59370 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Notices 

regulations (43 CFR part 2) and under 

regulations at 30 CFR 250.196, ‘‘Data 

and information to be made available to 

the public.’’ No items of a sensitive 

nature are collected. Responses are 

mandatory. 

Frequency: Monthly; and as specified 

in the NTL. 

Estimated Number and Description of 

Respondents: Approximately 110 

Federal OCS oil and gas lessees. 

Estimated Reporting and 

Recordkeeping ‘‘Hour’’ Burden: The 

approved reporting burdens for the 

current collections are 202,320 hours for 

1010–0164, and 73,920 hours for 1010–

0163. We expect the new burden hours 

to be approximately 26,880 which is an 

adjustment decrease of 249,360 burden 

hours. This decrease is a result of 

number of responses submitted. Even 

though there were approximately 1,600 

facilities affected by Hurricane Rita, and 

1,300 facilities affected by Hurricane 

Katrina in the GOM, usually 

respondents will submit only one or 

more reports listing the damage to their 

facilities thereby making the number of 

responses significantly lower than what 

was previously estimated. The following 

chart details the individual components 

and respective hour burden estimates of 

this ICR. In calculating the burdens, we 

assumed that respondents perform 

certain requirements in the normal 

course of their activities. We consider 

these to be usual and customary and 

took that into account in estimating the 

burden. 

Reporting requirement Hour burden Number of responses 

Annual burden 

hours 

Prepare and submit to MMS (1) list of impacted OCS structures, (2) timetable for inspections, 

and (3) inspection plan for each listed platform describing work to determine condition of 

structure ................................................................................................................................... 12 150 1,800 

Submit amendments to list and inspection plans. ....................................................................... 12 90 1,080 

Submit report to MMS describing detected damage that may adversely affect structural integrity, including assessment of ability to withstand anticipated environmental storm conditions, and any remediation plans ............................................................................................. 120 200 24,000 

Estimated Reporting and 

Recordkeeping ‘‘Non-Hour Cost’’

Burden: We have identified no cost 

burdens for this collection. 

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA 

(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Until OMB approves a 

collection of information, you are not 

obligated to respond. 

Comments: Before submitting an ICR 

to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) 

requires each agency ’’* * * to provide 

notice * * * and otherwise consult 

with members of the public and affected 

agencies concerning each proposed 

collection of information * * *’’. 

Agencies must specifically solicit 

comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the 

proposed collection of informtion is 

necessary for the agency to perform its 

duties, including whether the 

information is useful; (b) evaluate the 

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information; (c) enhance the quality, 

usefulness, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

minimize the burden on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Agencies must also estimate the ‘‘nonhour cost’’ burdens to respondents or 

recordkeepers resulting from the 

collection of information. Therefore, if 

you have costs to generate, maintain, 

and disclose this information, you 

should comment and provide your total 

capital and startup cost components or 

annual operation, maintenance, and 

purchase of service components. You 

should describe the methods you use to 

estimate major cost factors, including 

system and technology acquisition, 

expected useful life of capital 

equipment, discount rate(s), and the 

period over which you incur costs. 

Capital and startup costs include, 

among other items, computers and 

software you purchase to prepare for 

collecting information, monitoring, and 

record storage facilities. You should not 

include estimates for equipment or 

services purchased: (i) Before October 1, 

1995; (ii) to comply with requirements 

not associated with the information 

collection; (iii) for reasons other than to 

provide information or keep records for 

the Government; or (iv) as part of 

customary and usual business or private 

practices. 

We will summarize written responses 

to this notice and address them in our 

submission for OMB approval. As a 

result of your comments, we will make 

any necessary adjustments to the burden 

in our submission to OMB. 

Public Comment Procedure: MMS’s 

practice is to make comments, including 

names and addresses of respondents, 

available for public review. If you wish 

your name and/or address to be 

withheld, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. MMS will honor this request 

to the extent allowable by law; however, 

anonymous comments will not be 

considered. All submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public inspection in 

their entirety. 

MMS Information Collection 

Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) 

208–7744. 

Dated: October 3, 2005. 

E.P. Danenberger, 

Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs. 

[FR Doc. 05–20435 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement; 

Reconstruction of the Furnace Creek 

Water Collection System; Death Valley 

National Park; Inyo County, CA; Notice 

of Availability 

Summary: Pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(Pub. L. 91–190, 42U.S.C. 4321–4347, 

January 1, 1970, as amended), and the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations (40CFR Part 1500–1508), the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service and its 

cooperating agency have completed a 

draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed reconstruction of 

the Furnace Creek water collection 

system at Death Valley National Park in 

Inyo County, California. The proposed 

project would rebuild the outdated 

water collection system in the Furnace 

Creek area to deliver a safe and reliable 

potable and nonpotable water supply to 

the park’s main visitor use area. The 

draft EIS also describes and analyzes 

three alternatives and appropriate 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Notices 59371 

mitigation measures, and identifies an 

‘‘environmentally preferred’’ alternative. 

Background: The National Park 

Service (NPS), Xanterra Parks and 

Resorts (Xanterra), and the Timbisha 

Shoshone Tribe (cooperating agency) are 

the primary water user groups in the 

Furnace Creek area. The TexasTravertine Springs complex in the 

Furnace Creek area may be the most 

critical water resource in Death Valley 

National Park. This series of springs 

provides water for all of the human use 

needs in the park headquarters area; 

infrastructure in this area includes the 

primary NPS administrative offices and 

three campgrounds, two private resort/ 

visitor services facilities owned and 

operated by Xanterra, and the offices 

and residences for the Timbisha 

Shoshone Tribe. The Texas-Travertine 

Springs complex also provides water 

that supports a riparian area, a 

biological community that includes 

habitat for a minimum of eight endemic 

special-status species, and a biologically 

and culturally-important mesquite 

bosque. 

The current water collection system 

consists of four water collection boxes at 

Travertine Springs, a collection gallery 

in Furnace Creek Wash, a tunnel for 

water collection constructed similar to a 

mine adit at Texas Springs, and a tunnel 

for water collection constructed similar 

to a mine adit at the Furnace Creek Inn. 

All water distributed by the existing 

collection system is potable, although 

much of the water is used for irrigation 

and other nonpotable purposes. The 

existing water collection system 

installed in the 1970’s has become 

unreliable, subject to failure, and is 

nearing the end of its useful life-span. 

Many of the existing collection galleries 

have intermittently tested positive for 

coliform or E. coli bacteria, experienced 

unpredictable inputs of soil or organic 

matter, intermittently and unpredictably 

produced reduced volumes of water, 

and collected groundwater that does not 

meet state drinking water standards. 

When the system was installed 

approximately 30 years ago, there was 

an incomplete understanding of the 

Furnace Creek area’s unique biological 

resource values and water conservation 

strategies were not a priority. 

Proposal and Alternatives: The NPS 

proposes to rebuild the antiquated water 

collection system in the Furnace Creek 

area to deliver safe and reliable drinking 

water to the park’s main visitor use area, 

and provide separate delivery systems 

for potable and nonpotable water. 

Desired redevelopment of the Furnace 

Creek water collection system includes 

efforts to restore historic wetland and 

riparian habitat, and ensure the longterm conservation of species endemic to 

the Furnace Creek area. The draft EIS 

identifies and analyzes four alternatives 

for reconstructing the Furnace Creek 

water collection system. 

Alternative 1 (‘‘no action’’) would 

result in continued operation and 

maintenance of the existing water 

collection system. Under this 

alternative, the Furnace Creek water 

collection system would remain in its 

existing condition. Necessary 

maintenance and repairs would 

continue, but no major undertakings 

(e.g., maintenance activities) would 

occur. Alternative 1 would provide 

potable water from collection galleries 

at Travertine Springs Lines 2, 3, and 4, 

and Furnace Creek Wash. Nonpotable 

water would be provided from the Inn 

Tunnel. Riparian water would be 

released from Travertine Springs Line 1, 

Texas Springs, and the Inn Tunnel. 

Alternative 1 would continue to store 

water in the existing 2-million gallon 

and 500,000 gallon storage tanks. 

Potable water would continue to be 

disinfected at the 2-million gallon tank 

with chlorine. 

All three ‘‘action’’ alternatives would 

separate the potable and nonpotable 

water system in the project area, and 

provide nonpotable water from the Inn 

Tunnel and a Furnace Creek Wash 

collection gallery. These alternatives 

primarily differ in terms of how each 

would provide potable water to the 

Furnace Creek area. Alternative 2 would 

provide potable water from rebuilt 

collection galleries at Travertine Springs 

Line 3 and Line 4, and two to three new 

groundwater wells in the Texas Springs 

Syncline. Alternative 2 would treat 

potable water using a reverse osmosis 

water treatment plant. Riparian water 

would be released from Travertine 

Springs Line 1 and Line 2 and Texas 

Springs to restore historic wetland and 

riparian habitat. The restoration effort 

would include the incorporation of 

riparian water release measures that 

would reduce erosion and promote 

groundwater infiltration. 

Alternative 3 (agency preferred) 

would provide potable water from 4 to 

6 new groundwater wells in the Texas 

Springs Syncline, and would treat 

potable water using a reverse osmosis 

water treatment plant. Riparian water 

would be released from all of Travertine 

Springs and Texas Springs to restore 

historic wetland and riparian habitat. 

The restoration effort would include the 

incorporation of riparian water release 

measures that would reduce erosion and 

promote groundwater infiltration. 

Alternative 4 would provide potable 

water from Travertine Springs Lines 2, 

3, and 4 and Texas Springs, and would 

treat water using a reverse osmosis 

water treatment plant with 

supplemental water disinfection. Since 

the NPS would treat all potable water 

under this alternative (including bypass 

water), Travertine Springs would not 

require reconstruction of spring 

collection boxes or clearing and 

grubbing of vegetation from the spring 

area. Riparian water would be released 

from Travertine Springs Line 1 and 

Texas Springs to restore historic 

wetland and riparian habitat. The 

restoration effort would include the 

incorporation of riparian water release 

measures that would reduce erosion and 

promote groundwater infiltration. 

The draft EIS identifies and evaluates 

a full range of mitigation strategies, 

project design elements, and other 

measures to minimize environmental 

harm. In addition to identifying the 

agency-preferred alternative, based on 

the environmental impact analysis 

detailed in the draft EIS an 

‘‘environmentally preferred’’ alternative 

is also evaluated. 

Scoping: Early public and agency 

participation has been incorporated in 

this conservation planning process. 

Death Valley National Park held public 

scoping and informal meetings in 2001 

through 2004 to solicit ideas and 

concerns from park visitors, park staff, 

Native American groups, scientists, and 

government agencies. A notice of intent 

to prepare the Reconstruction of the 

Furnace Creek Water Collection System 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

was published in the Federal Register 

on November 20, 2000; the formal 

public scoping phase concluded on 

March 14, 2001. The public was notified 

about the public scoping process 

through the Federal Register 

announcement, local press releases, 

website postings, mailings, and the 

Furnace Creek Visitor Center newsletter. 

During 2001 the NPS held three 

public scoping meetings on January 30 

(in Pahrump, Nevada), January 31 (in 

Death Valley National Park), and 

February 1 (in Independence, 

California). The purpose of these 

meetings was to: (1) Provide 

participants with an overview of 

existing conditions and the proposed 

action; (2) ask participants to identify 

key issues that should be analyzed 

during the environmental review and 

compliance process; and (3) provide an 

opportunity for participants to ask 

questions regarding project alternatives 

and the overall environmental review 

and compliance process. As a result of 

the public scoping process, two letters 

were received via U.S. mail. Issues 

identified during the public scoping 

process are summarized in the EIS 

59372 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Notices 

under the Planning Issues section, in 

Chapter I, Purpose and Need. All 

comments received during the public 

scoping process have been duly 

considered in this EIS. In addition to 

public scoping, the park and its 

cooperating agency have also consulted 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Army Corps of Engineers, California 

State Historic Preservation Office, and 

Lahontan Regional Water Quality 

Control Board. 

Comments: The draft EIS is now 

available for public review during a 60- 

day comment period. Persons wishing 

to express any new concerns about 

water management, facilities 

development, resource protection, or 

other pertinent aspects of the proposal 

are encouraged to do so; all responses 

should be sent to James T. Reynolds, 

Superintendent, Death Valley National 

Park, Death Valley, California 92328. 

Faxed or electronic comments are also 

acceptable (such transmittals may be 

sent to the park superintendent’s 

attention at 

Deva_Superintendent@nps.gov or FAX 

(760) 786–3283). Written comments will 

also be accepted at NPS public meetings 

which are to be held November 15 and 

16, 2005 at Pahrump, Nevada, and 

Death Valley, California. As soon as 

meeting venues are confirmed, details 

will be posted on the park’s Web site 

and publicized via local and regional 

press (and may be obtained by 

contacting the park at (769) 786–3243). 

All written comments must be 

postmarked (or transmitted) no later 

than 60 days from the date that the 

Environmental Protection Agency posts 

its notice of filing in the Federal 

Register (immediately upon 

confirmation, this date will be 

announced on the park’s Web site and 

via local and regional press media; this 

information will also be available at the 

park’s telephone contact at (760) 786–

3243). Please note that names and 

addresses of people who comment 

become part of the public record. If 

individuals commenting request that 

their name or\and address be withheld 

from public disclosure, it will be 

honored to the extent allowable by law. 

Such requests must be stated 

prominently in the beginning of the 

comments. There also may be 

circumstances wherein the NPS will 

withhold from the record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by law. As always: 

The NPS will make available to public 

inspection all submissions from 

organizations or businesses and from 

persons identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations and businesses; and, 

anonymous comments may not be 

considered. 

Printed or compact disk copies of the 

draft EIS will both be available. Please 

specify which document format you 

would like to receive when calling, emailing, or faxing Death Valley National 

Park. The draft EIS also can be viewed 

on the internet at www.nps.gov/deva/ 

pphtml/documents.html or reviewed at 

several public libraries. 

Decision Process: Following careful 

consideration of all comments as may be 

received, a final EIS will be prepared. 

Not sooner than 30 days following 

release of the final EIS a Record of 

Decision would be prepared. At this 

time its anticipated that project 

construction may begin during winter, 

2007. As a delegated EIS the approving 

official is the Regional Director, Pacific 

West Region of the National Park 

Service; subsequently the official 

responsible for project implementation 

would be the Superintendent, Death 

Valley National Park. 

Dated: March 1, 2005. 

Jonathan B. Jarvis, 

Regional Director, Pacific West Region. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received at the Office of the Federal Register 

October 6, 2005. 

[FR Doc. 05–20423 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–EF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Committee for the Preservation of the 

White House; Notice of Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act that a meeting of the 

Committee for the Preservation of the 

White House will be held at the White 

House at 11 a.m. on Friday, October 28, 

2005. 

DATES: October 28, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Executive Secretary, Committee for the 

Preservation of the White House, 1100 

Ohio Drive, SW., Washington, DC 

20242. (202) 619–6344. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It is 

expected that the meeting agenda will 

include policies, goals, and long range 

plans. The meeting will be open, but 

subject to appointment and security 

clearance requirements. Clearance 

information, which includes full name, 

date of birth and social security number, 

must be received by October 21, 2005. 

Due to the present mail delays being 

experienced, clearance information 

should be faxed to (202) 619–6353 in 

order to assure receipt by deadline. 

Inquiries may be made by calling the 

Committee for the Preservation of the 

White House between 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

weekdays at (202) 619–6344. Written 

comments may be sent to the Executive 

Secretary, Committee for the 

Preservation of the White House, 1100 

Ohio Drive, SW., Washington, DC 

20242. 

Dated: September 26, 2005. 

Ann Bowman Smith, 

Executive Secretary, Committee for the 

Preservation of the White House. 

[FR Doc. 05–20422 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–54–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–05–032] 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United 

States International Trade Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: October 14, 2005 at 11 

a.m. 

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 

(202) 205–2000. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Agenda for future meetings: None. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Inv. Nos. 731–TA–298 and 299 

(Second Review) (Porcelain-on-Steel 

Cooking Ware from China and Korea) 

and 701–TA–267 and 268 and 731–TA–

304 and 305 (Second Review) Top-ofthe-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware 

from Korea and Taiwan)—briefing and 

vote. (The Commission is currently 

scheduled to transmit its determination 

and Commissioners’ opinions to the 

Secretary of Commerce on or before 

October 27, 2005.) 

5. Outstanding action jackets: None. 

In accordance with Commission 

policy, subject matter listed above, not 

disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 

may be carried over to the agenda of the 

following meeting. 

Issued: October 6, 2005. 

By order of the Commission: 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–20570 Filed 10–7–05; 3:45 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P