Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices 32205 

achieve refuge conservation goals and 

objectives. 

Alternative D would expand or 

intensify existing habitat management 

programs, practices, and actions. We 

would improve the moist-soil 

management program on about 1,600 

acres by expanding the invasive exotic 

plant control program, water 

management capabilities, and the use of 

management techniques that set back 

plant succession. In cooperation with 

partners, we would reactivate the forest 

management program on the refuge for 

the benefit of priority forest interior 

migratory birds and resident game 

species. Alternative D would 

incorporate a comprehensive fire 

management program into upland forest 

habitat. 

Over the life of the CCP, Alternative 

D would redirect management actions to 

increase the acreage of unharvested 

cropland to meet foraging needs of 

waterfowl and habitat for other native 

species. It would also increase acreage 

of hard mast producing bottomland 

hardwood forest species. 

We would increase water 

management capabilities by subdividing 

existing impoundments, creating new 

impoundments, and increasing water 

supply (i.e., pumps, wells, and 

structures) for migratory birds. While 

doing this, we would also make a 

concerted effort to accommodate sport 

fishing opportunities where and when 

circumstances allow. 

Working with partners, we would 

continue to provide mudflats during 

August–September for shorebird and 

early migratory waterfowl, scrub-shrub 

habitat, and desirable aquatic plants, as 

under Alternatives A and C. As under 

Alternative B, we would also provide 

additional education and interpretation 

of importance of early drawdowns of 

Kentucky Lake. 

We would expand control efforts of 

invasive species through active methods 

of removal. These methods would work 

towards reducing infestations and 

eliminating populations whenever 

feasible. Additional education and 

interpretation of invasive species would 

be provided. 

In response to possible adverse 

impacts from climate change, we would 

monitor wildlife and habitats and utilize 

adaptive management. We would also 

relate climate change to the Service’s 

wildlife mission in environmental 

education programs and pursue 

opportunities for carbon sequestration 

with native trees. 

Alternative D would continue to 

manage cultural resources consistent 

with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. Alternatives 

A, B, and C would also do so, but only 

Alternative D would begin to implement 

a cultural resources management plan 

within 5 years of CCP approval. 

Alternative D would pursue and 

prioritize minor boundary expansions 

to: (1) Reduce adjacent threats to the 

refuge; (2) expand habitat management 

opportunities; and (3) accommodate 

refuge visitors. 

Under Alternative D, within 5 years of 

CCP approval, we would draft, approve, 

and begin to implement a new visitor 

services plan. Hunting opportunities 

would be increased for deer, and we 

would continue to allow managed, 

limited hunting for turkey, squirrel, 

raccoon, and resident Canada goose. No 

youth waterfowl hunt or rabbit and 

quail hunting would be considered. We 

would provide opportunities for fishing 

by furnishing adequate launching 

facilities, bank fishing areas, and over 

the life of the CCP, would provide 

additional piers to accommodate anglers 

of all abilities. 

We would aim to increase wildlife 

observation/photography opportunities 

with blinds and a boardwalk, and 

within 2 years of CCP approval, open a 

seasonal wildlife drive in the Duck 

River Bottoms. We would continue to 

provide environmental education 

services to the public, including limited 

visits to schools, workshops, and on-site 

and off-site programs, as well as work 

with partners to expand environmental 

education facilities and opportunities 

on and near the refuge. The existing 

interpretive program would be 

expanded. 

Under Alternative D, within 5 years of 

CCP approval, we would work with 

partners to construct a combined 

headquarters and visitor center, 

incorporating ‘‘green’’ technology, on the 

Big Sandy Unit. Within 15 years of CCP 

approval, we would build a visitor 

contact station at the Duck River Unit. 

Alternative D would maintain the 

storage and maintenance facilities at the 

Duck River Unit, and the existing 

inventory of heavy equipment, tractors, 

refuge roads, levees, water control 

structures, and pumps. The bunkhouse 

would also be replaced. Lastly, this 

alternative would add one open and one 

enclosed equipment storage facility, one 

no-till grain drill, one self-propelled 

spray rig, low ground pressure dozer, 

one aquatic excavator, and one 24-inch 

centrifugal pump and engine. 

Under Alternative D, we would 

expand our current staff by 12, 

including forester, forestry technician, 

two engineering equipment operators, a 

tractor operator, two refuge rangers, a 

law enforcement officer, an assistant 

manager, two biological technicians, 

and an office assistant. Under 

Alternative D, as in Alternative B, we 

would strengthen our volunteer 

programs, friend’s group, and 

partnerships by investing an increased 

portion of staff time into nurturing these 

promising relationships. 

