5460 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices 

The following language is proposed to 

be negotiated as part of the 2006 Title 

I and Title IV funding agreements 

regarding fiduciary trust records 

management:

The Tribe/Consortium and Secretary agree 

to implement the Policy on Fiduciary Trust 

Records Management for Title I and Title IV 

Tribes/Consortia by working cooperatively in 

records creation, maintenance and 

disposition and training activities.

The Tribe/Consortium agrees to: 

(a) Preserve, protect and manage all 

fiduciary trust records, as defined in the 

Secretary of Interior’s Policy on 

Fiduciary Trust Records Management 

for Title I and Title IV Tribes/Consortia 

created and maintained by Tribes/

Consortia during their management of 

trust programs in their Title I/Title IV 

agreements; 

(b) Make available to the Secretary all 

fiduciary trust records maintained by 

the Tribe/Consortium, provided that the 

Secretary gives reasonable oral or 

written advance request to the Tribe/

Consortium. Access shall include visual 

inspection and the production of copies 

as necessary and shall not include the 

involuntary removal of the records; and 

(c) Store and permanently retain all 

inactive fiduciary trust records at the 

Tribe/Consortium or allow such records 

to be removed and stored at the 

American Indian Records Repository 

(AIRR) in Lenexa, Kansas at no cost to 

the Tribe/Consortium. 

The Secretary agrees to: 

(a) Allow the Tribe/Consortium to 

determine what records it maintains to 

implement the trust program assumed 

under a Title I or Title IV agreement 

except it must maintain the information 

required by statute and regulation; 

(b) Store all inactive fiduciary trust 

records at AIRR at no cost to the Tribe/

Consortium when the Tribe/Consortium 

no longer wishes to keep the records. 

Further, the Tribe/Consortium will 

retain legal custody and determine 

access to these records; 

(c) Work with the Tribe/Consortium 

on a tribal storage and retrieval system 

for fiduciary trust records stored at 

AIRR; and 

(d) Provide technical and financial 

assistance for Tribes/Consortia in 

preserving, protecting and managing 

their fiduciary trust records from 

available funds appropriated for this 

purpose.

Dated: January 26, 2005. 

Abraham E. Haspel, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary—Office of the 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05–1869 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–W8–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 5-Year Review of Lesser 

Long-nosed Bat, Black-capped Vireo, 

Yuma Clapper Rail, Pima Pineapple 

Cactus, Gypsum Wild-Buckwheat, 

Mesa Verde Cactus, and Zuni Fleabane

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of review.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) announces a 5-year 

review of the lesser long-nosed bat 

(Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae), 

the black-capped vireo (Vireo 

atricapilla), the Yuma clapper rail 

(Rallus longirostris yumanensis), Pima 

pineapple cactus (Coryphantha sheeri

var. robustispina), gypsum wildbuckwheat (Erigonum gypsophilum), 

Mesa Verde cactus (Sclerocactus mesaeverde), and Zuni fleabane (Erigeron 

rhizomatus) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (Act). The purpose 

of reviews conducted under this section 

of the Act is to ensure that the 

classification of species as threatened or 

endangered on the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 

CFR 17.12) is accurate. The 5-year 

review is an assessment of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

at the time of the review.

DATES: To allow adequate time to 

conduct this review, information 

submitted for our consideration must be 

received on or before May 3, 2005. 

However, we will continue to accept 

new information about any listed 

species at any time.

ADDRESSES: Information submitted on 

these species should be sent to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service at the 

following addresses. Information 

received in response to this notice of 

review will be available for public 

inspection by appointment, during 

normal business hours, at the same 

addresses. 

Information regarding the lesser longnosed bat, Yuma clapper rail, and Pima 

pineapple cactus should be sent to the 

Field Supervisor, Attention 5-year 

Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Arizona Ecological Services Field 

Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, 

Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021. 

Information regarding the blackcapped vireo should be sent to the Field 

Supervisor, Attention 5-year Review, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ecological Services, 711 Stadium Drive, 

Suite 252, Arlington, TX 76011.

Information regarding gypsum wildbuckwheat, Mesa verde cactus, and 

Zuni fleabane should be sent to the 

Field Supervisor, Attention 5-year 

Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

New Mexico Ecological Services Field 

Office, 2105 Osuna Road NE, 

Albuquerque, NM 87113.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

the lesser long-nosed bat, contact Scott 

Richardson at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Arizona Ecological Services 

Tucson Sub-Office, 201 North Bonita, 

Suite 141, Tucson, AZ 84745, 520–670–

6150 x 242, scott_richardson@fws.gov.

For the Pima pineapple cactus, contact 

Mima Falk at Tucson Sub-Office address 

above, 520–670–6150 x 225, 

mima_falk@fws.gov. For the blackcapped vireo, contact Omar Bocanegra 

at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ecological Services Field Office, 711 

Stadium Drive, Arlington, TX 76011, 

817–277–1100, 

omar_bocanegra@fws.gov. For the Yuma 

clapper rail, contact Lesley Fitzpatrick 

at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Arizona Ecological Services Field 

Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, 

Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ, 85021, 602–

242–0210 x 236, 

lesley_fitzpatrick@fws.gov. For the 

gypsum wild-buckwheat, Mesa Verde 

cactus, and Zuni fleabane, contact 

Nancy Baczek at the New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 

Osuna Road, NE, Albuquerque, NM 

87113, 505–761–4711, 

nancy_baczek@fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Why Is a 5-Year Review Conducted? 

Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we 

conduct a review of listed species at 

least once every 5 years. We are then, 

under section 4(c)(2)(B) and the 

provisions of subsections (a) and (b), to 

determine, on the basis of such a 

review, whether or not any species 

should be removed from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (delisted), or reclassified 

from endangered to threatened 

(downlisted) , or from threatened to 

endangered (uplisted). The 5-year 

review is an assessment of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

at the time of the review. Therefore, we 

are requesting submission of any new 

information (best scientific and 

commercial data) on the following 

species since their original listings as 

either endangered (lesser long-nosed 

bat, black-capped vireo, Yuma clapper 

rail, and Pima pineapple cactus) or 

threatened (gypsum wild-buckwheat, 

Mesa Verde cactus, and Zuni fleabane). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices 5461

If the present classification of any of 

these species is not consistent with the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available, the Service will 

recommend whether or not a change is 

warranted in the Federal classification 

of that species. Any change in Federal 

classification would require a separate 

final rule-making process. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 

require that we publish a notice in the 

Federal Register announcing those 

species currently under active review. 

This notice announces our active review 

of the lesser long-nosed bat, blackcapped vireo, Yuma clapper rail, Pima 

pineapple cactus, gypsum wildbuckwheat, Mesa Verde cactus, and 

Zuni fleabane. 

What Information Is Considered in the 

Review? 

A 5-year review considers all new 

information available at the time of the 

review. These reviews will consider the 

best scientific and commercial data that 

has become available since the current 

listing determination or most recent 

status review of each species, such as: 

A. Species biology, including but not 

limited to population trends, 

distribution, abundance, demographics, 

and genetics; 

B. Habitat conditions, including but 

not limited to amount, distribution, and 

suitability; 

C. Conservation measures that have 

been implemented to benefit the 

species; 

D. Threat status and trends (see five 

factors under heading ‘‘How do we 

determine whether a species is 

endangered or threatened?’’); and 

E. Other new information, data, or 

corrections, including but not limited to 

taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, 

identification of erroneous information 

contained in the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants, and 

improved analytical methods. 

Specific Information Requested for the 

Lesser Long-Nosed Bat 

We are especially interested in the 

results of survey and monitoring efforts 

that provide a better understanding of 

current population numbers and the 

status, security, and location of roost 

sites in the U.S. and Mexico. We also 

specifically request any recent 

information regarding the impacts of 

agave plant harvest and/or livestock 

grazing on the numbers and distribution 

of agaves and associated impacts on 

forage availability for lesser long-nosed 

bats.

Specific Information Requested for the 

Black-Capped Vireo 

We are especially interested in the 

following information: (1) Distribution 

of populations and suitable habitat 

across the breeding range and the degree 

of protection afforded these populations 

and habitat; (2) evaluation of the 

viability of breeding populations; (3) the 

distribution of wintering populations 

and evaluation of the extent and 

security of wintering habitat in Mexico; 

and (4) short- and long-term effects of 

various management activities on vireo 

populations and breeding habitat, 

including brown-headed cowbird 

control, brush management, prescribed 

fire, and livestock grazing. 

Specific Information Requested for the 

Yuma Clapper Rail 

We specifically request information 

regarding the distribution of listed 

populations and evaluation of the 

degree of habitat protection for each 

population, and information regarding 

management plans and techniques for 

maintaining clapper rail habitat. We 

also are particularly interested in recent 

information regarding the effects of 

selenium on clapper rail reproductive 

success. 

Special Consideration of a Taxonomic 

Question Regarding the Pima Pineapple 

Cactus 

Two studies of character variation 

within the species Coryphantha 

robustispina have recently become 

available to us: One was recently 

published by Schmalzel et al. (2004), 

and the other is a report by Baker (2004) 

of Arizona State University regarding a 

study carried out under our cooperative 

agreement with the Arizona Department 

of Agriculture under section 6 of the 

Endangered Species Act. These two 

studies reach different conclusions 

concerning the taxonomic validity of the 

Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha 

scheeri var. robustispina)). 

We have carefully reviewed both 

reports and have identified several 

technical issues on which we are 

particularly soliciting review and 

comment by knowledgeable experts 

during this status review of the Pima 

pineapple cactus. 

Schmalzel et al. (2004) concluded that 

their data suggest that the Pima 

pineapple cactus, a listed variety of C. 

robustispina (based on Taylor (1998) 

nomenclature), is not a valid taxonomic 

entity, and therefore does not meet the 

definition of ‘‘species’’ under the Act. 

They based this conclusion on (1) clinal 

variation in certain characters from west 

to east, and (2) overlap in characters 

between the populations of C. 

robustispina. 

The term ‘‘clinal’’ comes from 

‘‘cline,’’ which is a gradation in 

measurable characters (Huxley 1938). 

The existence of clinal patterns in 

characters within a species can be 

compatible with recognition of taxa 

(named units) below the level of species 

(infra-specific taxa). Julian Huxley 

(1938) first proposed the term ‘‘cline’’ as 

‘‘an auxiliary taxonomic principle,’’ and 

observed that clines could be 

intragroup, or within a population, or 

intergroup, as in ‘‘connecting the mean 

values of the subspecies of a polytypic 

species.’’ The plant varieties recognized 

as valid for listing under the ESA are 

biologically equivalent to subspecies 

(USFWS 1978). We seek comment and 

additional information regarding the 

conclusions of Schmalzel et al. (2004) 

with regard to clinal variation in C. 

robustispina. 

Regarding overlap in characters, 

Schmalzel et al. interpret their principle 

components analysis as demonstrating 

overlap in geographic groups of C. 

robustispina, and suggest this overlap is 

further evidence that the varieties are 

not distinct. The morphometric analysis 

provided by Schmalzel et al. (2004) did 

not include four of the characters (stem 

branching and three floral characters) 

identified by Benson (1982) for 

distinguishing varieties of C. 

robustispina, although a general 

narrative discussion of those characters 

was provided. We seek comment on 

their conclusions with regard to 

character overlap and the implications 

of not including the characters 

identified by Benson (1982) in the 

analysis. 

Baker (2004) assessed character 

variation in C. robustispina with respect 

to the three recognized varieties, 

including the Pima pineapple cactus. 

Baker (2004) included stem branching 

in his study, but did not include floral 

characters. Baker’s ongoing research 

will address floral characters, to be 

completed in 2005. To date, Baker has 

found statistically significant 

differences among the named varieties 

for most characters, although Pima 

pineapple cactus did not significantly 

differ from the variety that was closest 

geographically in two of the characters 

(radial spine length and central spine 

curvature) used by Benson (1982) to 

distinguish varieties of C. robustispina.

The plots of Baker’s (2004) principal 

components analysis show points 

corresponding to the Pima pineapple 

cactus to be largely separate from, but 

having some overlap with, points 

representing Coryphantha robustispina 

uncinata, the variety geographically 

5462 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices 

nearest to the Pima pineapple cactus. 

The amount of overlap appears to be at 

least grossly comparable to the 

corresponding amount in Fig. 10 of 

Schmalzel et al. (2004). Baker’s (2004) 

discriminant function analysis showed 

that the character data correctly 

identified individuals of C. robustispina

from Pima and Santa Cruz Counties, 

Arizona, as Pima pineapple cactus 92.3 

percent of the time. Baker (2004) 

concluded that, based on the allopatry 

(disjunct geographic distributions) and 

observed morphological separation of 

the varieties, all three varieties of C. 

robustispina are taxonomically valid. 

Stebbins (1950 provided the following 

definition for the term subspecies: ‘‘The 

subspecies or geographic variety is a 

series of populations having certain 

morphological and physiological 

characteristics in common, inhabiting a 

geographic subdivision of the range of 

the species or a series of similar 

ecological habitats, and differing in 

several characteristics from typical 

members of other subspecies, although 

connected with one or more of them by 

series of intergrading forms.’’ Stuessy’s 

(1990) general standards for recognition 

of plant subspecies or varieties are 

consistent with Stebbins’ definition. 

Stuessy states that plant subspecies are 

largely allopatric (occupying 

geographically different areas), but 

allows for some degree of contact, 

hybridization, and overlap. 

The taxonomic question that we must 

evaluate in the present status review is 

whether the observed amount of overlap 

in characters between Pima pineapple 

cactus and other varieties of C. 

robustispina is acceptable for continued 

recognition of the Pima pineapple 

cactus as a valid taxon. It appears to us 

that the two studies summarized in this 

notice generally agree in the gross 

amount of overlap (although it was not 

quantified by Schmalzel et al. 2004) but 

disagree in the taxonomic significance 

of that overlap. 

We are soliciting review and comment 

on any issue related to the listed status 

of the Pima pineapple cactus in order to 

determine whether its continued listing 

under the Act is justified. If the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information indicates that the Pima 

pineapple cactus is not a valid taxon, 

we will develop a proposal to remove it 

from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. It is 

therefore important that we have a full 

understanding of current concepts and 

standards of plant taxonomy as they 

apply to the taxonomic standing of the 

Pima pineapple cactus to ensure that 

our decision is based on the best 

available information. Other issues on 

which we would like comment are the 

use of herbarium specimens for this 

type of work, and the appropriate 

sample size for evaluating differences 

within populations and between 

varieties. Given the different taxonomic 

conclusions of the two recent studies, 

we are particularly soliciting review and 

comment by knowledgeable experts in 

multivariate methods and plant 

taxonomy on the two studies 

summarized in this notice and 

identification of the taxonomic issues 

that we have provided. 

A copy of Baker’s study is available 

on our Web site at: http://

southwest.fws.gov/. The citation for the 

study by Schmalzel et al. (2004) is 

provided below.

Literature Cited 

Baker, Marc. 2004. Phenetic analysis of 

Coryphantha, section Robustispina

(Cactaceae), part 1: stem characters. 

Section 6 Grant Report, 4 May 2004. 

Benson, L. 1982. The Cacti of the United 

States and Canada. Stanford University 

Press, Stanford, California. 

Huxley, J. 1938. Clines: an auxiliary 

taxonomic principle. Nature 3587:219–

220. 

Schmalzel, R. J., R. T. Nixon, A. L. Best, J. 

A. Tress, Jr. 2004. Morphometric 

variation in Coryphantha robustispina

(Cactaceae). Systematic Botany 

29(3):553–568. 

Stebbins, G. L. 1950. Variation and Evolution 

in Plants. Columbia University Press, 

NY. 643 pp. 

Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant Taxonomy; The 

Systematic Evaluation of Comparative 

Data. Columbia University Press, New 

York. 514 pp. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 

1978. Determination that 11 plant taxa 

are endangered species and 2 plant taxa 

are threatened species. Federal Register

43(81):17910–17916; April 26, 1978.

How Are Lesser Long-Nosed Bat, BlackCapped Vireo, Yuma Clapper Rail, 

Pima Pineapple Cactus, Gypsum WildBuckwheat, Mesa Verde Cactus, and 

Zuni Fleabane Currently Listed? 

The List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants (List) is 

found in 50 CFR 17.11 (wildlife) and 

17.12 (plants). Amendments to the List 

through final rules are published in the 

Federal Register. The List is also 

available on our Internet site at http://

endangered.fws.gov/

wildlife.html#Species. In Table 1 below, 

we provide a summary of the listing 

information for the species under active 

review.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF THE LISTING INFORMATION FOR LESSER LONG-NOSED BAT, YUMA CLAPPER RAIL, PIMA

PINEAPPLE CACTUS, GYPSUM WILD-BUCKWHEAT, MESA VERDE CACTUS, AND ZUNI FLEABANE

Common name Scientific name Status Where listed Final listing rule 

Lesser long-nosed bat ....... Leptonycteris curasoae 

yerbabuenae 1.

Endangered ....................... Across species range 

(U.S.A., Mexico, Central 

America).

53 FR 38456, (30–SEP–

1988). 

Black-capped vireo ............ Vireo atricapilla 2 ............... Endangered ....................... U.S.A. (Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Mexico) 3.52 FR 37420, (6–OCT–

1987). 

Yuma clapper rail .............. Rallus longirostris 

yumanensis.

Endangered ....................... U.S.A (Arizona, California) 32 FR 4001, (11–MAR–

67). 

Pima pineapple cactus ...... Coryphantha scheeri var 

robustispina.

Endangered ....................... Across species range 

(southern Arizona and 

northern Sonora, Mexico).

58 FR 49875, (25–OCT–

93). 

Gypsum wild-buckwheat ... Erigonum gypsphilum ....... Threatened with Critical 

Habitat.

Across species range 

(Eddy County, New 

Mexico).

46 FR 5730, (19–JAN–81). 

Mesa Verde cactus ........... Sclerocactus mesaeverdae.Threatened ........................ Across species range 

(southwest Colorado, 

northwest New Mexico, 

northeast Arizona).

44 FR 62471, (30–OCT–

79). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices 5463

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF THE LISTING INFORMATION FOR LESSER LONG-NOSED BAT, YUMA CLAPPER RAIL, PIMA

PINEAPPLE CACTUS, GYPSUM WILD-BUCKWHEAT, MESA VERDE CACTUS, AND ZUNI FLEABANE—Continued

Common name Scientific name Status Where listed Final listing rule 

Zuni fleabane ..................... Erigeron rhizomatus .......... Threatened ........................ Across species range (Arizona and New Mexico).50 FR 16680, (26–APR–

85). 

1Synonyms for this species include L. sanborni, L. nivalis sanborni, L. yerbabunae, and L. curasoae. 2The scientific name of this species has recently been changed from V. atricapillus to V. atricapilla (Dave, N. and M. Gosselin. 2002. Gender 

agreement of the avian species names. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 122: 14–49). 3We believe the table concluding the Final Rule for the black-capped vireo erroneously included Nebraska and Louisiana as part of the historic 

range of the species. 

Definitions Related to This Notice 

The following definitions are 

provided to assist those persons who 

contemplate submitting information 

regarding the species being reviewed: 

A. Species includes any species or 

subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant, 

and any distinct population segment of 

any species of vertebrate, which 

interbreeds when mature. 

B. Endangered means any species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. 

C. Threatened means any species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

How Do We Determine Whether a 

Species Is Endangered or Threatened? 

Section 4(a)(1) of the Act establishes 

that we determine whether a species is 

endangered or threatened based on one 

or more of the five following factors: 

A. The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

B. Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

C. Disease or predation; 

D. The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

E. Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that 

our determination be made on the basis 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data available. 

What Could Happen as a Result of This 

Review? 

If we find that there is new 

information concerning lesser longnosed bat, black-capped vireo, Yuma 

clapper rail, Pima pineapple cactus, 

gypsum wild-buckwheat, Mesa Verde 

cactus, or Zuni fleabane indicating a 

change in classification may be 

warranted, we may propose a new rule 

that could do one of the following: (a) 

Reclassify the species from endangered 

to threatened (downlist); (b) reclassify 

the species from threatened to 

endangered (uplist); or (c) remove the 

species from the List. If we determine 

that a change in classification is not 

warranted, then these species will 

remain on the List under their current 

status. 

Public Solicitation of New Information 

We request any new information 

concerning the status of lesser longnosed bat, black-capped vireo, Yuma 

clapper rail, Pima pineapple cactus, 

gypsum wild-buckwheat, Mesa Verde 

cactus, and Zuni fleabane. See ‘‘What 

information is considered in the 

review?’’ heading for specific criteria. 

Information submitted should be 

supported by documentation such as 

maps, bibliographic references, methods 

used to gather and analyze the data, 

and/or copies of any pertinent 

publications, reports, or letters by 

knowledgeable sources. Our practice is 

to make comments, including names 

and home addresses of respondents, 

available for public review. Individual 

respondents may request that we 

withhold their home addresses from the 

supporting record, which we will honor 

to the extent allowable by law. There 

also may be circumstances in which we 

may withhold from the supporting 

record a respondent’s identity, as 

allowable by law. If you wish us to 

withhold your name and/or address, 

you must state this prominently at the 

beginning of your comment. We will not 

consider anonymous comments, 

however. We will make all submissions 

from organizations or businesses, and 

from individuals identifying themselves 

as representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety.

Authority: This document is published 

under the authority of the Endangered 

Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: December 16, 2004. 

Geoffrey L. Haskett, 

Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 05–1924 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Submission of Information Collection 

to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for Review Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces that 

the Information Collection Request for 

Adult Education Annual Report Form, 

OMB Control No. 1076–0120, requires 

renewal. The information collection 

requirement, with no appreciable 

changes, is submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before March 4, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be sent to 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the 

Department of the Interior. Comments 

may be sent via facsimile to (202) 395–

6566 or you may send e-mail to: 

OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov. Copies of 

comments should be sent to Edward 

Parisian, Acting Director, Office of 

Indian Education Programs, Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

1849 C St., NW., Mail Stop 3609–MIB, 

Washington, DC 20240, or hand 

delivered to room 3609 at the above 

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Garry Martin, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Department of the Interior, 1849 C 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, 

202–208–3478.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract 

The information collection is 

necessary to assess the need for adult 

education programs in accordance with 

25 CFR 46, subpart A, sections 46.20 

Program Requirements and 46.30