29130 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 1996 / Notices

Management’s Director. Any person or

organization who participated in the

planning process and has an interest

which is, or may be, adversely affected

by approval of this Supplement to the

RMP may protest the plan. Careful

adherence to the following guidelines

will assist in preparing a protest:

• Only those persons or organizations

who participated in the planning

process may protest.

• A protesting party may raise only

those issues which were commented on

during the planning process.

• Additional issues may be raised at

any time and should be directed to the

Miles City District for consideration in

plan implementation, as potential plan

amendments, or as otherwise

appropriate.

In order to be considered complete, a

protest must contain, at a minimum, the

following information:

1. The name, mailing address,

telephone number, and interest of the

person filing the protest.

2. A statement of the issue being

protested.

3. A statement of the portion of the

plan being protested. To the extent

possible, this should be done by

reference to the specific pages,

paragraphs, and sections in the

proposed management plan.

4. A copy of all documents addressing

the issue submitted during the planning

process or a reference to the date the

issue was discussed for the record.

5. A concise statement explaining

why the BLM State Director’s decision

is believed to be incorrect is a critical

part of the protest. Take care to

document all relevant facts and

references or cite the planning

documents, environmental analysis

documents, and available planning

records (meeting minutes, summaries,

correspondence). A protest without any

data will not provide the BLM with

sufficient information, and the

Director’s review will be based on

existing analysis and supporting data.

DATES: The period for filing protests

begins when the Environmental

Protection Agency publishes a Notice of

Receipt of the Supplement in the

Federal Register. The protest period

lasts 30 days and there is no provision

for any time extension. To be

considered ‘‘timely’’ the protest must be

postmarked no later than the last day of

the 30-day protest period. Although not

a requirement, sending a protest by

certified mail, return receipt requested,

is recommended.

ADDRESSES: All protests must be filed in

writing to: Director (480), Bureau of

Land Management, Resource Planning

Team, 1849 C Street NW., Washington,

DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Bloom, RMP/EIS Team Leader,

Miles City District Office, 111

Garryowen Road, Miles City, MT 59301,

(406) 232–4331.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Calypso Trail is a road that separates

two roadless areas that make up the

Terry Badlands Wilderness Study Area.

The Supplement analyzes four

alternatives to resolve management for

the Calypso Trail: Alternative A is

existing management where off-road

vehicle use is allowed on the Calypso

Trail. Under Alternative B, off-road

vehicle use would be closed on the

Calypso Trail, which by definition

closes the road to motorized vehicles,

except for authorized use. Alternative C

is the same as Alternative A. The

proposed decision, Alternative D, is to

manage Calypso Trail as was presented

in the 1993 Draft Big Dry RMP/EIS. BLM

proposes to keep the trail open to

motorized vehicles and off-road vehicle

use would be limited to the trail itself.

Dated: May 15. 1996.

Glenn A. Carpenter,

District Manager.

[FR Doc. 96–12960 Filed 6–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–DN–P

Minerals Management Service

Agency Information Collection

Activities; Proposed Collection;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork and respondent

burden, the Minerals Management

Service (MMS) invites the public and

other Federal agencies to comment on a

request to reinstate with change a

collection of information contained in

an interim final rule for 30 CFR Part

203, Relief or Reduction in Royalty

Rates.

DATES: Submit written comments by

August 6, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to the Department of the Interior;

Minerals Management Service; Mail

Stop 4700; 381 Elden Street; Herndon,

Virginia 22070–4817; Attention: Chief,

Engineering and Standards Branch.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marshall Rose, Chief, Economic

Evaluation Branch, Resource Evaluation

Division, Minerals Management Service,

telephone (703) 787–1536.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: 30 CFR Part 203, Relief or

Reduction in Royalty Rates.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf

Lands Act (OCSLA) and the Deep Water

Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA) give the

Secretary of the Interior the authority to

reduce or eliminate royalty or any net

profit share set forth in Outer

Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas

leases to promote increased production.

MMS is issuing an interim rule to

establish the terms and conditions for

granting reductions in royalty rates

under the OCSLA and royalty

suspension volumes under the DWRRA

for certain leases in existence before

November 28, 1995. It also defines the

information required for a complete

application as required by 43 U.S.C.

1337(a)(3)(C). The interim final rule was

published in the Federal Register on

May 31, 1996 (61 FR 27263).

The MMS uses the information to

determine whether granting a royalty

relief request will result in the

production of resources that would not

be produced without such relief. An

application for royalty relief must

contain sufficient financial, economic,

reservoir, geologic and geophysical,

production, and engineering data and

information for MMS to determine

whether relief should be granted

according to applicable law. The

application also must be sufficient to

determine whether the requested relief

will result in an ultimate increase in

resource recovery and receipts to the

Federal Treasury and provide for

reasonable returns on project

investments.

The applicant’s requirement to

respond is related only to a request to

obtain royalty relief. The applicant has

no obligation to make such a request.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

provides that an agency may not

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) control number.

The MMS requested OMB to approve

emergency processing of this collection

of information to coincide with the

effective date of the interim final rule.

This notice provides the full notice and

comment period requirement.

Description of Respondents: Federal

OCS oil and gas lessees.

Frequency: On occasion.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

130 lessees making an estimated 54

applications per year.

Estimate of Burden: Average of 835

hours per response.

Estimate of Total Annual Burden

Hours: 45,080 burden hours.
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.