49462 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules

kind program and will continue to

pursue input on that program through

other avenues.

Benchmarks

Alternative 1—Several industry

commenters suggested that a lessee be

permitted to value its production not

sold arm’s-length based on prices it

receives for outright sales of crude oil in

a particular market area or region. Such

a program (called a bid-out or tendering

program) was described in the

comments of two major producers.

MMS requests comments on this

alternative and specifically whether a

certain minimum amount of production

should be required to be tendered in a

given area before such a price would be

acceptable for valuing the remainder of

a lessee’s production not sold arm’slength.

Alternative 2—In its comments on the

supplementary proposed rule, one

industry trade association representing

independent producers suggested a

series of benchmarks for valuing

production not sold under arm’s-length

contracts.

Benchmarks

(1) Outright sales of like-quality crude

in the field or area as described in

Alternative 1,

(2) The lessee’s or its affiliate’s arm’slength purchases from producers at the

lease in the field or area,

(3) Outright arm’s-length sales by

third parties,

(4) Prices published by MMS based on

its RIK sales,

(5) Netback employing price

information from the nearest market

center or aggregation point.

MMS requests comments on this

alternative. Should the benchmarks be

considered in any particular order?

Should MMS retain the gross proceeds

minimum requirement of the existing

regulations, so that value would be the

higher of the benchmark value or gross

proceeds? With regard to the second and

third benchmarks, should a certain

minimum amount of production be

required to be purchased by a lessee or

its affiliate or by third parties before

such a price would be acceptable for

valuing the remainder of a lessee’s

production not sold arm’s-length? How

can MMS verify that those contracts are

indeed arm’s-length sales and that they

reflect the total consideration for the

value of production other than through

audit? With regard to the fifth

benchmark, how should a netback be

determined?

Alternative 3—One of the State

commenters suggested that MMS

establish value based on geographic

indexing using its own system data.

That State commented that MMS would

have to insure that posted prices are not

included when using system data to

determine market prices and that a

range of data could be established

within a geographic area for comparison

purposes. MMS requests comments on

this alternative. Specifically, how can

MMS verify, in a timely manner, that

the values reported to its data base are

correct prior to our publishing this

information? On what value do nonarm’s-length producers pay until MMS

publishes the values contained in its

data base?

With regard to Alternatives 1 through

3, we request comments on whether

MMS should apply any one of these

alternatives only to the Rocky Mountain

region while maintaining NYMEX

prices as the basis for mid-continent and

OCS leases and ANS prices for

California and Alaska leases.

Differentials

Alternative 4—Several industry and

State commenters commented that the

proposed Form MMS–4415 is too

burdensome on lessees. One State

commented that the proposed method

for determining differentials allows for

double-dipping of transportation costs.

Recently, two major oil producers

reached settlement with State and

private royalty litigants using fixed rate

(cents per barrel) differentials deducted

from a NYMEX-based value. MMS

requests comments on alternatives for

determining the appropriate location

and quality differentials to be deducted

from the NYMEX method (ANS in

California and Alaska) in the January 24,

1997, proposed rule. Specifically, MMS

requests comments on the following

methods for MMS to calculate and

publish location differentials from the

lease to the market center:

(1) Differential in cents per barrel by

zone or area,

(2) Differential in cents per mile by

zone or area,

(3) Differential based on a percentage

of the NYMEX (ANS in California and

Alaska) value.

MMS also requests comments on

alternatives for determining quality

differentials from the lease to the market

center.

Index

Alternative 5—One State commenter

suggested that MMS could simplify the

process without sacrificing value by

using published spot prices instead of

NYMEX. MMS requests comments on

this alternative and whether MMS

should then allow actual costs of

transportation when production actually

flows to the market center where the

spot price is published.

IV. Request for Public Comments

We are not requesting comments on

the summary of comments outlined in

this notice nor on the original proposed

rule or supplementary proposed rule.

We seek comments only on the

alternatives described above or other

alternatives suggested for valuing oil

from Federal leases. The alternatives

listed are not exhaustive. We welcome

any new alternatives or any

modifications to the proposed

alternatives for consideration.

The policy of the Department is,

whenever practicable, to give the public

an opportunity to participate in the

rulemaking process. Accordingly, you

should submit written comments,

suggestions, or objections regarding this

notice to the location identified in the

ADDRESSES section of this notice. You

should submit comments on or before

the date identified in the DATES section

of this notice.

Dated: September 16, 1997.

Lucy Querques Denett,

Associate Director for Royalty Management.

[FR Doc. 97–25101 Filed 9–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH108–1b; FRL–5894–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of

Ohio on January 3, 1997, which would

provide greater flexibility for Proctor

and Gamble Company, Hamilton

County, in operating four boilers,

refered to in Ohio Administrative Code

3745–18–37(GG), during periods of

change over from the main boilers to the

back-up units. In the Final Rules section

of this Federal Register, EPA is

approving this SIP revision as a direct

final rule without prior proposal

because the agency anticipates no

adverse comments. If no adverse written

comments are received in response to

this proposed rule, no further activity is

contemplated in relation to this rule.

However, if the EPA receives significant

adverse comments which have not been
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49463

previously addressed, the direct final

rule will be withdrawn and the public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA does not plan

a second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by October 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision

request are available for inspection at

the following address: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that

you telephone John Paskevicz at (312)

886–6084 before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

Written comments should be sent to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Paskevicz, at (312) 886–6084.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the Direct Final

action of the same title which is located

in the Rules and Regulations Section of

this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: September 9, 1997.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–25096 Filed 9–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 600

[Docket No. 970829214–7214–01; I.D.

082097B]

RIN 0648–AJ76

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;

Observer Health and Safety

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS is proposing

regulations that pertain to fishery

observers and the vessels that carry

them. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) as amended

October 11, 1996, requires that the

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)

promulgate regulations for ensuring the

adequacy and safety of fishing vessels

that carry observers. Owners and

operators of fishing vessels that carry

observers would be required to comply

with guidelines, regulations, and

conditions in order to ensure that their

vessels are adequate and safe for the

purposes of carrying an observer and

allowing operation of normal observer

functions.

DATES: Comments must be received by

October 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Gary

Matlock, Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William J. Bellows, 301–713-2341.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Magnuson-Stevens Act, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), the

Marine Mammal Protection Act, as

amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et

seq.), and the Atlantic Tunas

Convention Act, as amended (ATCA; 16

U.S.C. 971 et seq.) authorize the

Secretary to station observers aboard

commercial fishing vessels to collect

required scientific data for the purposes

of fishery and protected species

conservation and management,

monitoring incidental mortality and

serious injury to marine mammals and

to other species listed under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and

monitoring compliance with existing

Federal regulations. In addition,

pursuant to the South Pacific Tuna Act

of 1988 (SPTA; 16 U.S.C. 973 et seq.)

observers may be required in the South

Pacific Tuna Fishery.

The majority of U.S. observer

programs are mandatory under the

MMPA, or have mandatory coverage

authorized by fishery management plans

developed under the Magnuson-Stevens

Act. Under mandatory programs,

observer coverage levels are either

prescribed by legislation or there is a

mandate to carry an observer if

requested to do so by NMFS. Vessels

fishing under one of these mandatory

programs must have an observer(s)

aboard in order to fish legally. Should

such a vessel fail to meet the safety

requirements as described in this rule,

the vessel would not be permitted to

fish until the safety requirements are

met and the required observer(s) is/are

aboard.

While the majority of the observer

programs are mandatory, a substantial

amount of fishery data is collected

through voluntary observer programs.

Under these voluntary programs, vessel

owners and operators have no legal

obligation or requirement to carry an

observer but voluntarily carry observers

to collect data essential for making

fishery conservation and management

decisions. The safety, health, and wellbeing of observers while stationed

aboard fishing vessels participating in

both mandatory and voluntary programs

are of great priority.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act directs

that

* * *the Secretary shall promulgate

regulations, after notice and opportunity for

public comment, for fishing vessels that carry

observers. The regulations shall include

guidelines for determining—

(1) when a vessel is not required to carry

an observer on board because the facilities of

such vessel for the quartering of an observer,

or for carrying out observer functions, are so

inadequate or unsafe that the health or safety

of the observer or the safe operation of the

vessel would be jeopardized; and

(2) actions which vessel owners or

operators may reasonably be required to take

to render such facilities adequate and safe.

This rule would apply to any vessel

designated to carry an observer as part

of a mandatory or a voluntary observer

program under the Magnuson-Stevens

Act, the MMPA, ATCA, SPTA, or any

other U.S. law.

This proposed rule would adopt U.S.

Coast Guard (USCG) safety inspection

standards as minimum requirements a

vessel must meet to be deemed safe and

adequate for the purposes of carrying

observers. Vessels that carry observers

would be required to undergo USCG

safety inspections, display valid USCG

inspection decals or certificates, and

maintain safe conditions at all times an

observer is aboard as well as during an

observer’s boarding and disembarking.

In addition, vessels would be required

to comply with applicable regional

requirements governing observer

accommodations which may address

adequacy, health, and safety concerns

beyond the scope of USCG standards.

Classification

The Assistant General Counsel for

Legislation and Regulation of the

Department of Commerce made the

following certification to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration that this

proposed rule, if adopted, would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The National Marine Fisheries Service

estimates that there are a total of 1,600

vessels carrying observers in NMFS-regulated

fisheries. Of these, approximately 1,200

(75%) fit the Small Business

Administration’s definition of small entity,