4638 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2016 / Notices 

toll-free number. Persons with hearing 

or speech impairments may access this 

number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Relay Service at (800) 877– 

8339. 

Copies of available documents 

submitted to OMB may be obtained 

from Ms. Pollard. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice informs the public that HUD is 

seeking approval from OMB for the 

information collection described in 

Section A. 

A. Overview of Information Collection 

Title of Information Collection: 

Requisition for Disbursement of 

Sections 202 & 811 Capital Advance/

Loan Funds. 

OMB Approval Number: 2502–0187. 

Type of Request: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Form Number: HUD–92403–CA & 

HUD–92403–EH. 

Description of the need for the 

information and proposed use: Owner 

entities submit requisitions to HUD 

during construction to obtain Section 

202/811 capital advance/loan funds. 

This collection helps to identify the 

owner, project, type of disbursement, 

items covered, name of the depository, 

and account number. 

Respondents (i.e. affected public): 

Affected public. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

112. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 224. 

Frequency of Response: 4. 

Average Hours per Response: 1. 

Total Estimated Burden: 112. 

B. Solicitation of Public Comment 

This notice is soliciting comments 

from members of the public and affected 

parties concerning the collection of 

information described in Section A on 

the following: 

(1) 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; 

(2) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information; 

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond; including through 

the use of appropriate automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

HUD encourages interested parties to 

submit comment in response to these 

questions. 

Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. 

Date: January 19, 2016. 

Janet M. Golrick, 

Associate General Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Housing—Associate Deputy Federal 

Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01512 Filed 1–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–HQ–NAL–2016–N002; 

FXGO1660091NALO156FF09D02000] 

Native American Policy for the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of final 

policy. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service or FWS), announce that 

we have established a new Native 

American policy, which will replace the 

1994 policy at 510 FW 1 in the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual. The purpose 

of the policy is to carry out the United 

States’ trust responsibility to Indian 

tribes by establishing a framework on 

which to base our continued 

interactions with federally recognized 

tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. 

The policy recognizes the sovereignty of 

federally recognized tribes; states that 

the Service will work on a governmentto-government basis with tribal 

governments; and includes guidance on 

co-management, access to and use of 

cultural resources, capacity 

development, law enforcement, and 

education. 

DATES: The policy is effective as of 

January 20, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The Native American policy 

is available in the Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual at http://www.fws.gov/

policy/510fw1.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Aikin, Native American Programs 

Coordinator, by mail at U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 911 NE 11th Avenue, 

Portland, OR 97232; or via email at 

scott_aikin@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

Native American policy is available at 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/510fw1.html, 

which is within part 510 of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual, the part titled 

‘‘Working with Native American 

Tribes.’’ The purpose of the policy is to 

articulate principles and serve as a 

framework for government-togovernment relationships and 

interactions between the Service and 

federally recognized tribes to conserve 

fish and wildlife and protect cultural 

resources. The policy includes guidance 

on: 

• The relationship between the 

Service and federally recognized tribes 

and Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act (ANC) corporations, 

• Service employee responsibilities, 

• Government-to-government 

consultation and relations, 

• Communication, 

• Co-management and collaborative 

management, 

• Tribal access to Service lands and 

Service-managed resources for cultural 

and religious practices, 

• Tribal cultural use of plants and 

animals, 

• Law enforcement, 

• Training and education, 

• Capacity building and funding, and 

• Guidance for implementing and 

monitoring the policy. 

This policy is not meant to stand on 

its own. To effectively implement this 

policy, the Service will update its U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Tribal 

Consultation Handbook, establish an 

Alaska Regional Native American 

policy, and develop training so that 

Service employees will be better able to 

perform duties related to this policy. 

Overview of the Policy 

We recognize that when the Service 

and tribes work together on resource 

matters, our longstanding relationship is 

strengthened and resources are better 

served. This policy provides guidance 

on recognition of tribal sovereign status, 

Service responsibilities, and 

opportunities for the Service and tribes 

to work together toward natural and 

cultural resource conservation and 

access. The purpose of this policy is to 

provide Service employees with 

guidance when working with tribes and 

ANCs. 

Section 1 of this policy recognizes the 

unique relationship that Federal 

governmental agencies have with 

federally recognized tribes and the U.S. 

Government’s trust responsibility 

toward those tribes. It explains that 

while this is a nationwide policy, the 

Service maintains flexibility for Service 

Regions and programs to work more 

specifically with the tribes and ANCs in 

their Regions. 

Section 2 recognizes tribes’ sovereign 

authority over their members and 

territory, the tribes’ rights to self-govern, 

and that government-to-government 

communication may occur at various 

levels within the Service and the tribes. 

Section 3 describes communication, 

consultation, and information sharing 

among the Service, tribes, and ANCs. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2016 / Notices 4639 

Section 4 sets out a range of 

collaborative management and comanagement opportunities where tribes, 

Alaska Native Organizations (ANO), the 

Service, and others have shared 

responsibility. 

Section 5 recognizes that, for 

meaningful cultural and religious 

practices, tribal members may need to 

access Service lands and to use plants 

and animals for which the Service has 

management responsibility. 

Section 6 recognizes tribal law 

enforcement responsibilities for 

managing Indian lands and tribal 

resources and encourages cooperative 

law enforcement between the Service 

and tribes. 

Section 7 invites tribal governments 

to work with the Service to develop and 

present training for Service employees. 

It also makes available Service technical 

experts to help tribes develop technical 

expertise, supports tribal selfdetermination, encourages crosstraining of Service and tribal personnel, 

and supports Native American 

professional development. 

Section 8 establishes monitoring and 

implementation guidance for the policy. 

Section 9 describes the policy’s scope 

and limitations. 

Exhibit 1 includes the definitions of 

terms we use in the policy. 

Exhibit 2 describes the 

responsibilities of employees at all 

levels of the Service to carry out this 

policy. 

Exhibit 3 lists the authorities under 

which the Service is able to take the 

actions we describe in the policy. 