Next Step 

After the comment period ends, we 

will analyze the comments and address 

them. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail 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 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority 

This notice is published under the 

authority of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997, Public Law 105–57. 

Dated: April 22, 2010. 

Mark J. Musaus, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13520 Filed 6–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2010–N061; 40136–1265–0000– 

S3] 

Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge, 

Ashley, Bradley, and Union Counties, 

AR; Overflow National Wildlife Refuge, 

Ashley County, AR 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability: Draft 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), announce the 

availability of a draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental 

assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for 

Felsenthal and Overflow National 

Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) for public 

review and comment. Felsenthal, 

Overflow, and Pond Creek NWRs are 

managed as a Complex. A separate CCP 

was prepared for Pond Creek NWR. In 

this Draft CCP/EA, we describe the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

32206 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices 

alternative we propose to use to manage 

these refuges for the 15 years following 

approval of the final CCP. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive your written comments by 

July 7, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of 

the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Mr. 

Bernie Peterson, via U.S. mail at 

Felsenthal NWR, P.O. Box 1157, 

Crossett, AR 71635, or via e-mail at 

bernie_peterson@fws.gov. Alternatively 

you may download the document from 

our Internet Site at http:// 

southeast.fws.gov/planning under ‘‘Draft 

Documents.’’ Submit comments on the 

Draft CCP/EA to the above postal 

address or e-mail address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mike Dawson, Refuge Planner, 

telephone: 601/965–4903, Ext. 20. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for Felsenthal and Overflow 

NWRs. We started the process through 

a notice in the Federal Register on April 

2, 2008 (73 FR 17992). For more about 

the refuges, their purposes, and our CCP 

process, please see that notice. 

Background 

The CCP Process 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee), as amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to 

develop a CCP for each national wildlife 

refuge. The purpose for developing a 

CCP is to provide refuge managers with 

a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge 

purposes and contributing toward the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, consistent with sound 

principles of fish and wildlife 

management, conservation, legal 

mandates, and our policies. In addition 

to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, including 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. We will 

review and update the CCP at least 

every 15 years in accordance with the 

Administration Act. 

Key issues addressed in the Draft 

CCP/EA include water management, 

forestry management, greentree 

reservoir management, threatened and 

endangered species management, 

migratory bird and waterfowl nesting 

habitats, hunting and fishing program 

management, invasive species of plants 

and animals, refuge access, law 

enforcement, and environmental 

education and interpretation programs. 

Felsenthal NWR was established in 

1975, as a result of the Corps of 

Engineers’ Ouachita and Black Rivers 

Navigation Project. Geographically, the 

65,000-acre refuge is located in what is 

known as the Felsenthal Basin, an 

extensive natural depression that is 

laced with a vast complex of sloughs, 

bayous, and lakes. Overflow NWR was 

established in 1980, to protect one of the 

remaining bottomland hardwood forests 

considered vital for maintaining 

mallard, wood duck, and other 

waterfowl populations in the 

Mississippi Flyway. This 13,000-acre 

plus refuge is a wetland complex within 

the watershed of Overflow Creek, which 

flows southerly along the length of the 

refuge. 

CCP Alternatives, Including Our 

Proposed Alternative 

We developed three separate 

alternatives for managing the refuges 

and chose Alternative B, Enhanced 

Biological and Visitor Services 

Management, as the proposed 

alternative for each. A full description 

of the alternatives is in the Draft CCP/ 

EA. We summarize each alternative 

below. 

Felsenthal NWR 

Alternative A (Current Management, No 

Action) 

Alternative A would continue current 

management strategies, with little or no 

change in resources. We would protect, 

maintain, and enhance 65,000 acres of 

refuge lands, primarily focusing on the 

needs of threatened and endangered 

species, with additional emphasis on 

the needs of migratory birds, resident 

wildlife, and migratory non-game birds. 

We would continue mandated activities 

for protection of Federally listed 

species. Control of nuisance wildlife 

populations and invasive plant species 

would be undertaken on an 

opportunistic basis. Habitat 

management efforts would be 

concentrated on forests; water, 

including greentree reservoirs; and open 

lands. We would continue the fire 

management program. 

The Complex, made up of Felsenthal, 

Overflow, and Pond Creek NWRs, with 

the support of volunteers and friends, 

manages an extensive visitor services 

program that includes recreation, 

education, and outreach programs. We 

would maintain the current levels of 

wildlife-dependent recreation activities 

(e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and 

interpretation). Felsenthal NWR has an 

extensive network of public use 

facilities including 65 miles of allterrain vehicle (ATV) trails, 8 boat 

ramps, and 10 primitive campgrounds. 

