, before July

23, 2001. Repatriation of the human

remains to the Caddo Indian Tribe of

Oklahoma may begin after that date if

no additional claimants come forward.

Dated: May 25, 2001.

John Robbins,

Assistant Director, Cultural Resources

Stewardship and Partnerships.

[FR Doc. 01–15562 Filed 6–20–01 ; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Feasibility Study, Enhanced Ferry

Service, Golden Gate National

Recreation Area, San Francisco Bay

Area, California; Notice of Interviews of

Current Passenger Ferry Operators

The National Park Service (NPS),

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

(GGNRA), is currently studying

increased commercial marine vessel

service (including new ferry routes) to

various sites within and contiguous to

GGNRA. A team of transportation

consultants has been retained to advise

GGNRA on the feasibility of enhanced

ferry service. The consultants expect to

interview park users, tourism industry

leaders, and residents of northern

California to help determine the

feasibility of these new services. As a

part of this study, the consultants and

NPS also expect to interview and obtain

comment from commercial vessel

operators to understand the

opportunities and the constraints

associated with these new services.

Personal interviews will be conducted

in the San Francisco Metropolitan area

or by telephone at vessel operator

option. Should any firm with applicable

maritime experience (defined as

follows: currently operating vessels with

U.S. Coast Guard approval to transport

more than 100 passengers, and currently

providing, or provided within the last

30 days, regularly scheduled commuter

and/or scheduled recreational water

transportation services) desire to

participate in the commercial vessel

operator interview phase of the study,

the appropriate company official must

contact the National Park Service, Maria

Banuelos Connell, at 415 561–4944, no

later than July 14,2001.

Dated: June 1, 2001.

Brian O’Neill,

General Superintendent, Golden Gate

National Recreation Area.

[FR Doc. 01–15560 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337–TA–455]

Notice of Decision To Review Two

Initial Determinations Granting

Intervention but Denying Respondent

Status; Grant of Motion for Leave To

File a Reply

In the Matter of certain network interface

cards and access points for use in direct

sequence spread spectrum wireless local area

networks and products containing same.

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has determined to review

two initial determinations (‘‘IDs’’)

(Orders Nos. 12 and 13) issued by the

presiding administrative law judge (ALJ)

in the above-captioned investigation,

granting the motions of Intersil

Corporation (‘‘Intersil’’) and Agere

Systems, Inc. (‘‘Agere’’), respectively, to

intervene, but denying them respondent

status. The Commission has also granted

Intersil’s motion for leave to file a reply

brief. No further submissions are

requested of the parties.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)

205–3115. Copies of the ALJ’s ID and all

other nonconfidential 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. Hearing-impaired persons are

advised that information on this matter

can be obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on (202)

205–1810. General information

concerning the Commission may also be

obtained by accessing its Internet server

(http://www.usitc.gov). The public

record for this investigation may be

viewed on the Commission’s electronic

docket (EDIS–ON–LINE) at http://

dockets.usitc.gov/eol/public.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission instituted this investigation

on April 9, 2001, based on a complaint

filed by Proxim, Inc. (‘‘Proxim’’) against

14 entities other than Intersil or Agere.

The notice of investigation was

published in the Federal Register on

April 9, 2001. 66 FR 18507. The

complaint alleges violations of section

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the

importation into the United States, sale

for importation, and/or sale within the

United States after importation of

certain wireless network interface cards

and access points by reason of

infringement of certain U.S. patents

owned by Proxim. On April 16, 2001,

Intersil and Agere each filed separate

motions to intervene as respondents in

the investigation.

Proxim filed a response to Intersil’s

motion in which it opposed the

intervention of Intersil as a respondent,

but did not object if Intersil was

permitted to become a party to the

investigation as an intervenor. The

Commission investigative attorney

(‘‘IA’’) supported intervention of Intersil

as an intervenor, but not as a

respondent.

Proxim and the IA did not oppose

intervention of Agere. However, Proxim

noted that Agere failed to state why it

should be considered a respondent