Background and Development of This 

Policy 

On June 28, 1994, the Service first 

enacted its Native American Policy to 

guide our government-to-government 

relations with federally recognized 

tribal governments in conserving fish 

and wildlife resources and to ‘‘help 

accomplish its mission and 

concurrently to participate in fulfilling 

the Federal Government’s and 

Department of the Interior’s trust 

responsibilities to assist Native 

Americans in protecting, conserving, 

and utilizing their reserved, treaty 

guaranteed, or statutorily identified 

trust assets.’’ 

In July 2013, the Service convened a 

Native American Policy Team (team) to 

review and update the policy. The team 

is comprised of Service representatives 

from the Regions and programs. We also 

invited all federally recognized tribal 

governments across the United States to 

nominate representatives to serve on the 

team. A total of 16 self-nominated tribal 

representatives from all of the major 

Regions across the country joined the 

team to provide input and tribal 

perspective. 

Although Service and tribal team 

members took part in writing the draft, 

full agreement was not possible on 

every issue and some differences 

remain. Understanding those issues, 

tribal representatives continued to 

participate in an effort to improve the 

policy. 

In November 2014, the Service invited 

federally recognized tribal governments 

in each of its Regions and ANCs to 

consult on a government-to-government 

basis. The Service provided an early 

working draft of the updated policy for 

their review and input. A total of 23 of 

the tribal representatives submitted 

written comments to further develop 

and refine the draft updated policy. 

From December 2014 to April 2015, 

the Service held 24 consultation 

meetings and webinars within the 

Regions and nationally. Representatives 

from approximately 100 tribes attended 

these meetings. In March 2015, the 

Service revised the working draft of the 

updated policy and distributed it for 

internal Service review throughout all 

levels, Regions, and programs within 

the agency. We incorporated feedback 

from the internal Service review and 

additional comments received from 

tribal governments into a draft that we 

published in the Federal Register. 

Summary of Comments and Changes to 

the Final Policy 

On August 3, 2015, we announced the 

availability of a draft of this policy in a 

Federal Register notice (80 FR 46043) 

and requested public comments by 

September 2, 2015. The Service 

reopened the comment period for an 

additional 30 days in a Federal Register 

document published on September 21, 

2015 (80 FR 57014). The second 

comment period closed on October 21, 

2015. 

We received approximately 34 

comment letters on the draft policy. The 

comments were from Federal and State 

government agencies, tribes, ANCs, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

individuals. Most of the comments 

addressed specific elements, while some 

comments were more general. We 

considered all of the information and 

recommendations for improvement 

included in the comments and made 

appropriate changes to the draft policy. 

We also made some additions and 

clarifications to the policy that were not 

addressed in the public comments, but 

were discovered through internal 

briefings and reviews during the policy 

revision period. The following 

summarizes our responses to public 

comments received. 

Many of these topics are related to 

one another, and it is sometimes 

difficult to categorize each into one 

discrete area of the policy that it 

addresses. We have grouped similar 

comments together to help readers 

understand our rationale. 

Many commenters were pleased with 

many aspects of the new policy. Several 

commenters noted that the policy was 

‘‘clearly the product of a careful and 

deliberative effort to involve tribes’ 

input and integrate their concerns.’’ 

Several commenters noted that the 

Native American Policy Team that 

worked for 21⁄2 years on this policy was 

formed at the earliest stages of policy 

consideration and consisted of tribal 

members and Service employees who 

worked very closely together on all 

aspects of the policy. One specific 

commenter stated that tribes and ANCs 

‘‘applaud[ed] FWS for its extensive 

efforts working with representatives 

from tribes across the country to put 

together this new policy.’’ 

Tribes and ANCs commented that 

FWS’s recognition of the importance of 

sharing the traditional knowledge, 

experience, and perspectives of Native 

Americans will ultimately lead to better 

management of shared fish, wildlife, 

and cultural resources. Tribes and ANCs 

supported the Service’s recognition of 

the need for flexibility to allow for 

regional diversity. Tribes stated that 

they appreciate that the Service did not 

group them together with other 

stakeholders, but instead treats them as 

sovereign governments. Tribes 

appreciate that the Service took tribal 

comments from a pre-public comment 

period and incorporated them into the 

published draft. Several commenters 

commended the Service for 

incorporating the table of 

responsibilities, which describes 

specific responsibilities for Service 

employees. 

Commenters support the promotion of 

cultural competency awareness within 

the Service. Likewise, they support that 

the draft policy makes a clear and 

honest reference to Service limitations 

with respect to protecting sensitive 

tribal information from public release 

(e.g., via Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) requests). 

ANCs stated that they support and 

appreciate the Service’s inclusion and 

acknowledgement of ANCs as 

significant stakeholders that require 

policies guiding and encouraging the 

Service’s interaction with them. 

The following categorizes comments 

by policy section, followed by 

comments on the content of the three 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
4640 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2016 / Notices 

exhibits, and finally those comments 

received specific to Alaska. 

General Comments 

1. As a ‘‘consultation policy’’ this has 

shortcomings. Response: This is not a 

‘‘consultation policy.’’ Consultation is a 

part of this policy, which covers more 

than consultation. 

2. The draft policy repeatedly uses 

multiple qualifiers in the text such as, 

‘‘to the extent practicable,’’ ‘‘not 

inconsistent with essential Service 

functions,’’ ‘‘as necessary or 

appropriate,’’ and ‘‘as resources and 

priorities allow.’’ The repeated use of 

these qualifiers appears to vest 

discretion in the individual Service 

official or staffer as to whether or not, 

at any given point, consultation will 

occur. Response: This is not meant to 

undermine the Service’s responsibility 

to consult with tribes and ANCs. The 

Service understands the importance of 

and our responsibility for working with 

tribes. However, we cannot promise 

more than we can deliver. The Service 

must act within the authorities Congress 

has given us, and we can only perform 

as much work as the resources supplied 

by Congress will allow. 

Section 1. Introduction 

1. Some commenters objected to the 

qualifier that this policy applies to those 

whose official duties may affect tribal 

interests, and not to all employees. 