Except for two archaeological sites, all 

of the refuge is open to visitors. These 

facilities do not interfere substantially 

with or detract from the achievement of 

wildlife conservation. 

The hunting program would continue 

to be managed via quota hunts for 

white-tailed deer and turkey. Special 

conditions of the hunt program would 

continue to include the use of ATVs 

along designated trails. Hunters with 

disabilities would still be allowed to 

extend their use of ATVs approximately 

200 yards off of designated trails. The 

use of dogs would continue during 

waterfowl, squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, and 

opossum hunts. 

About 60 percent of total consumptive 

public use on the refuge is fishing. 

There are eight boat launching facilities 

with parking areas on the refuge and 

three boat launching facilities with 

parking areas off the refuge that provide 

lake and river access. Adequate bank 

fishing opportunities would continue to 

be made available. 

We would maintain the refuge as 

resources allow. We would continue to 

manage with the following staff for the 

Complex: Project leader, deputy project 

leader, biologist, forester, park ranger 

(public use), fire management specialist, 

three forestry technicians (fire), two law 

enforcement officers, administrative 

officer, administrative support assistant, 

equipment operator, and heavy 

equipment mechanic. 

Alternative B (Enhanced Biological 

Management and Visitor Services— 

Proposed Alternative) 

The proposed action was selected by 

the Service as the alternative that best 

signifies the vision, goals, and purposes 

of the refuge. Emphasis would be on 

restoring and improving resources 

needed for wildlife and habitat 

management, while providing 

additional public use opportunities. 

This alternative would also allow us to 

provide law enforcement protection that 

adequately meets the needs of the 

refuge. 

This alternative would focus on 

augmenting wildlife and habitat 

management to identify, conserve, and 

restore populations of native fish and 

wildlife species, with an emphasis on 

migratory birds and threatened and 

endangered species. This would 

partially be accomplished by increased 

monitoring of waterfowl, other 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices 32207 

migratory birds, and endemic species in 

order to assess and adapt management 

strategies and actions. The restoration of 

the Felsenthal South Pool would be a 

vital part of this proposed action and 

would be crucial to ensuring healthy 

and viable ecological communities in 

the greentree reservoir. This restoration 

would require increased water 

management control, invasive aquatic 

vegetation control, reestablishing water 

quality standards, and possibly 

reestablishing populations of game fish 

species. The control of nuisance wildlife 

populations and invasive plant species 

would be more aggressively managed by 

implementing a control plan and 

systematic removal. 

Alternative B would enhance the 

visitor services opportunities by: 

(1) Improving the quality of fishing 

opportunities; (2) creating additional 

hunting opportunities for youth and 

hunters with disabilities where feasible; 

(3) implementing an environmental 

education program component for the 

Complex that utilizes volunteers and 

local schools as partners; (4) enhancing 

wildlife viewing and photography 

opportunities by implementing food 

plots in observational areas and 

evaluating the possibility of 

implementing an auto tour; 

(5) developing and implementing a 

visitor services management plan; and 

(6) enhancing personal interpretive and 

outreach opportunities. Volunteer 

programs and friends groups also would 

be expanded to enhance all aspects of 

refuge management and to increase 

resource availability. 

In addition to the enforcement of all 

Federal and State laws applicable to the 

refuge to protect archaeological and 

historical sites, we would identify and 

develop a plan to protect all known 

sites. The allocation of an additional 

law enforcement officer to the refuge 

would not only provide security for 

these resources, but would also ensure 

visitor safety and public compliance 

with refuge regulations. 

Under this alternative, additional staff 

needed would include: Park ranger (law 

enforcement), biological technician, 

park ranger (visitor services, 

environmental educator/volunteer 

coordinator), heavy equipment operator, 

and the conversion of two seasonal fire 

technicians to full-time employment. 

These positions are needed to 

accomplish objectives for establishing 

baseline data on refuge resources, for 

managing habitats, and for adequate 

protection of wildlife and visitors. 

Alternative C (Enhanced Biological 

Management) 

Alternative C would provide for the 

enhancement and restoration of native 

wildlife, fish, and plant communities 

and the health of those communities. 

