37504 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 116 / Thursday, June 15, 2000 / Proposed Rules

lllllllllllllllllllll

(Name) (Address)

lllllllllllllllll[SEAL]

(Principal)

lllllllllllllllllllll

(Name) (Address)

lllllllllllllllll[SEAL]

(Surety)

Certificate as to Corporate Principal

I, llllllll, certify that I am the

*llllllll of the corporation named

as principal in the attached bond; that

llllllll, who signed the bond on

behalf of the principal, was then

llllllll of that corporation; that I

know his signature, and his signature to the

bond is genuine; and that the bond was duly

signed, sealed, and attested for and in behalf

of the corporation by authority to its

governing body.

lllllllllllllllllllll

[CORPORATE SEAL]

(To be used when no power of attorney has

been filed with the port director of

customs.)

*May be executed by the secretary, assistant

secretary, or other officer of the

corporation.

Approved: April 14, 2000.

Raymond W. Kelly,

Commissioner of Customs.

John P. Simpson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 00–15202 Filed 6–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 206

RIN 1010–AC72

Amendments to Gas Valuation

Regulations for Indian Leases

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Minerals Management

Service (MMS) is proposing to remove

the special timing requirements for

adjustments and audits of royalties on

gas produced from Indian leases in

Montana and North Dakota. These

timing requirements may force tribal

and MMS auditors to expend additional

time and money or postpone ongoing

audits to meet the restricted time

periods. Removing these timing

restrictions should increase royalties

collected for Indian leases in these

States.

DATES: Comments regarding this

proposed rulemaking must be received

on or before July 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment,

you may submit your comments by any

one of several methods. You may mail

comments to David S. Guzy, Chief,

Rules and Publications Staff, Minerals

Management Service, Royalty

Management Program, P.O. Box 25165,

MS 3021, Denver, CO 80225–0165.

Courier or overnight delivery address is

Building 85, Room A–613, Denver

Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. You

may also comment via the Internet to

RMP.comments@mms.gov. Please

submit Internet comments as an ASCII

file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Please also include ‘‘Attn: RIN 1010–

ACT72’’ and your name and return

address in your Internet message. If you

do not receive a confirmation from the

system that we have received your

Internet message, contact David S. Guzy

directly at (303) 231–3432.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules and

Publications Staff, telephone (303) 231–

3432, FAX (303) 231–3385, e-Mail

David.Guzy@mms.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

principal author of this proposed

rulemaking is Mr. Richard Adamski,

Royalty Valuation Division, Royalty

Management Program (RMP), MMS.

I. General

On August 10, 1999, MMS published

a final rule titled ‘‘Amendments to Gas

Valuation Regulations for Indian

Leases,’’ (64 FR 43506) with an effective

date of January 1, 2000. These

regulations apply to all gas production

from Indian (tribal or allotted) oil and

gas leases (except leases on the Osage

Indian Reservation). The new

regulations resulted from a negotiated

rulemaking among Indian tribes and

allottees, the oil and gas industry, and

MMS.

MMS’s stated purposes for those

amendments to the valuation of gas

production were:

(1) To ensure that Indian mineral

lessors receive the maximum revenues

from mineral resources on their land

consistent with the Secretary of the

Interior’s (Secretary) trust responsibility

and lease terms; and

(2) To improve the regulatory

framework so that information is

available which would permit lessees to

comply with the regulatory

requirements at the time that royalties

are due.

Among the newly adopted regulations

was a provision at 30 CFR 206.174(1)

requiring that for Indian leases in

Montana and North Dakota, lessees

must make adjustments to reported

royalty values sooner, and MMS must

complete its audits sooner, than either

has done historically. This provision

does not apply to Indian leases in other

States.

Under § 2096.174(1), the timing of

adjustments and audits depends on

whether allowances are arm’s-length or

non-arm’s-length. If the lessee’s royalty

value has arm’s-length transportation or

processing allowances, or no

allowances, then: (1) The lessee must

make all adjustments to value within 13

months of the production month; and

(2) MMS must conclude any audit and

order any adjustments to royalty value

within 12 months after the lessee’s

adjustment reporting date. If the lessee’s

royalty value has non-arm’s-length

transportation or processing allowances,

then: (1) the lessee must make all

adjustments to value within 9 months of

the date the lessee submits the actual

cost allowance report to MMS; and (2)

MMS must conclude any audit and

order any adjustments to royalty value

within 12 months after the lessee’s

adjustment reporting date.

The final rule limited the adjustment

and audit period to Indian leases in

Montana and North Dakota because,

unlike most other producing regions,

there are no acceptable published

indexes applicable to that area (64 FR

43510). In areas where this occurs,

valuation must be based on other

criteria which are most difficult to

determine than index prices. Industry

was concerned that if audits were not to

occur until several years after the

production month, any underpayments

would include substantial late payment

charges. The purpose of § 206.174(1)

was to accelerate the audit schedule to

provide more valuation certainly for

both the lessee and the Indian lessor at

an earlier date.

Representatives of Montana and North

Dakota tribal and allotted lessors

strongly oppose these time limits. They

believe that the 1-year audit period is

unreasonable and may compromise

MMS’s efforts to maximize revenues for

gas produced from Indian leases

consistent with its trust responsibility

and lease terms. MMS shares the

concern that in areas that do not have

published indexes, auditors must be

afforded adequate time to take the

necessary steps to do quality audits.

This may be difficult to accomplish

under time limits that are absolute.

MMS and tribal auditors also must

retain the discretion to allocate audit

resources to obtain the best data when

that data becomes available. Indian

representatives from Montana and North

Dakota believe that time restrictions will

force the tribes (especially those tribes

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 116 / Thursday, June 15, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37505

with audit programs) and MMS auditors

to expend additional time and funds to

complete audits and take other

necessary actions within the restricted

time period. For the most part, the tribes

in Montana and North Dakota are the

least able to bear the costs of such

burdens. In some cases, this will force

the tribes to postpone or abandon ongoing audits of earlier periods to meet

the new deadlines.

Moreover, upon further consideration,

MMS believes the reason for placing

time limits only on Indian leases in

Montana and North Dakota (because

there are no acceptable published

indexes applicable to that area) is not

compelling. The final Indian gas rule

(§ 206.172(f) and (g)) permits MMS to

exclude Indian tribal leases (upon

request of the tribe) or Indian allotted

leases (after consultation with the

Bureau of Indian Affairs) in any State

from valuation under the index-based

methodology. To Date, MMS has

excluded two tribes and two allotted

groups from valuation under this

method. Under § 206.172(f)(1)(i) and

(g)(1)(ii) of the new regulations, lessees

of those tribes and allotted groups

therefore must value gas produced from

those excluded Indian leases under 30

CFR 206.174, the same section that

governs the valuation of gas produced

from Indian leases in Montana and

North Dakota. Yet,the adjustment and

audit time limits in § 206174(l) do not

apply to those excluded leases—they

apply only to those Indian leases in

Montana and North Dakota (64 FR

43510). For this reason, representatives

of Montana and North Dakota Indian

lessors believe that to the extent time

restrictions and additional burdens were

placed on the Montana and North

Dakota leases alone, they are unfair and

represent unwarranted disparate

treatment.

Therefore, MMS is proposing to

remove § 206.174(1) from the regulation.

MMS specifically seeks comment on

whether there is a valid reason for

differentiating between leases located in

other States and leases in Montana and

North Dakota when they both may be

required to use the same valuation

standards. MMS also seeks comments

on whether the time limitations on

adjustment and audit could have a

negative revenue impact on royalties

collected from gas produced from

Indian lands in Montana and North

Dakota.

II. Procedural Matters

1. Public Comment Policy

MMS is limiting the comment period

for this proposed rule to 30 days after

the date of publication in the Federal

Register rather than the standard 60

days. MMS believes a 30-day comment

period is adequate because the language

we propose to remove was recently the

subject of an extensive comment period.

Because this provision did not receive

extensive comments during that period,

and the change we are proposing is

limited, we believe a 30-day comment

period is sufficient.

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours and on

our Internet site at www.rmp.mms.gov.

Individual respondents may request that

we withhold their home address from

the rulemaking record, which we will

honor to the extent allowable by law.

There also may be circumstances in

which we would withhold from the

rulemaking record a respondent’s

identity, as allowable by law. If you

wish us to withhold your name and/or

address, you must state this

prominently at the beginning of your

comments. However, we will not

consider anonymous comments. We

will make all submissions from

organizations or businesses, and from

individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

2. Summary Cost and Benefit Data

The objective of this proposed rule is

to remove the special timing

requirements for adjustments and audits

of royalties on gas produced from Indian

leases in Montana and North Dakota.

We have summarized below the

estimated costs and benefits of this rule

to the three affected groups: Indian

lessors in Montana and North Dakota,

industry, and the Federal Government.

The cost and benefit information in this

Item 2 of Procedural Matters is used as

the basis for the Departmental

certifications in Items 3–11.

A. Indian Lessors in Montana and North

Dakota

In 1997, we estimate that auditors

collected additional revenues

amounting to 2 percent of the total

royalties paid for gas production on

certain Indian leases located in

Montana.

In 1999, payors submitted about

$420,000 in royalties from gas produced

from Indian leases in Montana and

$49,000 in royalties from gas produced

from Indian leases in North Dakota.

Using 2 percent to calculate the

additional audit revenues that may be

expected for the 1999 sales year, MMS

should collect an additional $8,400 from

leases in Montana and $980 from leases

in North Dakota. We conclude that if

audits cannot be completed within 1

year of the royalty line adjustments

timeframes, Indian lessors could

potentially lose these additional

revenues, plus applicable late payment

interest, annually.

B. Industry

This proposed rule will impose no

new reporting burdens on industry.

Industry will benefit from the proposed

rule by being able to make adjustments

to royalty lines beyond the current 1-

year period. However, industry will pay

an undetermined amount of additional

interest on any underpayments

discovered during audits that take

longer than 1 year to complete.

Small Business Issues. Approximately

17 entities in Montana and 5 entities in

North Dakota—most of which are small

businesses because they employ 500 or

less employees—pay royalties to MMS

on gas produced from Indian leases. As

discussed above, these 22 entities will

pay less than $10,000 in additional

royalties annually as a result of an

extended adjustment and audit period.

This proposed rule benefits small tribes

that would otherwise have to hire

additional audit staff to handle the

burden of performing both past and

present audits concurrently. From this

information, we conclude that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

C. Federal Government

Removing the time limits on audit

will help to ensure that Indian mineral

lessors receive the maximum revenues

from mineral resources on their land

consistent with the Secretary’s trust

responsibility and lease terms.

D. Summary of Costs and Benefits to

Affected Groups

Description

(see corresponding narrative above)

<Cost>/Benefit amount

First year Subsequent years

Indian Lessors in Montana and North Dakota ........................................ $9,380 plus interest ....................... $9,380 plus interest.

37506 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 116 / Thursday, June 15, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Description

(see corresponding narrative above)

<Cost>/Benefit amount

First year Subsequent years

Industry .................................................................................................... <$9,380 plus interest> ................... <$9,380 plus interest>.

Federal Government ............................................................................... <0> ................................................. <0.>.

Net <Cost> or Benefit ............................................................................. <0> ................................................. <0.>.

3. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O.

12866)

This document is not a significant

rule and is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866.

(1) This proposed rule will not have

an effect of $100 million or more on the

economy. It will not adversely affect in

a material way the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities.

(2) This proposed rule will not create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency.

(3) This proposed rule will not alter

the budgetary effects or entitlements,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights or obligations of their recipients.

(4) This proposed rule does not raise

novel legal or policy issues.

4. The Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior

certifies that this rule will not have a

significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). See Small Business

Issues in Item #2.B. above.

Your comments are important. The

Small Business and Agricultural

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman

and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were

established to receive comments from

small businesses about Federal agency

enforcement actions. The Ombudsman

will annually evaluate the enforcement

activities and rate each agency’s

responsiveness to small business. If you

wish to comment on the enforcement

actions in this rule, call 1–888–734–

3247.

5. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Act (SBREFA)

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule:

a. Will not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million or more.

b. Will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, Federal, State, or

local government agencies, or

geographic regions.

c. Will not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule will not impose an

unfunded mandate on State, local or

tribal governments or the private sector

of more than $100 million per year. The

rule will not have a significant or

unique effect on State, local, or tribal,

governments or the private sector. A

statement containing the information

required by the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not

required.

7. Takings (E.O. 12630)

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, this proposed rule does not have

significant takings implications. This

rule does not impose conditions or

limitations on the use of any private

property; consequently, a takings

implication assessment is not required.

8. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

In accordance with Executive Order

13132, this proposed rule does not have

Federalism implications. This rule does

not substantially or directly affect the

relationship between Federal and State

governments or impose costs on States

or localities.

9. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

In accordance with Executive Order

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has

determined that this proposed rule will

not unduly burden the judicial system

and does meet the requirements of

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

10. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This proposed rule does not contain

an information collection, as defined by

the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the

submission of Office of Management

and Budget Form 83–I is not required.

11. National Environmental Policy Act

This proposed rule does not

constitute a major Federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment. A detailed

statement under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not

required.

12. Clarity of This Regulation

Executive Order 12866 requires each

agency to write regulations that are easy

to understand. We invite your

comments on how to make this rule

easier to understand, including answers

to questions such as the following: (1)

Are the requirements in the rule clearly

stated? (2) does the rule contain

technical language or jargon that

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the

format of the rule (grouping and order

of sections, use of headings,

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to

understand if it were divided into more

(but shorter) sections? (A ‘‘section’’

appears in bold type and is preceded by

the symbol ‘‘§’’ and a numbered

heading; for example, § 206.174 How

do I value gas production when an

index-based method cannot be used?)

(5) Is the description of the rule in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of

the preamble helpful in understanding

the proposed rule? What else could we

do to make the rule easier to

understand.

Send a copy of any comments that

concern how we could make this rule

easier to understand to: Office of

Regulatory Affairs, Department of the

Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW,

Washington, DC 20240. You may also email the comments to this address:

Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 206

Coal, Continental shelf, Geothermal

energy, Government contracts,

Indians—lands, Mineral royalties,

Natural gas, Petroleum, Public lands—

mineral resources, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 7, 2000.

Sylvia. V. Baca,

Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals

Management.

For reasons stated in the preamble,

MMS proposes to amend 30 CFR part

206 as follows:

PART 206—PRODUCT VALUATION

1. The authority citation for part 206

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301 et seq.; 25 U.S.C.

396 et seq., 396a et seq., 2102 et seq.; 30

U.S.C. 181 et seq., 351 et seq., 1001 et seq.,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 116 / Thursday, June 15, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37507

1701 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1301

et seq., 1331 et seq., 1801 et seq.

§ 206.174 [Amended]

2. In § 206.174, remove paragraph (1).

[FR Doc. 00–15201 Filed 6–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

42 CFR Part 405

[HCFA–3432–N3]

RIN 0938–AJ31

Medicare Program; Criteria for Making

Coverage Decisions; Extension of

Comment Period

AGENCY: Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA), HHS.

ACTION: Notice of extension of comment

period for notice of intent to publish a

proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document extends the

comment period for the notice of intent

published in the Federal Register on

May 16, 2000, (65 FR 31124). In that

document we announced our intention

to publish a proposed rule and solicited

advance public comments on the

criteria we would use to make certain

national coverage decisions and the

criteria our contractors would use to

make local coverage decisions.

DATES: The comment period is extended

to 5 p.m. on July 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments (one

original and three copies) to the

following address ONLY: Health Care

Financing Administration, Department

of Health and Human Services,

Attention: HCFA–3432–NOI, P.O. Box

8016, Baltimore, MD 21244–8016.

If you prefer, you may deliver, by

courier, your written comments (one

original and three copies) to one of the

following addresses:

Room 443–G, Hubert H. Humphrey

Building, 200 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20201, or

C5–14–03, Central Building, 7500

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD

21244–1850.

Comments mailed to those addresses

may be delayed and received too late for

us to consider them.

Because of staffing and resource

limitations, we cannot accept comments

by facsimile (FAX) transmission. In

commenting, please refer to file code

HCFA–3432–NOI. Comments received

timely will be available for public

inspection as they are received,

generally beginning approximately 3

weeks after publication of a document,

in Room 443–G of the Department’s

offices at 200 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC, on Monday

through Friday of each week from 8:30

a.m. to 5 p.m. (Phone: (202) 690–7890).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Gleeson, (410) 786–0542.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

16, 2000, we issued a notice of intent to

publish a proposed rule in the Federal

Register (65 FR 31124). The comment

period would close on June 15, 2000.

Because of the scope of the notice of

intent, several organizations that would

be affected by the policies requested

more time to analyze the potential

consequences of the notice of intent.

Therefore, we are extending the public

comment period until July 17, 2000. We

will also hold a Town Hall Meeting to

facilitate public discussion. We will

publish a Federal Register notice

announcing the meeting specifics when

available. This information will also be

available on our web page @

www.hcfa.gov/quality.

Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and

1395hh).

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital

Insurance; and Program No. 93.774,

Medicare—Supplementary Medical

Insurance Program)

Dated: June 2, 2000.

Nancy-Ann Min DeParle,

Administrator, Health Care Financing

Administration.

Approved: June 12, 2000.

Donna E. Shalala,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–15198 Filed 6–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 10, 12, and 15

[USCG 1999–5610]

RIN 2115–AF83

Training and Certification for Mariners

Serving on Certain Ships Carrying

More Than 12 Passengers on

International Voyages

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

establish requirements of training and

certification for mariners serving on

ships—other than roll-on/roll-off (RoRo) ships, covered by another rule—

carrying more than 12 passengers on

international voyages. (These

requirements would not apply to any

passenger ships on domestic voyages.)

Regulation V/3 of the International

Convention for Standards of Training,

Certification and Watchkeeping for

Seafarers, 1978 (STCW), as amended in

1997, mandated that its Parties ensure

this training and certification. This rule

would reduce human error, improve the

ability of crewmembers to assist

passengers during emergencies, and

promote safety.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Facility of the Docket

Management System, or DMS (see

ADDRESSES), on or before September 13,

2000. Comments sent to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) (see

ADDRESSES), on collection of

information must reach OMB on or

before August 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your

comments and related material by any

one, but only one, of the following

methods:

(1) By mail to the DMS [USCG 1999–

5610], U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT), room PL–401,

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington,

DC 20590–0001.

(2) In person to the DMS at room PL–

401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif

Building, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. The telephone number

is 202–366–9329.

(3) By fax to the DMS at 202–493–

2251.

(4) Electronically through the Web

Site for the DMS at http://dms.dot.gov.

If you submit comments on collection

of information to the docket, you must

also submit them to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

OMB, 725 17th Street NW., Washington,

DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S.

Coast Guard.

The DMS maintains the public docket

for this rulemaking. Comments and

material received from the public, as

well as documents mentioned in this

preamble as being available in the

docket, will become part of this docket

and will be available for inspection or

copying at room PL–401 on the Plaza

level of the Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC,

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

You may also find this docket on the

Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

You may inspect the material

proposed for incorporation by reference

at room 1210, U.S. Coast Guard