Response: While most employees have 

responsibilities that may affect tribes, 

some employees may have completely 

unrelated jobs, such as employee 

payroll or janitorial services for Service 

properties. Even so, the Service will try 

to deliver some degree of tribal training 

to all employees through regular 

internal Service training. The Service 

will ensure that all employees will be 

aware of their responsibilities under this 

policy. 

2. The Service should show how 

tribal input was considered and 

incorporated into final decisions. 

Response: Implementation will include 

Regional teams that are better able to 

communicate with the tribes in their 

area. There is no one-size-fits-all for all 

Service programs. Many times, tribes are 

present throughout the process and will 

have ongoing dialogue concerning how 

their comments have been included in 

decisionmaking. 

Section 2. Sovereignty and Governmentto-Government Relations 

1. This section of the policy should be 

first. In the existing 1994 policy, 

sovereignty is the very first principle. In 

this revised draft, it is relegated to 

subheading 5. The placement of this 

guiding principle diminishes what was 

once highlighted. Response: We have 

moved this section up from section 5 to 

section 2 and have moved what were 

preceding sections into exhibits. 

2. The policy needs to make clear that 

the Service cannot make decisions or 

take actions that impact or diminish 

treaty-reserved rights of tribes and 

incorporate the principles that serve as 

the foundation for Secretary’s Order 

3206. Response: In section 3, the policy 

states that communication with tribes 

will begin early in the planning process. 

We will continue to develop 

relationships and communicate with 

tribes at the appropriate levels. 

3. The Service should implement a 

consensus-based process with the tribes 

to identify treaty and trust obligations 

and to develop programs and actions to 

meet those obligations. Response: The 

Service looks for opportunities to 

consult and collaborate with tribes as is 

stated throughout the policy. We 

understand that the tribal consultation 

process goes beyond the requirements of 

public involvement. We discuss this in 

section 4. 

4. The policy should support 

development and implementation of 

agreements with tribes or regional tribal 

groups to reflect needs tailored to 

capabilities. Response: The Service will 

form Regional tribal-Service 

implementation teams to collaboratively 

address issues that arise on a more local 

level. 

5. We received several comments 

relating to the fact that some Indian 

tribes have delegated a portion of their 

authority to inter-tribal agencies. 

Commenters stated that the Service 

should acknowledge that delegation 

and, if allowed by that delegation, 

provide those agencies with relevant 

technical and policy-related 

information. They also stated that the 

Service should develop cooperative 

relationships with those agencies to 

carry out the programmatic goals of the 

Service and to better serve Indian tribes. 

Other commenters raised concerns that 

the Service should be aware that each 

tribe in an inter-tribal agency may not 

have delegated full authority on an 

issue. Another commenter explained 

that tribal consortia provide a powerful 

opportunity for the Service to ‘‘get the 

word out’’ to affected tribes. Response: 

Tribes have delegated varying ranges of 

authority to inter-tribal organizations 

acting for them. The policy cannot 

address each specific delegation, and so 

we address this issue in section 2 as 

follows: ‘‘We will consult with intertribal organizations to the degree that 

tribes have authorized such an 

organization to consult on the tribe’s 

behalf.’’ During implementation, we 

plan to reach out to these groups and 

the tribes whom they represent when 

forming regional implementation teams. 

The Service will continue to engage 

consortia to contact tribes, get the word 

out, and become involved in other 

programs. 

6. Several commenters asked that we 

revise language to limit this section to 

where there are ‘‘federally recognized 

tribal rights.’’ Response: We have not 

adopted this comment. The Service 

exercises due care where our actions 

affect the exercise of tribal rights. 

Section 3. Communications and 

Relationships 

1. Substitute ‘‘strive to the greatest 

extent possible to incorporate’’ instead 

of ‘‘consider’’ traditional knowledge. 

Response: The language in the policy 

clearly states that the Service will 

‘‘consider’’ traditional knowledge, 

which means that we will take it 

seriously and truly consider the 

traditional knowledge shared. 

2. Several commenters raised concern 

that tribal members may not be free to 

share information on specific cultural 

locations, practices, or actions that 

could be useful to the Service, and 

asked the Service to accommodate that 

privacy. Response: We understand there 

may be limitations on tribal members’ 

abilities to share information with us. 

They may not be able to share any 

information, or they may be able to 

share information only if we keep that 

information confidential. The Service 

respects that tribes, ANCs, or tribal 

members may not be able to share 

information that could be disclosed to 

the public if required by FOIA. As the 

policy states, we will work 

collaboratively to protect confidential 

information and protect disclosure 

when possible. If the Service relies on 

any such information as a basis for 

agency action to protect resources, 

however, that information will become 

an agency record subject to FOIA and 

must be released unless it falls under an 

exemption. This potential disclosure 

must be balanced with the fact that if we 

are unaware of this information, we 

cannot use it as a basis to protect those 

cultural resources or practices. 

3. One commenter shared that certain 

tribes require consultation to occur on 

those tribes’ reservations, and that the 

Service should state that they will 

consult with each tribe according to 

those requirements. In addition, many 

tribes require a two-tiered process 

where technical staff discuss 

management issues and elevate policy 

discussions to formal government-togovernment consultation when 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2016 / Notices 4641 

necessary. Response: The Service 

understands that each tribe may have its 

own requirements and standards for 

interacting with Federal agencies at both 

the government-to-government level and 

on technical issues. In developing 

relationships with tribes in their areas, 

Service employees will better 

understand and appropriately meet with 

tribal governments. The table of 

responsibilities in Exhibit 2 anticipates 

coordination at all levels. 

4. One commenter stated that to 

ensure that the Service is engaging with 

ANCs and tribes in a meaningful way 

that fulfills its consultation obligations, 

we should establish firm guidelines for 

what actions the agency will take when 

preparing for a consultation, including 

information on how much notice we 

must give tribes and ANCs before a 

consultation occurs, what information is 

provided to these groups in advance of 

consultation, and how the Service will 

incorporate comments gathered at 

consultations into the official record 

and decisionmaking process. Response: 

While this policy discusses a wide range 

of consultation and engagement 

possibilities, how to carry out proper 

consultation is beyond its scope. The 

‘‘how to’’ is covered in the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Tribal Consultation 

Handbook and will be a topic of 

ongoing training. 