This would be accomplished by 

maximizing wildlife and habitat 

management, while maintaining a 

portion of the current compatible public 

use opportunities. Threatened and 

endangered species would be of primary 

concern, but the needs of other resident 

and migratory wildlife would also be 

considered. As under Alternative B, 

focus would be centralized on 

augmenting wildlife and habitat 

management to identify, conserve, and 

restore populations of native fish and 

wildlife species by increased monitoring 

of waterfowl, other migratory birds, and 

endemic species in order to assess and 

adapt management strategies and 

actions. Extensive wildlife, plant, and 

habitat inventories would be initiated to 

obtain the biological information 

needed to implement and monitor 

management programs. 

Habitat management would be 

increased to provide additional 

sanctuary for waterfowl, to provide 

additional active clusters of redcockaded woodpeckers, to promote 

additional edge as a transition between 

habitat types for resident wildlife, and 

to provide additional openings for 

native grasslands. A minor expansion 

plan would be evaluated to expand the 

current acquisition boundary. This 

would allow us to expand critical or 

viable habitat. We would inventory and 

more aggressively monitor, control, and, 

where possible, eliminate invasive 

plants and nuisance wildlife through 

the use of staff and contracted labor. 

Wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation 

opportunities would continue as 

currently managed, but only when and 

where they would not conflict with 

wildlife management activities and 

objectives. The use of ATVs and 

campgrounds would be reduced or 

would require a special use permit to 

better control use. Night fishing and 

fishing tournaments would be phased 

out. Harvest counts for waterfowl 

hunting would be monitored annually 

to determine the species hunted. 

Outreach would additionally focus on 

providing information to the public on 

flooding cycles within the greentree 

reservoir and the importance of periodic 

drying cycles. 

Administration plans would stress the 

need for increased maintenance of 

existing infrastructure and facilities 

benefitting wildlife conservation. 

Additional staff under this alternative 

would include: Park ranger (law 

enforcement), biological technician, 

biologist, heavy equipment operator, 

and the conversion of two seasonal fire 

technicians to full-time employment to 

accomplish objectives for establishing 

baseline data on refuge resources, for 

managing habitats, and for adequate 

protection of wildlife and visitors. 

Overflow NWR 

Alternative A (Current Management, No 

Action) 

Alternative A would continue current 

management strategies, with little or no 

change in resources. Under this 

alternative, we would protect, maintain, 

restore, and enhance 13,973 acres of 

refuge lands and 2,263 additional acres 

included in the Oakwood Unit. We 

would primarily focus on the needs of 

migratory waterfowl, with additional 

emphasis on the needs of resident 

wildlife, migratory non-game birds, and 

threatened and endangered species. 

Control of nuisance wildlife populations 

and invasive plant species would be 

undertaken on an opportunistic basis. 

Habitat management efforts would be 

concentrated on moist-soil management, 

waterfowl impoundments, forest 

management, and crop production. We 

would continue cooperative farming of 

400 acres. 

Currently, active habitat management 

targeting waterfowl includes 

impoundments for moist-soil and crop 

food resource generation in open 

habitats, as well as greentree reservoir 

management in forested areas to 

produce complimentary food and 

behavioral resources. Approximately 

600 acres would continue to be 

managed in rotation fashion in moistsoil and crops. A stop-log structure on 

Overflow Creek would continue to be 

used to manage a single 4,000-acre 

greentree reservoir impoundment 

during winter months. 

Public use opportunities would 

continue to include hunting (e.g., 

waterfowl, deer, turkey, small game, 

woodcock, and quail), wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and 

limited environmental education 

activities. A total of 3,000 acres would 

continue to be protected from public 

intrusion during the wintering 

waterfowl season in areas designated as 

waterfowl sanctuaries. 

Standard management activities at the 

Oakwood Unit would continue to 

include: (1) Disking of moist-soil units 

on a rotational basis; (2) monitoring 

seedling survival and mortality; (3) bird 

surveys; and (4) levee and boundary line 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

32208 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices 

maintenance. There are no visitor 

service opportunities on this unit. As 

compared to Overflow NWR, the 

Oakwood Unit is passively managed 

due to its location 80 miles from the 

refuge office. 

We would maintain the refuge as 

resources allow, and would continue 

with four staff members: Refuge 

manager, private lands biologist, 

biological science technician, 

engineering equipment operator, and 

part-time biological technician. In 

addition, individual volunteers would 

continue to provide many valuable 

services on the refuge (e.g., monitoring 

the migration of Monarch butterflies, 

beaver trapping, trail maintenance, and 

waterfowl counts). 

Alternative B (Enhanced Biological 

Management and Visitor Services— 

Proposed Alternative) 

The proposed alternative was selected 

by the Service as the alternative that 

best signifies the vision, goals, and 

purposes of the refuge. Under 

Alternative B, the emphasis would be 

on restoring and improving resources 

needed for wildlife and habitat 

management, while providing 

additional public use opportunities. 

