Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices 29131

Estimate of Total Annual Cost to

Respondents for Hour Burdens: Based

on $35 per hour, the total cost to lessees

is estimated to be $1,577,800.

Estimate of Total Other Annual Costs

to Respondents:

There are two other known cost

burdens to the respondents.

(a) We will charge lessees

(respondents) applying for royalty relief

an amount which covers the cost of

processing their applications. We

estimate that our costs for processing

OCSLA applications will range from

$8,500 (continuation of production) to

$22,500 (project involving capital

expansion). We estimate that our costs

for processing DWRRA applications will

range from $27,500 to $50,000,

depending on the number of leases

involved and the complexity of the

proposed development project. For

some applications (approximately 30

percent; average of 9 per year), we may

need to audit the financial data to make

an adequate determination on the

economics of the proposed

development. We estimate an audit to

cost up to $40,000. We will issue a

Notice to Lessees (NTL) that will

provide more detailed information on

the amounts of royalty relief application

processing costs, and when and how

payments are to be made to us for this

purpose. We will revise the NTL

periodically to reflect our cost

experience and to provide other

information necessary for the

administration of this program. An

application processing cost would

average $30,000 for an estimated burden

of $1,620,000 ($30,000 × 54

applications=$1,620,000).

(b) A respondent’s application or preproduction report must be accompanied

by a report prepared by an independent

certified public accountant as described

in § 203.55(c) of the rule. The OCSLA

applications will require this report

only once; the DWRRA applications will

require this report at two stages

(redetermination and short form

applications are excluded). We estimate

an average cost for a report will be

$175,000. The estimated burden is

$7,175,000 ($175,000 × 41

applications=$7,175,000).

Type of Request: Reinstatement with

change.

OMB Number: 1010–0071.

Form Number: N/A.

Comments: MMS will summarize

written responses to this notice and

address them in the regular request for

a 3-year OMB approval. Your comments

will also be considered as MMS

develops the final rule for 30 CFR Part

203. All comments will become a matter

of public record.

(1) MMS specifically solicits

comments on the following questions:

(a) Is the proposed collection of

information necessary for the proper

performance of MMS’s functions, and

will it be useful?

(b) Are the estimates of the burden

hours of the proposed collection

reasonable?

(c) Do you have any suggestions that

would enhance the quality, clarity, or

usefulness of the information to be

collected?

(d) Is there a way to minimize the

information collection burden on those

who are to respond, including through

the use of appropriate automated

electronic, mechanical, or other forms of

information technology?

(2) In addition, the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 requires agencies

to estimate the total annual cost burden

to respondents or recordkeepers

resulting from the collection of

information. MMS needs your

comments on this item. Your response

should split the cost estimate into two

components:

(a) Total capital and startup cost

component and

(b) Annual operation, maintenance,

and purchase of services component.

Your estimates should consider the

costs to generate, maintain, and disclose

or provide the information. You should

describe the methods you use to

estimate major costs 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,

sampling, drilling, and testing

equipment; and record storage facilities.

Generally, your estimates should not

include equipment or services

purchased: (1) Before October 1, 1995;

(2) to comply with requirements not

associated with the information

collection; (3) for reasons other than to

provide information or keep records for

the Government; (4) or as part of

customary and usual business or private

practices.

Bureau Clearance Officer: Carole A.

deWitt, (703) 787–1242.

Dated: May 23, 1996.

Henry G. Bartholomew,

Deputy Associate Director for Operations and

Safety Management.

[FR Doc. 96–14268 Filed 6–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–MR–M

National Park Service

Lake Crescent Management Plan/

Environmental Impact Statement,

Olympic National Park, WA

AGENCY: National Park Service, DOI.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement.

SUMMARY: In January 1995, the National

Park Service began the preparation of an

environmental assessment (EA) to

analyze the environmental effects of

implementing various alternatives of a

proposed management plan for Lake

Crescent in Olympic National Park,

Washington. As work on the EA

progressed, it became apparent that

some of the alternatives under

consideration had the potential for

significant environmental impacts, so a

decision was made to prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS)

instead of an EA.

Scoping is the term given to the

process by which the scope of issues to

be addressed in the plan/EIS is

identified. A public scoping meeting for

the plan and EA was initially conducted

in Port Angeles, Washington, on July 11,

1995. In addition, public comment was

solicited at several information boards

at key sites around Lake Crescent during

the summer of 1995. Information gained

from those sources will be used in the

plan/EIS, but no additional public

scoping meetings will be held. However,

representatives of Federal, State and

local agencies, American Indian tribes,

private organizations and individuals

from the general public who may be

interested in or affected by the proposed

plan/EIS are invited to participate in the

scoping process by responding to this

Notice with written comments. All

comments received will become part of

the public record and copies of

comments, including names, addresses

and telephone numbers provided by

respondents, may be released for public

inspection.

The proposed plan and accompanying

EIS will help guide the management of

recreational uses of Lake Crescent and

the surrounding watershed for the next

15–20 years. The management plan/EIS

will describe a range of alternatives

formulated to address major issues

relating to visitor use and resource

management and protection. A ‘‘no

action’’ alternative will be included;

other likely alternatives could include

ones with a recreation use emphasis,

preservation emphasis and/or some

balanced combination of use and

resource preservation. The

environmental impacts associated with

each alternative will be analyzed.
29132 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices

The draft plan/EIS is expected to be

available for public review by October

1996; the final plan/EIS and Record of

Decision are expected to be completed

approximately six months later.

The responsible official is Stanley T.

Albright, Field Director, Pacific West

Area, National Park Service.

DATE: Written comments about the

scope of issues and alternatives to be

analyzed in the plan/EIS should be

received no later than July 19, 1996.

ADDRESS: Written comments concerning

the plan/EIS should be sent to

Superintendent, Olympic National Park,

600 E. Park Ave., Port Angeles, WA

98284.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Superintendent, Olympic National Park,

at the above address or at telephone

number (360) 452–4501.

Dated: May 31, 1996.

William C. Walters,

Deputy Field Director, Pacific West Area,

National Park Service.

[FR Doc. 96–14317 Filed 6–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–M

Greene Township—Conococheague

Rural Historic District; Determination

of Eligibility for the National Register

of Historic Places

ACTION: Request for comments.

On August 3, 1995, the Greene

Township—Conococheague Rural

Historic District, Franklin County,

Pennsylvania was determined eligible

for the National Register of Historic

Places for its historic and architectural

importance, following a request from

the Federal Highway Administration.

The district consists of a landscape

farmed continuously since the

eighteenth century and reflects the

agricultural patterns of the rich

Cumberland Valley. Important features

found in the district include intact

farmsteads, with their significant

collection of barns, farmhouses and

outbuildings, the field patterns,

fencerows, the network of the historic

farm roads, and the remains of the once

active and important industrial

activities performed along

Conococheague Creek. The finding of

eligibility was based upon review of

documentation submitted by the Federal

Highway Administration, the

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum

Commission, and Greene Township.

Since the determination of eligibility

was made, property owners within the

district, the Federal Highway

Administration, and township officials

have written to us either endorsing or

disagreeing with the determination of

eligibility. In order to accommodate

those who wish to provide new

information on whether or not this

property meets the National Register

Criteria for Evaluation, the National

Park Service is providing a 60 day

comment period. A written statement on

the determination of eligibility will be

issued by the National Park Service

within 30 days of the close of the

comment period.

The determination of eligibility

remains in effect pending review of

responses submitted during the

comment period. To determine that the

property is not eligible or to revise the

boundary, the National Park Service

must receive authoritative information,

which evaluated in conjunction with

documentation already on file, results in

a finding that the property does not

meet the National Register Criteria for

Evaluation or that the boundary does

not accurately delineate the historic

district in accordance with established

National Register standards.

Comments should be addressed to the

National Register of Historic Places,

National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127,

Washington, D.C. 20013–7127.

Carol D. Shull,

Keeper of the National Register of Historic

Places, National Register, History and

Education.

[FR Doc. 96–14316 Filed 6–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

Notice of Intent to Repatriate a Cultural

Item in the Possession of the Eiteljorg

Museum of American Indians and

Western Art, Indianapolis, IN

AGENCY: National Park Service

ACTION: Notice

Notice is hereby given under the

Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3005(a)(2),

of the intent to repatriate a cultural item

in the possession of the Eiteljorg

Museum of American Indians and

Western Art which meets the definition

of ‘‘cultural patrimony’’ under Section 2

of the Act.

The cultural item is a Tlingit clan hat.

This red, green, and black painted cedar

hat is topped with a carved Murrelet

bird with wings of human hair.

The Eiteljorg Museum’s accession

records indicate this hat was acquired

by Mr. Harrison Eiteljorg from an

unconfirmed source no later than 1982;

and donated to the Eiteljorg Museum in

1987. This hat is presumed to have been

alienated from the community during

the 1970s or early 1980s.

Consultation evidence indicates the

Murrelet on this hat serves as a crest

symbol for the Brown Bear House of the

Kaagwaantaan Clan of Tlingit Indians.

According to Tlingit law, crests are the

property of the clan and not of any

specific individual. Representatives of

the Chilkoot Indian Association on

behalf of the Brown Bear House of the

Kaagwaantaan Clan of Tlingit Indians

have stated further that the Murrelet

crest has been used during the historic

period by the Brown Bear House in care

of appointed trustees who cannot make

independent decisions regarding the

alienation of clan property.

Based on the above-mentioned

information, officials of the Eiteljorg

Museum of American Indians and

Western Art have determined that,

pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(D), these

cultural items have ongoing historical,

traditional, and cultural importance

central to the culture itself, and could

not have been alienated, appropriated,

or conveyed by any individual. Officials

of the Eiteljorg Museum of American

Indians and Western Art have also

determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C.

3001 (2), there is a relationship of

shared group identity which can be

reasonably traced between these items

and the Brown Bear House of the

Kaagwaantaan Clan of Tlingit Indians.

This notice has been sent to officials

of the Chilkoot Indian Association

acting on behalf of the Brown Bear

House of the Kaagwaantaan Clan of

Tlingit Indians. Representatives of any

other Indian tribe that believes itself to

be culturally affiliated with these

objects should contact Robert B. Tucker,

Eiteljorg Museum of American Indians

and Western Art, 500 West Washington

St., Indianapolis, IN 46204, telephone

(317) 636–9378 before [thirty days

following publication in the Federal

Register]. Repatriation of these objects

to the Chilkoot Indian Association

representing the interests of the Brown

Bear House of the Kaagwaantaan Clan of

the Tlingit Indians may begin after that

date if no additional claimants come

forward.

Dated: June 3, 1996.

Veletta Canouts,

Acting Departmental Consulting

Archeologist,

Deputy Chief, Archeology and Ethnography

Program.

[FR Doc. 96–14408 Filed 6–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–F

National Park Service To Update

Planning Process Guidelines

The National Park Service is updating

its Park Planning Guidelines. The

purpose of this update is to document

a concise, agreed-upon planning