5. If the Service is to request full 

cooperation and assistance regarding 

shared information, the final draft must 

include strong language to protect tribal 

information, Traditional Ecological 

Knowledge (TEK), site-specific 

information, and any information 

deemed sensitive by the tribes, as being 

totally protected and not subject to 

FOIA requests. Response: The Service 

will coordinate with tribes individually 

on this issue. We strive to balance our 

responsibility to the American public to 

release all information on which we 

base our decisions with respect for tribal 

concerns about keeping information 

confidential. While we will work with 

tribes to help protect sensitive cultural 

information, as a Federal agency, the 

Service is subject to the FOIA and has 

no discretion to protect from disclosure 

tribal information that does not qualify 

under any of FOIA’s statutory 

exemptions. 

6. We received many comments 

voicing concerns about treaty rights. 

One commenter believed that the 

language in the policy gives excessive 

discretion to Service staff to limit the 

exercise of treaty rights. Response: 

Throughout the policy, we recognize 

tribal treaty rights. Where treaty rights 

exist, employees do not have the 

discretion to allow or disallow their 

exercise. Where there are disagreements 

as to interpretation of how far those 

treaty rights reach, the Service will 

communicate with the affected tribe or 

tribes, but we must continue to carry out 

our activities as required by law. 

7. Other commenters, while 

recognizing that not all tribes have 

treaty rights, were concerned that the 

policy does not specifically support the 

rights of tribal members to use fish and 

wildlife resources on Service lands. 

Response: There are numerous 

statements about recognition of tribal 

treaty rights in the policy. Where treaty 

rights exist that extend to Service lands, 

such as fishing rights, those are 

recognized in the policy. 

Section 4. Resource Management 

1. The Service should assist and 

facilitate tribal participation in comanagement venues where there are 

areas of jurisdictional overlap amongst 

multiple government interests. 

Response: Where the Service is involved 

in resource management, we will engage 

all of the governmental parties involved. 

There are areas where the Service might 

not have such authority, particularly 

where States manage wildlife, so we 

may not have resources involved in 

such a jurisdiction. 

2. Several commenters asked us to 

add language stating that tribes are the 

primary natural resource managers on 

Indian lands, and that tribes are comanagers for shared resources offreservation for treaty-reserved resources. 

Response: The first part of this 

statement goes beyond the scope of this 

policy. The second part of this 

statement is too broad a concept and 

does not apply in all situations, so we 

did not include it as part of the policy. 

3. Several commenters stated that the 

1994 policy had stronger language in 

certain areas, in particular about our 

participation in fulfilling the Federal 

Government’s and the Department of the 

Interior’s trust responsibilities to assist 

Native Americans in protecting, 

conserving, and using tribal reserved, 

treaty-guaranteed, or statutorily 

identified trust assets. Response: We 

revised the language of the first and fifth 

paragraphs in section 1 to address these 

concerns. 

4. Several commenters discussed 

reserved rights on non-reservation 

lands. Some stated that the policy 

should reflect that various Indian tribes 

enjoy reserved rights on non-reservation 

lands, which allows those tribes to 

harvest natural resources pursuant to 

tribal law. One stated that the draft 

policy should reflect the obligation that 

the Service has, when considering 

actions affecting those lands and their 

natural resources, to meaningfully 

involve affected Indian tribes and their 

delegated inter-tribal agencies, where 

applicable. Other commenters asked for 

language clarifying that tribal members 

who are exercising tribal reserved rights 

have access to Service-managed or 

controlled lands for fishing and 

harvesting resources pursuant to tribal 

law or a memorandum of agreement 

between the tribe and Service. 

Response: Section 2 states that we will 

exercise due care where our actions 

affect the exercise of tribal rights. We 

work on a government-to-government 

basis to address issues concerning 

management of tribal trust resources 

and Indian tribal treaty and other rights. 

In addition, where a tribe has developed 

an agreement with the Service, the tribe 

can carry out these activities in 

accordance with the agreement. Not all 

Service lands are open to all such uses. 

5. One commenter stated that the 

policy needs to include stronger 

language regarding the use of tribal 

partners in assuming direct management 

over Service lands near reservations or 

where they have a significant interest on 

the landscape. Response: Congress has 

not given us the authority to give tribes 

management authority over Service 

lands. Management of Service lands is 

an inherently Federal function. 

6. Several commenters voiced concern 

that tribes should not bear a 

disproportionate burden for the 

conservation of species, and to consider 

whether conservation measures on nontribal lands and regulating non-Indian 

activities can achieve those goals. In 

addition, they stated that the policy 

needs to reinforce the principle message 

of Secretary’s Order 3206 and clearly 

place the burden of proof on the Service 

to demonstrate a designation of critical 

habitat is required within a reservation. 

Response: The Service acts as required 

by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.), and Secretary’s Order 3206. We 

added language from our ESA section 

4(b)(2) policy to this policy as follows: 

‘‘We will always consider exclusions of 

tribal lands under section 4(b)(2) of the 

ESA before finalizing a designation of 

critical habitat. We will also give great 

weight to tribal concerns in analyzing 

the benefits of exclusion.’’ 

7. One commenter requested a 

stronger statement in the policy 

requiring that system directors, 

managers, and staff accommodate 

requests by tribes to access system lands 

in a manner consistent with other 

members of the public or State 

governments. For example, if a 

particular refuge permits State big game 

hunts, then tribes should be able to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
4642 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2016 / Notices 

access those same lands for hunting 

purposes. Response: This is too broad of 

a request to address in the policy. In 

short, not all tribes have treaty-reserved 

hunting and gathering rights. In certain 

geographic areas, tribes retain those 

treaty rights, but the rights might not 

extend to carrying out those activities 

on a refuge. We will work with tribes in 

the geographic area where hunting is 

authorized on a refuge. 