This alternative would also allow us to 

provide the level of law enforcement 

protection to adequately meet the needs 

of the refuge. 

This alternative would focus on 

augmenting wildlife and habitat 

management to identify, conserve, and 

restore populations of wildlife species, 

with an emphasis on waterfowl, 

migratory birds, and resident wildlife. 

This would partially be accomplished 

by increased monitoring in order to 

assess and adapt management strategies 

and actions. Habitat management would 

be increased to extend the moist-soil 

rotation to at least four or more years to 

reach a condition preferred by 

marshbirds, to adapt flooding and water 

management regimes in the greentree 

reservoir and moist-soil units, and to 

implement a more intensive moist-soil 

management program at the Oakwood 

Unit (300 acres/year). Land acquisition 

within the approved acquisition 

boundary would be based on 

importance of the habitat for target 

management species and public use 

value. The control of nuisance wildlife 

populations and invasive plant species 

would be more aggressively managed by 

implementing a control plan and 

systematic removal. 

Alternative B would enhance the 

refuge’s visitor service opportunities by: 

(1) Making hunting opportunities more 

accessible for hunters with disabilities; 

(2) implementing an environmental 

education program component for the 

Complex that utilizes volunteers and 

local schools as partners; (3) enhancing 

wildlife viewing and photography 

opportunities by implementing food 

plots in observational areas and 

promoting ATV trails as birding trails; 

(4) welcoming visitors by establishing a 

visitor center or contact station on the 

refuge; (5) developing and 

implementing a visitor services 

management plan; and (6) enhancing 

personal interpretive and outreach 

opportunities. Volunteer programs and 

friends groups also would be expanded 

to enhance all aspects of refuge 

management and to increase resource 

availability. 

In addition to the enforcement of all 

Federal and State laws applicable to the 

refuge to protect archaeological and 

historical sites, we would identify and 

develop a plan to protect all known 

sites. An additional law enforcement 

officer would not only provide security 

for these resources, but would also 

ensure visitor safety and public 

compliance with refuge regulations. 

In order to accomplish the objectives 

for establishing baseline data on refuge 

resources, for managing habitats, and for 

adequate protection of wildlife and 

visitors, additional staff would include: 

Park ranger (law enforcement), 

biological technician, park ranger 

(environmental educator/volunteer 

coordinator), and heavy equipment 

operator. 

Alternative C, Enhanced Biological 

Management 

Alternative C would provide for the 

enhancement and restoration of native 

wildlife and plant communities and the 

health of those communities. This 

would be accomplished by maximizing 

wildlife and habitat management, while 

maintaining a portion of the current 

compatible public use opportunities. 

We would continue and enhance 

mandated activities for protecting 

threatened and endangered species. As 

under Alternative B, our focus would be 

centralized on augmenting wildlife and 

habitat management to identify, 

conserve, and restore populations of 

wildlife species by increased monitoring 

of waterfowl, other migratory birds, and 

endemic species in order to assess and 

adapt management strategies and 

actions. Extensive wildlife, plant, and 

habitat inventories would be initiated to 

obtain the biological information 

needed to implement and monitor 

management programs. 

Habitat management would be 

maximized to provide additional moistsoil management and more intensive 

forest management. We would inventory 

and more aggressively monitor, control, 

and, where possible, eliminate invasive 

plants and nuisance wildlife through 

the use of staff and contracted labor. 

Land acquisitions within the approved 

acquisition boundary would be based on 

importance of the habitat for target 

management species. Additionally, the 

expansion of the Oakwood Unit to 

provide a right-of-way to the public 

would be evaluated. 

Wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation 

opportunities would continue as 

currently managed, but only when and 

where they would not conflict with 

wildlife management activities and 

objectives. Additionally, the opening of 

the Oakwood Unit to deer hunting 

would be evaluated and the staff offices 

on the refuge would be updated in lieu 

of a new visitor center. 

Administration plans would stress the 

need for increased maintenance of 

existing infrastructure and facilities 

benefitting wildlife conservation. 

Additional staff would include: Park 

ranger (law enforcement), biological 

technician, biologist, and heavy 

equipment operator. These positions are 

needed to accomplish the objectives for 

establishing baseline data on resources, 

for managing habitats, and for adequate 

protection of wildlife and visitors. 

Next Step 

After the comment period ends, we 

will analyze the comments and address 

them. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail 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 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: This notice is published under 

the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, Public 

Law 105–57. 

Dated: April 14, 2010. 

Mark J. Musaus, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13511 Filed 6–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES