This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

52066 

Vol. 70, No. 169 

Thursday, September 1, 2005 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION 

Working Principles for Revising the 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s ‘‘Policy Statement 

Regarding Treatment of Human 

Remains and Grave Goods’’ 

AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP). 

ACTION: Notice of intent to reconsider 

the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s ‘‘Policy Statement 

Regarding Treatment of Human Remains 

and Grave Goods.’’ 

SUMMARY: The Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) is 

revisiting its ‘‘Policy Statement 

Regarding Treatment of Human Remains 

and Grave Goods,’’ adopted in 1988 

(1988 Human Remains Policy). A Task 

Force composed of ACHP members has 

drafted a set of Working Principles, 

which are presented below, to guide 

possible revision of the 1988 Human 

Remains Policy. The ACHP invites your 

views and observations on these 

principles. The Task Force will use your 

comments to prepare a draft revision of 

the 1988 Human Remains Policy. That 

draft will then be subject to further 

consultation and opportunity to 

comment, before a final draft is 

presented to the ACHP membership for 

adoption. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

November 4, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Address all comments concerning these 

working principles to the Archaeology 

Task Force, Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, 1100 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 809, 

Washington, DC 20004. Fax (202) 606– 

8672. Comments may also be submitted 

by electronic mail to: 

archeology@achp.gov. Please note that 

all responses become part of the public 

record once they are submitted to the 

ACHP. Please refer any questions to Dr. 

Tom McCulloch at 202–606–8505. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) is preparing to 

revisit its ‘‘Policy Statement Regarding 

Treatment of Human Remains and 

Grave Goods,’’ adopted 1988 (1988 

Human Remains Policy). 

In April 2004 the ACHP formed a 

Task Force on Archaeology (Task 

Force), and sought comments on 

suggested modifications and additions 

to existing ACHP policy guidance 

regarding how archeology is carried out 

pursuant to Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470f 

(Section 106), and its implementing 

regulations, 36 CFR part 800 (Section 

106 regulations). Section 106 requires 

Federal agencies to take into account the 

effects of their undertakings on historic 

properties and provide the ACHP a 

reasonable opportunity to comment on 

such undertakings. 

The Task Force solicited the 

comments of Federal, Tribal and State 

Historic Preservation Officers, all 

Federally-recognized Indian tribes, 

Native Hawaiian organizations, and 

major professional archaeological 

organizations in this effort. 

From these comments, the Task Force 

identified several key issues requiring 

attention. One of the priority issues is 

revisiting the 1988 Human Remains 

Policy. At its Spring 2005 meeting, the 

ACHP membership voted unanimously 

to direct the Task Force to revisit the 

1988 Human Remains Policy. The Task 

Force has drafted a set of Working 

Principles, which are presented below, 

to guide this effort. 

We invite your views and 

observations on these principles. The 

Task Force will use your comments to 

prepare a draft revision of the 1988 

Human Remains Policy. This draft then 

will be subject to further review and 

comment. The Task Force recognizes 

the unique legal relationship that exists 

between the Federal Government and 

Federally-recognized Indian tribes. 

Accordingly, the ACHP’s consultation 

with Indian tribes will be held on a 

Government-to-Government basis. 

Following consideration of all 

comments provided, the Task Force may 

present a revised, draft policy statement 

to the full ACHP membership for 

adoption. 

Background Information 

The Section 106 process and purpose 

of the 1988 Human Remains Policy: 

Section 106 seeks to accommodate 

historic preservation concerns through a 

process of consultation between the 

Federal agency official and other parties 

having an interest in the effects of 

undertakings on all kinds of historic 

properties. In some cases, these 

properties contain cemeteries or other 

burial grounds with human remains and 

funerary objects. The Section 106 

process requires that the Federal agency 

consult with other parties, and then 

make an informed and reasoned 

decision about what should be done in 

each case. Although final decisions in 

the Section 106 review process are the 

responsibility of the Federal agency 

official with approval authority over the 

undertaking, Federal or state law may 

prescribe a certain outcome. It is in 

reaching these decisions that Federal 

agencies look to the 1988 Human 

Remains Policy for guidance. 

The current ACHP policy is a formal 

statement, endorsed by the full ACHP 

membership in 1988, representing the 

membership’s collective thinking about 

what to consider in reaching decisions 

about human remains and funerary 

objects encountered in undertakings on 

Federal, tribal, State, or private lands 

(the term ‘‘funerary objects’’ will be 

used in any revised policy statement to 

replace the term ‘‘grave goods.’’ As 

NAGPRA defines them they are ‘‘items 

that, as part of the death rite or 

ceremony of a culture, are reasonably 

believed to have been placed 

intentionally at the time of death or later 

with or near individual human 

remains’’). Unlike Federal and State 

laws that may circumscribe how human 

remains and funerary objects are treated 

on Federal, tribal, and State lands, the 

1988 Human Remains Policy does not 

prescribe a specific outcome, but rather 

serves to focus thinking about what 

needs to be considered in reaching a 

decision. 

Nature of the current debate: Most 

people would agree that human remains 

and the items buried with them should 

not be disturbed. initiated early enough, 

the Section 106 process should allow for 

alternatives to disturbance of locations 

known to contain human remains, 

including avoidance and preservation in 

place, to be thoroughly explored. 

However, during consultation about 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2005 / Notices 52067 

what to do when disturbance of human 

remains is unavoidable, the parties’

viewpoints tend to fall somewhere into 

one of two broad camps. Some believe 

that the information human remains and 

funerary objects can provide about the 

past when studied by archaeologists and 

other specialists requires that the 

remains, which usually are removed 

from the ground at public expense, be 

subject to scientific analysis. Others 

argue that human remains and their 

associated funerary objects, due to their 

cultural significance and spiritual value 

to living communities, should be 

immediately and respectfully reburied 

or repatriated for reburial without study. 

Objectives of an updated policy: In 

revisiting the 1988 Human Remains 

Policy, the ACHP wishes to assert its 

leadership in historic preservation for 

the Federal Government and for parties 

affected by the Section 106 process. The 

ACHP hopes that any new policy it 

might develop for application to 

decisions made in the context of the 

Section 106 review process will provide 

an important model for other 

organizations, agencies, or governments 

seeking to develop their own policies on 

the treatment of all human remains, 

burial sites, and associated funerary 

objects. 

Through any revision to the existing 

policy or any new policy it might 

develop, the ACHP hopes to offer 

leadership in resolving how to balance 

the public interest in the desire to treat 

human remains in a respectful and 

sensitive manner, while recognizing the 

public interest in knowing its collective 

past. Specifically, any new policy 

would guide decision-making under 

Section 106 when questions involving 

the treatment of human remains and 

funerary objects must be resolved in the 

absence of Federal or State law 

circumscribing the treatment of human 

remains and funerary objects. Any new 

ACHP human remains policy statement 

would not be bound by geography, 

ethnicity or nationality; it would apply 

to the treatment of all human remains 

encountered in Section 106 review. 

The Section 106 consultation process 

does not mandate a particular outcome. 

Accordingly, any new policy would not 

direct Federal agencies to make specific 

decisions. Rather, as a statement of the 

collective thinking of the ACHP 

membership, a new policy should guide 

Federal agencies in resolving the 

difficult question of what to do with 

human remains when Federal or State 

laws do not already prescribe a certain 

outcome. 

The following is the text of the 

working principles on which comment 

is sought through this notice: 

Working Principles 

Any ACHP revised and updated policy 

will: 

—Address treatment of all human remains 

and funerary objects in the context of 

compliance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (Section 

106); 

—Encourage Federal agencies to initiate the 

Section 106 process early in their planning 

processes; 

—Address human remains and funerary 

objects of all people; 

—Be consistent, and work in concert, with 

other Federal, State, tribal, and local laws; 

Principle 1: The policy statement should 

recognize that human remains must be 

treated with respect and dignity. 

Principle 2: The policy statement should 

clarify the intersection between Section 106 

and other legal authorities. 

—The policy statement needs to clarify the 

intersection between the requirements of 

Section 106 and the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA). 

—The policy statement needs to clarify the 

intersection between the requirements of 

Section 106, State burial laws and other 

applicable laws. 

—The policy statement needs to recognize 

that a Federal agency official under Section 

106 has a duty for the care of human 

remains and funerary objects. 

Principle 3: The policy statement should 

emphasize that avoidance, followed by 

preservation in place, is the preferred 

alternative to disturbance of human remains 

and funerary objects. 

—Federal undertakings should disturb 

human remains and funerary objects only 

if absolutely necessary, and then only after 

exploring other alternatives early in project 

planning. 

—In order to realistically consider avoidance 

and preservation in place, Federal agencies 

need to initiate the Section 106 process 

early in planning. 

—Federal agencies must recognize that 

simple avoidance of a site does not 

necessarily ensure that site’s long-term 

preservation. 

Principle 4: The policy statement should 

recognize that Federal agencies are 

responsible for meaningful consultation with 

all interested parties as a means to achieve 

compliance with the law. 

—In accordance with the NHPA, the Federal 

agency official with jurisdiction over the 

undertaking has the responsibility to make 

the final decisions in Section 106 review 

after completing, and being informed, by 

the consultation process. However, it is 

recognized that Federal or State law may 

prescribe a certain outcome. 

—Agency decisions regarding treatment and 

ultimate disposition must be based on a 

careful consideration of all views. 

—The legal Government-to-Government 

obligations of Federal agencies to Indian 

tribes emanating from various statutes, 

Executive orders, treaties or court 

decisions should have a bearing on Federal 

agency decisions regarding the treatment 

and disposition of Native American human 

remains and funerary objects. 

—Planning for the disposition of human 

remains should occur early in the process. 

Principle 5: The policy statement should 

guide the Federal agency official in decision 

making. 

—The policy statement should clarify the 

roles of different groups concerned with 

the effects of the undertaking on historic 

properties in making decisions. 

—The policy statement should clarify how 

the Federal agency weighs the views 

presented by the different parties in 

arriving at a final decision, recognizing that 

Federal or State law may prescribe a 

certain outcome. 

Principle 6: The policy statement should 

call for Federal agencies to develop 

procedures for the preservation and 

treatment of human remains discovered 

inadvertently, or when there is the potential 

for an undertaking to discover human 

remains. 

—The policy should encourage Federal 

agencies to develop policy and operational 

procedures for treatment of human remains 

and funerary objects when they are 

inadvertently discovered. 

—The policy should encourage Federal 

agencies to develop policy and operational 

procedures for treatment of human remains 

and funerary objects where they may be 

anticipated to be encountered as part of 

National Register eligibility investigations 

and data recovery investigations. 

—The policy should encourage Federal 

agencies to develop policy and operational 

procedures for treatment of human remains 

and funerary objects exposed during 

natural disasters or encountered during 

emergency responses to such disasters. 

—The policy should encourage Federal 

agencies to develop these procedures in 

consultation with all interested parties 

consistent with Principle 4. 

—If a site is avoided, Federal agencies should 

have a procedure in place to provide the 

owners with guidance developed by the 

Secretary of the Interior under Section 

112(b) of the NHPA and supplemental 

guidance that encourages protection of 

important archaeological properties, 

including burial sites. 

End of text of the principles. 

The following is the text of the 1988 

Human Remains Policy. It is reproduced 

here only for reference purposes. Again, 

the comments sought through this 

notice are on the principles presented 

above. 

Policy Statement Regarding Treatment of 

Human Remains and Grave Goods 

Adopted by the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation September 27, 1988, Gallup, 

New Mexico 

When human remains or grave goods are 

likely to be exhumed in connection with an 

undertaking subject to review under Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the consulting parties under the Council’s 

regulations should agree upon arrangements 

for their disposition that, to the extent 

52068 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2005 / Notices 

allowed by law, adhere to the following 

principles: 

—Human remains and grave goods should 

not be disinterred unless required in 

advance of some kind of disturbance, such 

as construction; 

—Disinterment when necessary should be 

done carefully, respectfully, and 

completely, in accordance with proper 

archaeological methods; 

—In general, human remains and grave goods 

should be reburied, in consultation with 

the descendants of the dead. 

—Prior to reburial, scientific studies should 

be performed as necessary to address 

justified research topics; 

—Scientific studies and reburial should 

occur according to a definite, agreed-upon 

schedule; and, 

—Where scientific study is offensive to the 

descendants of the dead, and the need for 

such study does not outweigh the need to 

respect the concerns of such descendants, 

reburial should occur without prior study. 

Conversely, where the scientific research 

value of human remains or grave goods 

outweighs any objections that descendants 

may have to their study, they should not 

be reburied, but should be retained in 

perpetuity for study. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 470j 

Dated: August 26, 2005. 

John M. Fowler, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 05–17437 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–K6–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

August 26, 2005. 

The Department of Agriculture has 

submitted the following information 

collection requirement(s) to OMB for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Comments 

regarding (a) whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of burden including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; (d) ways to 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 should be addressed to: Desk 

Officer for Agriculture, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), 

OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV or 

fax (202) 395–5806 and to Departmental 

Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail 

Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250–

7602. Comments regarding these 

information collections are best assured 

of having their full effect if received 

within 30 days of this notification. 

Copies of the submission(s) may be 

obtained by calling (202) 720–8681. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless the collection of information 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number and the agency informs 

potential persons who are to respond to 

the collection of information that such 

persons are not required to respond to 

the collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Forest Service 

Title: Social Dimensions of Fuel 

Reduction Treatment in the Southern 

Appalachian Region. 

OMB Control Number: 0596–NEW. 

Summary of Collection: The Forest 

and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Research Act of 1978, as amended, 

authorizes the Forest Service (FS) to 

collect information to help identify the 

range of knowledge, attitudes and 

values interested publics hold toward 

fuel-load reduction and resulting 

aesthetic and ecological changes. Fuel 

loads in the forest of the Southern 

Appalachian Mountain pose significant 

risk of wildfire. Among forest ecologists 

there is a growing awareness that there 

may be some value to conducting 

prescribed fires and mechanical 

thinning to reduce the concentration of 

shrubs and under-story trees in some 

parts of the Southern Appalachian 

Mountains. These treatments, 

particularly if they were to be 

implemented over large areas, would 

change the visual and ecological 

character of the Southern Appalachian 

Mountains. FS will collect information 

using the Internet and a mail-back 

questionnaire. 

Need and Use of the Information: FS 

will collect information describing 

respondents’ perceptions of the 

aesthetic (visual), economic and 

ecological results of prescribed fire and 

mechanical thinning. The collected 

information will provide profiles of 

different groups or clusters of people 

and how each group perceives the 

economic, aesthetic and ecological 

results of forest management action. 

Without the information programs will 

be less efficient and accurate and 

unneeded conflicts and 

misunderstandings may be more 

common. 

Description of Respondents: 

Individuals or households. 

Number of Respondents: 600. 

Frequency of Responses: Reporting: 

On occasion. 

Total Burden Hours: 304. 

Ruth Brown, 

Departmental Information Collection 

Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–17380 Filed 8–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Foreign Agricultural Service 

Assessment of Fees for Dairy Import 

Licenses for the 2006 Tariff-Rate 

Import Quota Year 

AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces that 

the fee to be charged for the 2006 tariffrate quota (TRQ) year for each license 

issued to a person or firm by the 

Department of Agriculture authorizing 

the importation of certain dairy articles 

which are subject to tariff-rate quotas set 

forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (HTS) will be 

$150.00 per license. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bettyann Gonzales, Dairy Tariff-Rate 

Import Quota Program, Import Policies 

and Programs Division, STOP 1021, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–1021 or 

telephone at (202) 720–1344 or E-mail at 

Bettyann.Gonzales@fas.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Dairy 

Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing 

Regulation promulgated by the 

Department of Agriculture and codified 

at 7 CFR 6.20–6.37 provides for the 

issuance of licenses to import certain 

dairy articles that are subject to TRQs 

set forth in the HTS. Those dairy articles 

may only be entered into the United 

States at the in-quota TRQ tariff-rates by 

or for the account of a person or firm to 

whom such licenses have been issued 

and only in accordance with the terms 

and conditions of the regulation. 

Licenses are issued on a calendar year 

basis, and each license authorizes the 

license holder to import a specified 

quantity and type of dairy article from 

a specified country of origin. The use of 

licenses by the license holder to import 

dairy articles is monitored by the Dairy