8. One commenter was concerned that 

the administration of various wildlife 

laws cuts against the tribes, like the 

administration of Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES) for furbearing mammals, where 

the Service requires a tribe to meet an 

unrealistic standard before it can 

continue its traditional practices of 

making cultural use of harvested 

animals. The resource management 

section needs to make it clear to Service 

employees that it expects its employees 

to treat tribes with respect and equity 

when they are making decisions about 

gathering of subsistence foods and 

natural resources. Response: The policy 

stresses respect and coordination with 

tribes. Issues surrounding native rights 

to hunt and gather on non-Indian lands 

vary. These issues will be addressed in 

training. In addition, we will have an 

Alaska policy to address subsistence 

issues in Alaska. 

9. We received comments stating that 

while the policy talks about 

management and conservation of 

resources, it does not clearly reflect 

tribal ‘‘use’’ of resources. Response: We 

had addressed this in many places in 

the draft policy, including in the 

opening paragraph, in statements about 

Alaska subsistence uses, in the section 

on using cultural resources, and in the 

definition of ‘‘Fish and wildlife and 

cultural resource management.’’ To 

address this comment, we have added 

‘‘use’’ of resources in two additional 

places—in the definitions of comanagement and collaborative 

management. 

10. Several commenters stated that 

the policy must consider other 

governmental jurisdiction and interests, 

especially where litigation or laws 

recognize States as the primary 

managers of the resources, especially on 

ceded territories. Response: With 

respect to developing agreements to 

manage and conserve resources, we 

added a reference to ‘‘States and other 

co-managers.’’ The policy also 

recognizes State jurisdiction under both 

the Indian lands and non-Indian lands 

subsections of section 4. 

11. Some commenters believed that 

the Service’s role in managing nonIndian lands is limited to federally 

owned lands, and then only where such 

uses have been established by Federal 

law or adjudication. Response: The 

Service’s jurisdiction goes beyond 

federally owned non-Indian lands, 

particularly when the Service manages 

ESA-listed species, eagles, and other 

migratory birds. Further, tribal rights 

need not have been formally 

adjudicated to be valid; therefore, we 

have not altered this language in the 

policy. 

12. Several commenters asked that we 

clarify ‘‘where there is a legal basis for 

such use’’ when talking about tribal 

members using fish and wildlife 

resources on non-Indian lands. 

Response: Clarifying this term would 

require a very lengthy section that 

would, at a minimum, include 

reviewing treaties, statutes, and case law 

from around the country, which goes 

beyond the scope of this policy. 

13. Commenters noted that the 

language in the Non-Indian Lands 

section might allow Service employees 

to participate in matters that are strictly 

between States and tribes. Response: We 

have added the phrase, ‘‘and where 

Service jurisdiction is involved’’ to this 

paragraph. In addition, the definition of 

fish and wildlife resources encompasses 

only those that the Service is 

responsible for managing and 

conserving. 

14. Commenters asked that we clarify 

the role the Service would play if there 

are disagreements between tribal 

governments and State or local resource 

management agencies. Response: 

Section 4 states, ‘‘certain tribal 

governments and State governments 

may have shared responsibilities to comanage fish and wildlife resources. In 

such cases, we will consult and 

collaborate with tribal governments and 

affected State or local resource 

management agencies to help meet the 

objectives of all parties while honoring 

the Federal trust responsibility.’’ 

Section 5. Culture/Religion 

1. Some commenters found it 

offensive that the Service would 

prioritize scientific investigation over a 

tribe’s religious, ceremonial, or cultural 

needs. Response: In 1975, Interior 

Secretary Morton recognized Indians’ 

‘‘legitimate interest in expressing their 

cultural and religious way of life, and at 

the same time, share the responsibility 

to conserve wildlife resources including 

federally protected birds.’’ The Attorney 

General’s 2012 policy tiers from the 

Morton policy and recognizes that the 

tribes and the United States share an 

interest in and responsibility for 

protecting wildlife resources: ‘‘It is a 

federal priority to prosecute those who 

violate federal laws by engaging in 

commercial activities involving 

federally protected birds, bird feathers, 

and remains. . . . The Department of 

Justice is committed to robust 

enforcement of federal laws protecting 

birds while respecting tribal interests in 

the use of eagle feathers and other 

federally protected birds, bird feathers, 

and other bird parts for cultural and 

religious purposes’’ (Attorney General 

Holder policy, October 12, 2012). 

2. Several commenters asked that the 

policy include use of natural resources 

within the section on cultural resources. 

Response: While tribal members may 

not distinguish between natural and 

cultural resources, the Service follows a 

separate set of laws in each area. We 

address use of natural resources in 

section 4. 

3. One commenter stated that tribes 

need to be provided timely notification 

when any actions are proposed on their 

ancestral homelands, so that they can 

make early, informed decisions on when 

and how to become involved. Response: 

The policy states, ‘‘The Service will 

meaningfully involve tribal 

governments in our actions when we or 

the tribal government determine the 

actions may affect their cultural or 

religious interest . . .’’ 

4. Several commenters pointed out 

that while many instances of the words 

‘‘may’’ and ‘‘should’’ were strengthened 

from an earlier draft of the policy, a few 

remaining ‘‘shoulds’’ could still be 

strengthened to make them absolute 

requirements. Response: Where the 

Service is able to state that it will act, 

it so stated. We do not, however, want 

to make representations that we are 

unable to perform. 

5. One commenter asked that we 

delete ‘‘expression’’ and replace it with 

‘‘practices’’ when talking about religion. 

Response: Based on respectful 

discussion within the tribal-Service 

policy team, we have kept the term 

‘‘expression.’’ 

Section 6. Law Enforcement 

1. Several commenters wrote asking 

for support for formal agreements, such 

as cross-deputation. Response: We have 

explained that the Service will work 

with tribes to the limits of the law. At 

this time, however, Federal law does not 

allow the Service to cross-deputize 

tribal officers. 

2. Some commenters stated that they 

were concerned that Service officers 

should not assume that State or Federal 

law applies to Indian tribal members 

without first consulting the Indian tribes 

that may have jurisdiction in a 

particular area. In cases where Service 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2016 / Notices 4643 

officers determine that there have been 

possible violations committed by Indian 

tribal members, those officers should 

immediately contact tribal law 

enforcement to determine whether the 

members’ tribe has jurisdiction. 

Response: In cases where Service 

officers determine that there have been 

possible violations of Federal law 

committed by tribal members, officers 

have a responsibility to investigate such 

violations. Service law enforcement 

officers are trained on the topics of 

Federal, State, and tribal jurisdictions. 

In situations where a question of tribal 

rights arises in the course of an 

investigation, the Service has a review 

process in place to determine whether 

or not to pursue a case. Service law 

enforcement officers are committed to 

working cooperatively with tribal gameenforcement authorities whenever they 

can in pursuing specific investigations. 

We also have added language in section 

6 that the Service will provide its law 

enforcement staff additional crosscultural training. 

Section 7. Tribal Capacity Building, 

Assistance, and Funding 

1. Several commenters asked that the 

Service commit to helping tribes receive 

a consistent level of funding to sustain 

ongoing tribal wildlife management 

projects. Several also asked that we 

make educating tribal staff an 

affirmative priority. Response: The 

Service funds tribal wildlife projects 

through several funding mechanisms. 

We do not, however, have the resources 

to commit to set levels of funding. The 

Service is able to act only within the 

constraints of its available resources. 

2. Several commenters focused on 

training for tribal members by asking the 

Service to facilitate training 

opportunities, promote its training 

facilities (e.g., at the National 

Conservation Training Center (NCTC)), 

and provide scholarships and funding to 

assist in the development of staff in 

areas of need. In addition, several 

commenters were concerned with 

language that stated that the Service 

would carry out certain functions, such 

as providing technical assistance, ‘‘as 

resources and priorities allow.’’ These 

commenters believe that these activities 

are a priority and were concerned that 

they not be left to the discretion of 

individual offices. Response: The 

Service offers many kinds of training in 

many locations. We include tribal 

members in many of our training 

courses, including those at NCTC. We 

cannot make representations that we 

can fund all desired activities that we 

may not have the resources to support. 

3. Commenters encouraged the 

Service to provide joint training to 

increase awareness and understanding 

for implementation of the policy for 

tribal and Service staff to ensure they 

both receive consistent information and 

to foster collaborative learning and 

strong working relationships. Response: 

We agree. We have added language to 

section 8 that we will form both 

national and Regional tribal-Service 

teams to assess the priorities for training 

and other priorities in each area. Also, 

we have added language to section 8 as 

follows: ‘‘The Service will encourage 

and support joint training with tribes to 

promote common understanding about 

implementing the policy within the 

context of Region-specific 

circumstances.’’ Section 7 states: ‘‘The 

Service will provide tribal governments 

and their staff access to our fish and 

wildlife resource training programs in 

the same manner that we provide access 

to other government agencies. In 

addition, we plan to work with tribes to 

develop, conduct, and attend joint 

training programs to increase awareness 

and sensitivity and to cross-train our 

employees and tribal staff on each 

other’s responsibilities for resource 

stewardship.’’ 

4. One commenter asked that the 

Service re-evaluate the Tribal Wildlife 

Grant (TWG) funding program and 

explore other options for providing 

stable, long-term funding to tribes like 

the Service currently provides to States. 

Response: Re-evaluating such programs 

goes beyond the scope of this policy. 

5. Several commenters asked for 

stronger language regarding recruitment 

of Native Americans. Response: Both 

sections 6 and 7 address this issue. The 

policy encourages qualified Native 

Americans to apply for Service jobs. It 

additionally states that, ‘‘[w]e will 

collaborate with tribal governments to 

recruit Native Americans for Service 

law enforcement positions . . .’’ 

6. We received many comments about 

the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA; 25 

U.S.C. 450 et seq.) and how it applies to 

the Service. 

One commenter stated that the 

Service should first come out with a 

national policy regarding annual 

funding agreements (AFA) at national 

wildlife refuges before entering into any 

ISDEAA contracts at refuges. Response: 

That is beyond the scope of this policy. 

Other commenters stated that multiyear funding agreements for refuge 

management are not statutorily 

authorized, and that 15 U.S.C. 458cc 

does not authorize multi-year funding 

agreements. Response: The Service will 

consider the full range of contracts and 

grants that are available to tribes within 

applicable law. Multi-year agreements 

do not authorize multi-year funding. 

Funding is allocated through AFAs. 

Title 25 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) at § 100.146 allows an 

agency to negotiate a self-governance 

funding agreement with a performance 

period that exceeds 1 year. 

Another commenter stated that they 

believed that all information about 

AFAs should be made available under 

FOIA requests. Should there be an AFA, 

the Service must maintain records that 

it will be able to produce upon public 

request. Response: All documents in the 

Service’s custody and control are 

subject to FOIA. Tribes are not subject 

to FOIA. 

One commenter stated that refuge 

management should not be available to 

tribes under an AFA where the Service 

has not finalized a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP), and that the 

Service cannot contract inherently 

Federal functions. Response: Refuge 

management has been identified as an 

inherently Federal function and is not 

available to tribes under an AFA. 

7. Under the subsection on 

Professional Development, include a 

commitment to implement and expand 

tribal internship opportunities and 

programs for Native American students 

at colleges, universities, tribal colleges, 

and other institutions to provide 

expanded opportunities for Native 

American students to gain experience in 

wildlife resource management. 

Response: At this time, making this 

additional commitment in response to 

this request goes beyond the scope of 

the Service’s resources. 

8. Add language committing the 

Service to strategize with tribes about 

possible funding opportunities that 

would be available through statutory 

amendments to existing programs. 

Response: The Service in not authorized 

to pursue statutory amendments on 

behalf of tribes. 

9. Several commenters asked that the 

policy clarify that when offering 

assistance to tribes, the Service should 

limit its offer of expertise to the fish and 

wildlife resources defined by the policy. 

These commenters stated that the 

Service may not be qualified to review 

and assess tribal conservation measures 

for species under State jurisdiction 

without State involvement. Also, where 

there are instances of court-established 

processes for developing species 

management plans, Service involvement 

might be inappropriate. Response: We 

added the following language: ‘‘Service 

involvement may be limited where 

litigation or other court actions have 

established a specific process for the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
4644 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2016 / Notices 

development of species management 

plans and tribal codes.’’ 

Section 8. Implementation and 

Monitoring 

1. Several commenters hoped to see 

operational plans within the policy. 

They stated that the policy should 

contain more detail and directly address 

how it will be implemented. They stated 

that the policy seems to be a framework 

that needs to be transformed into 

operational plans for local level 

implementation. Response: The policy 

becomes operational through the table 

of employee responsibilities. In 

addition, the Service has a tribal 

consultation handbook that we will be 

updating. We added additional language 

to section 8 calling for national and 

Regional teams comprised of both 

Service and tribal representatives to 

implement the policy in a way that is 

meaningful at a more localized level. 

The policy also calls for training at all 

levels of the Service. 

2. Commenters recommended that the 

Service establish a tribal committee that 

would monitor and evaluate the 

effectiveness of the policy and make 

recommendations to improve its 

implementation. Commenters asked that 

we require Regional and field offices to 

carry out training for staff and 

leadership on the culture and legal 

rights of Indian tribes in their areas, 

with invitations extended to those 

Indian tribes and tribal agencies to assist 

in the planning and execution of those 

trainings. Response: We have added 

language to section 8 that describes how 

we will form both national and Regional 

tribal-Service teams to assess the 

priorities for training and other 

priorities in each area. We have also 

added the following language to section 

8: ‘‘The Service will encourage and 

support joint training with tribes to 

promote common understanding about 

implementing the policy within the 

context of Region-specific 

circumstances.’’ Implementation will 

continue through tribal-Service teams 

that will address training and other 

needs in each area. These teams will 

nurture strong collaborative working 

relationships that will address 

communication, training, 

implementation, and monitoring. 

3. One commenter stated that there 

should be a clear process for recourse if 

tribal consultation is denied or 

mishandled by Service officials and 

staff. Response: Section 8 addresses the 

manner by which the Service will 

address disagreements regarding the 

implementation of this policy. 

Section 9. Scope and Limitations 

Several commenters were concerned 

that some of the language from the 1994 

policy that clarified State wildlife 

agencies’ roles and authorities was 

missing from the draft. Response: We 

have recognized State authority 

throughout the policy and have added 

the following, ‘‘Nothing in this policy 

may be construed as affecting the 

authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility 

of States to manage, control, or regulate 

fish and resident wildlife under State 

law or regulations.’’ 

Exhibit 1. Definitions 

1. Several commenters stated that the 

definition for ‘‘Indian lands’’ should 

include land held in fee by an Indian or 

a tribe, or land owned by an ANC. 

Response: The tribal-U.S. relationship is 

a political one. We cannot extend the 

legal protections of trust land to nontrust land through this policy. For 

ANCs, we plan to develop an Alaska 

regional policy that addresses the issue 

further. 

2. Several commenters asked that we 

include a definition of ‘‘trust 

responsibility.’’ Response: We have 

taken language describing the contours 

of the trust responsibility from 

Secretary’s Order 3335 and inserted it 

into the first section of the policy. 

3. Several commenters pointed out 

that in Alaska, co-management can take 

place between the Service and nongovernmental entities, and that our 

proposed co-management definition did 

not include these situations. Other 

commenters asked that we make the 

definition more restrictive by including 

entities that have authority ‘‘legally 

established by federal law or 

adjudication.’’ Response: We have 

changed the definition of ‘‘comanagement’’ as follows: ‘‘two or more 

entities, each having legally established 

management responsibilities, working 

collaboratively to achieve mutually 

agreed upon, compatible objectives to 

protect, conserve, use, enhance, or 

restore natural and cultural resources.’’ 

We have also added a definition for 

‘‘collaborative management’’ as follows: 

‘‘two or more entities working together 

to actively protect, conserve, use, 

enhance, or restore natural and cultural 

resources.’’ We believe these 

clarifications will cover management 

scenarios both in Alaska and throughout 

the country. 

4. Several commenters asked for 

clarity in the definition of fish and 

wildlife resources, stating that many 

fish and wildlife species found on 

refuges are managed under State rather 

than Federal authority. These 

commenters recommended that we state 

that the Service’s responsibility is 

limited to the purpose for which the 

refuge was designated and to federally 

managed species. Response: The Service 

has responsibility for all resources 

within refuge boundaries. We enter into 

agreements with States and other 

entities for co-management and 

cooperative management, where 

appropriate. 

5. Many commenters objected to the 

definition of ‘‘sacred site’’ and offered 

alternative definitions. One commenter 

asked that we use the term ‘‘sacred 

place’’ and offered a definition. Another 

commenter stated that it would be more 

appropriate to use a definition they 

offered for ‘‘cultural landscapes,’’ which 

the National Park Service had used. 

Response: We understand that this 

definition may not fit tribal concepts of 

sacred sites. We will address these 

concerns during training. We continue 

to use this definition, which we took 

directly from Executive Order 13007 

and the Departmental Manual at 512 

DM 3. Concern about accessing cultural 

sites is further discussed in section 8 

under the Access for Cultural, 

Archeological, and Historic Resources, 

and Indian Sacred Sites subsection. 

6. One commenter stated that it was 

unclear whether the ‘‘sacred site’’ 

definition would require a prior 

identification of sacred sites. Response: 

We have clarified the language, 

changing the tense to clarify that that a 

tribe does not need to identify a sacred 

site prior to the inception of the project 

under discussion. The tribe does need to 

identify the site to us in order for us to 

consider its sensitivity in our planning 

or review of the project. While a sacred 

site may exist to a tribe, we cannot 

consider a sacred site that we do not 

know about. In addition to the 

definition, the subsection on access 

addresses the need to avoid adversely 

affecting the physical integrity of sacred 

sites and to accommodate Indians’ 

access to and use of sacred sites. 

Exhibit 2. Responsibilities 

1. Some commenters recommended 

moving this section farther back in the 

document, perhaps including it as an 

appendix to highlight the importance of 

the policy rather than the roles of 

various Federal positions. Response: We 

agree and have moved the table into an 

exhibit. The use of exhibits is consistent 

with other Service Manual policies. 

2. Several commenters asked that the 

policy identify the Service officials who 

have responsibility to liaison with nontribal governments, agencies, or other 

entities. Response: This policy is 

focused on working with Native 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 27, 2016 / Notices 4645 

Americans, so this request is beyond its 

scope. 

Exhibit 3. Authorities 

1. Many commenters asked that we 

list each treaty in which the United 

States and tribes have recognized 

reserved rights to natural resources. 

Some commenters noted that we 

mention treaties quite a bit, without 

recognizing that many tribes do not 

have treaties. Some commenters asked 

that we include particular statutes 

through which Congress has stated the 

United States’ legal relationship with 

tribes. Response: We are unable to add 

references to all the treaties and statutes 

that refer to individual tribes. They are 

too numerous to list in this document. 

Many tribes have several treaties or 

statutes, or both, with some overturning 

or modifying earlier citations. 

Individual treaties and statutes are more 

appropriately addressed through 

training at the local level. 

2. Several commenters recommended 

we include the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) 

to the authorities section. Response: We 

have added the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act. 

3. The authorities section should 

include the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) among the U.S. 

Department of Defense, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Department of Energy, 

and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation Regarding Interagency 

Coordination and Collaboration for the 

Protection of Indian Sacred Sites, 

December 6, 2012. Response: We have 

added this MOU to the exhibit. 

Alaska-Specific Concerns 

1. We received several comments that 

focused on concerns specific to Alaska. 

Many commenters stated that while 

ANCs are not tribal governments and are 

not treated as sovereigns, the United 

States has a responsibility to consult 

with ANCs on the same basis as Indian 

tribes under Executive Order 13175. 

They recommended that we include the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2004 (Pub. L. 108–199) in the 

authorities section. In addition, several 

commenters noted that, while the 

Service has stated that it will adopt an 

Alaska regional policy, the national 

policy must also address the Service’s 

relationship with ANCs. Commenters 

pointed out that many national level 

proposals and plans have a substantial 

and direct impact on ANCs and other 

Alaska Native entities, so ANCs should 

be considered on the national level. 

Response: We have adopted these 

comments. We have added authorities 

about consultation with ANCs to the 

authorities exhibit. We have included 

the requirement to consult with ANCs 

in sections 1 and 3 of the policy. In 

addition, the Alaska Region (Region 7) 

is in the process of drafting an Alaskaspecific policy. Also in response to 

these comments, we have added a 

definition of Alaska Native Corporation 

to the definitions exhibit. 

2. Commenters from Alaska voiced 

concern that because the term ‘‘intertribal organization’’ is undefined, this 

provision might be interpreted as a limit 

on the agency’s ability to consult with 

any group that is not a tribe or 

authorized by a tribe to consult on its 

behalf. Response: We have broadened 

the scope of ‘‘Alaska Native 

Organization (ANO)’’ to include a broad 

array of organizations that represent 

Alaska Natives, including, but not 

limited to, ANOs under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. 

3. Commenters asked that the training 

and professional development 

opportunities anticipated by the Service 

for tribal governments should be 

extended to ANCs. Some stated that 

ANCs are valuable sources of traditional 

knowledge, have significant interests in 

receiving technical information, and 

asked that these policy provisions be 

expanded to include them. Response: 

We will consult with ANCs on the same 

basis as we consult with tribes, and we 

will also work with ANCs in all areas 

permissible by law. 

4. Some commenters believe that 

under ISDEAA, ANCs have the same 

status as tribes for the provision of many 

contract services. Response: ANCs are 

entitled to contract under title I of the 

ISDEAA. With respect to title IV selfgovernance funding agreements, 25 

U.S.C. 458bb establishes that tribes are 

eligible to participate in the 

Department’s Tribal Self-Governance 

Program. The regulations for the 

Program also allow consortia, defined as 

‘‘an organization of Indian tribes that is 

authorized by those tribes to participate 

in self-governance.’’ 

Dated: January 20, 2016. 

Daniel M. Ashe, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01615 Filed 1–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[NPS–WASO–NAGPRA–20039; 

PPWOCRADN0–PCU00RP14.R50000] 

Notice of Intent To Repatriate a 

Cultural Item: Binghamton University, 

State University of New York, 

Binghamton, NY 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Binghamton University, in 

consultation with the appropriate 

Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian 

organizations, has determined that the 

cultural item listed in this notice meets 

the definition of a sacred object. Lineal 

descendants or representatives of any 

Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian 

organization not identified in this notice 

that wish to claim these cultural items 

should submit a written request to 

Binghamton University. If no additional 

claimants come forward, transfer of 

control of the cultural items to the lineal 

descendants, Indian tribes, or Native 

Hawaiian organizations stated in this 

notice may proceed. 

DATES: Representatives of any Indian 

tribe that believes it has a cultural 

affiliation with the cultural item should 

contact Binghamton University at the 

address below by February 26, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Nina M. Versaggi, Public 

Archaeology Facility, Binghamton 

University, Binghamton, NY 13902– 

6000, telephone (607) 777–4786. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

here given in accordance with the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 

3005, of the intent to repatriate a 

cultural item in the possession of 

Binghamton University that meets the 

definition of sacred object under 25 

U.S.C. 3001. 

This notice is published as part of the 

National Park Service’s administrative 

responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 

U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in 

this notice are the sole responsibility of 

the museum, institution, or Federal 

agency that has control of the Native 

American cultural item. The National 

Park Service is not responsible for the 

determinations in this notice. 

History and Description of the Cultural 

Item(s) 

During the middle to late 1960s, the 

Anthropology Department at 

Binghamton University acquired a False 

Face mask made by an artist from the 

Six Nations, in Ontario, Canada. A 

typed index card accompanying the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES