16122 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules

lands, Mineral royalties, Natural gas,

Petroleum, Public lands-mineral

resources, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

30 CFR Part 216

Coal, Continental shelf, Geothermal

energy, Government contracts, Indian

lands, Mineral royalties, Natural gas,

Penalties, Petroleum, Public landsmineral resources, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 27, 1997.

Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals

Management.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 30 CFR Parts 202 and 216 are

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 202—ROYALTIES

1. The authority citation for part 202

continues to read as follows:

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

396 et seq., 396a et seq., 2101 et seq.; 30

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

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

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

Subpart D—Federal and Indian Gas

2. Section 202.152(a)(1) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 202.152 Standards for reporting and

paying royalties on gas.

(a)(1) If you are responsible for

reporting production or royalties, you

must:

(A) Report gas volumes and Btu

heating values, if applicable, under the

same degree of water saturation as

stated in your sales contract;

(B) Report gas volumes in units of

1,000 cubic feet (mcf); and

(C) Report gas volumes and Btu

heating value at a standard pressure

base of 14.73 psia and a standard

temperature base of 60 degrees

Fahrenheit.

* * * * *

PART 216—PRODUCTION

ACCOUNTING

1. The authority citation for part 216

continues to read as follows:

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

396 et seq., 396a et seq., 2101 et seq.; 30

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

1701 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 3716, 3720A, 9701; 43

U.S.C. 1301 et seq., 1331 et seq., 1801 et seq.

Subpart B—Oil and Gas, General

2. Section 216.54 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 216.54 Gas Analysis Report.

When requested by MMS, any

operator must file a Gas Analysis Report

(GAR) (Form MMS–4055) for each sale

or transfer meter. The form must contain

accurate and detailed gas analysis

information. This requirement applies

to offshore, onshore, or Indian leases.

(a) MMS may request a GAR when

you sell gas or transfer gas for

processing before the point of royalty

computation.

(b) When MMS first requests this

report, the report is due within 30 days.

If MMS requests subsequent reports,

they will be due no later than 45 days

after the month covered by the report.

[FR Doc. 97–8721 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD08–97–007]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulation;

Lake Pontchartrain, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

temporarily change the regulation for

the operation of the north bascule twin

span drawbridges across Lake

Pontchartrain between Metairie and

Mandeville, Louisiana to authorize them

to remain closed to navigation from June

9, 1997, until October 10, 1997, except

on alternating weekends. On alternating

weekends during this period when

working is not being conducted, the

draws will open if 3 hours notice is

given. This action is necessary to

facilitate cleaning and painting of the

bascule structures.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated,

documents referred to in this preamble

are available for inspection or copying

at the office of the Eighth Coast Guard

District, Bridge Administration Branch,

Hale Boggs Federal Building, room

1313, 501 Magazine Street, New

Orleans, Louisiana 70130–3396 between

7 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is (504) 589–2965.

Commander (ob) maintains the public

docket for this proposed temporary rule.

Comments may be submitted to the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Phil Johnson, Bridge Administration

Branch, (504) 589–2965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

Interested parties are invited to

participate in the proposed rulemaking

by submitting written views, comments,

or arguments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify the bridge and

give reasons for concurrence with or any

recommended change in this proposal.

Please submit two copies of all

comments and attachments in an

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by

11 inches, suitable for electronic filing.

Persons desiring acknowledgement that

their comments have been received

should enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope.

The Coast Guard plans no public

hearing. Persons may request a public

hearing by writing to the Eighth Coast

Guard District at the address under

ADDRESSES. The request should include

reasons why a hearing would be

beneficial. If it is determined that the

opportunity for oral presentations will

aid in the implementation of this

rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold

a public hearing at a time and place

announced by a later notice in the

Federal Register. Because of the need to

proceed to final rule by June 1997, a 30

day comment period is being used. The

affected area is a small geographic area;

notice of publication will be provided in

the local notice to mariners, and local

business will be contacted.

The Coast Guard will evaluate all

comments received and determine a

course of final action on this proposal.

The proposed regulation may be

changed in the light of comments

received.

Background and Purpose

The north bascule span of the Greater

New Orleans Expressway Commission

(GNOEC) across Lake Pontchartrain,

Louisiana has a vertical clearance of 42

feet above mean high water in the

closed to navigation position and

unlimited clearance in the open to

navigation position. The Lake

Pontchartrain Causeway South Channel

fixed span offers an alternate route with

a vertical clearance of 50 feet above

mean high water. Navigation on the

waterway consists of small tugs with

tows, fishing vessels, sailing vessels,

and other recreational craft.

For protection of the environment, the

cleaning and painting operation requires

a fully enclosed system with negative

air pressure. The special equipment

used for this procedure has to be

removed each time the draw span is

opened. Since this process is time

consuming and costly, the equipment
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules 16123

should remain in place for 12-day

periods, allowing the contractor to

maximize work time.

Painting operations in the

counterweight area will require the

bridge to be placed in the open to

navigation position. During the time in

which the span of one bridge is in the

open position to be painted, the span of

the other bridge will need to be closed

to detour vehicular traffic. High

weekday traffic volumes and the

requirement to paint during daylight

will require that the work be done on

weekends. Records obtained from the

GNOEC indicate that most of the marine

traffic requiring a bridge opening is

recreational sailboat traffic which

normally transits the bridge on

weekends. Therefore, painting of the

counterweight areas will only be

conducted every other weekend. The

bridge will operate normally on the

alternate weekends, when painting of

the counterweight areas is not being

conducted, and on the weekends of

Independence Day and Labor Day,

including adjoining Federal weekday

holidays.

The Coast Guard proposes to

temporarily change the regulation for

the operation of the Greater New

Orleans Expressway Commission

Causeway, north bascule span so that

the draws need not open for the passage

of vessels from June 9, 1997 to October

10, 1997 except that on the following

dates the draws will open on signal if

three hours notice is given: June 21 and

22; July 4, 5 and 6, July 19 and 20,

August 2 and 3, August 16, and 17,

August 30 and 31 and September 1,

September 13 and 14 and September 27

and 28, 1997. In the event of an

approaching tropical storm or hurricane,

the bridge will be returned to the

normal operation within 24 hours.

The Greater New Orleans Expressway

Commission has requested this

temporary rule so that cleaning and

painting of the structure can be

accomplished. The short term

inconvenience, attributable to a delay of

vessel traffic for a maximum of twelve

days at any time during this period, is

outweighed by the long term benefits to

be gained by keeping the bridge free of

corrosion and in proper working

condition.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposed temporary rule is not a

significant regulatory action under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

and does not require an assessment of

potential cost and benefits under section

6(a)(3) of that order. It has not been

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget under that order. It is not

significant under the Regulatory Policies

and Procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040,

February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this

temporary rule to be so minimal that a

full Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

Bridge tender logs for 46 random

weeks throughout 1996 and early 1997

were obtained from GNOEC. The

records showed that, other than during

weeks with holidays or during weeks

when sailboat regattas transit the bridge,

an average of 6 vessels per week

required openings of the draw spans.

Out of 259 vessels which required

bridge openings, 224 were recreational

sailboats, 32 were commercial vessels, 1

was a commercial fishing vessel and 2

were U.S. Coast Guard construction

tenders. On average, 87% of all vessels

requiring a bridge opening were

recreational sailboats.

The Coast Guard canvassed the small

business community by contacting boat

yards, marinas and restaurants which

operate waterfront facilities in the Lake

Pontchartrain area. They were asked if

the proposed temporary rule would

have an economic impact on their

businesses. None of the business

operators indicated that the proposed

temporary rule would severely impact

them. One business stated there could

be minor economic impact, but based on

the fact that only an average of 6 vessels

per week require an opening, and that

sailboats which require more than the

50 feet of clearance available at the

South Channel Span, would be able to

schedule transits through the North

Channel Draw every other weekend, no

significant impacts would be

anticipated.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposed

temporary rule will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. ‘‘Small

entities’’ may include (1) small

businesses and not-for-profit

organizations that are independently

owned and operated and are not

dominant in their fields and (2)

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000. Several

small businesses were individually

contacted and requested to verbally

comment on the potential economic

impacts that the proposed temporary

rule could have on them. Based on the

comments obtained, the Coast Guard

certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this

proposed temporary rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. If,

however, you think that your business

or organization qualifies as a small

entity and that this will have a

significant economic impact, please

comment, explaining why your business

or organization qualifies, and to what

degree this proposed rule will

economically effect it.

Collection of Information

This proposed temporary rule

contains no collection-of-information

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposal in under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and it has been determined that

this rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposed

temporary rule and concluded that

under paragraph 2.B.2.g(5) of

Commandant Instruction M16475.1B,

this proposed temporary rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

is available in the docket for inspection

or copying where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulation

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard is amending

33 CFR Part 117 as follows:

PART 117—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; and

33 CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. In § 117.467 a new paragraph (c) to

read as follows:

§ 117.467 Lake Pontchartrain.

* * * * *

(c) From 7 a.m. on June 9, 1997

through 6 p.m. on October 10, 1997,

paragraph (b) does not apply and, the

draws of the Greater New Orleans

Expressway Commission Causeway,

north bascule span need not open for

the passage of vessels; except that on the

following dates the draws will open on

signal if three hours notice is given:
16124 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules

June 21 and 22; July 4, 5 and 6, July 19

and 20, August 2 and 3, August 16 and

17, August 30 and 31 and September 1,

September 13 and 14 and September 27

and 28, 1997. In the event of an

approaching tropical storm or hurricane,

the draws will return to normal

operation within 24 hours.

Dated: March 24, 1997.

T.W. Josiah,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Eighth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 97–8507 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AD–FRL–5806–2]

Clean Air Act Proposed Approval of

Amendment to Title V Operating

Permits Program; Pima County

Department of Environmental Quality,

Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes approval of

the revision to the Operating Permits

Program submitted by the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

(‘‘ADEQ’’) on behalf of the Pima County

Department of Environmental Quality

(‘‘Pima’’ or ‘‘County’’) for the purpose of

complying with section 502(b)(3) of the

Clean Air Act (‘‘the Act’’), which

requires that each permitting authority

collect fees sufficient to cover all

reasonable direct and indirect costs

required to develop and administer its

title V operating permits program.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

May 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be

submitted to Ginger Vagenas at EPA,

AIR–3, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105. Copies of Pima’s

submittal and other supporting

information used in developing this

proposed approval are available for

inspection (AZ–Pima–97–1–OPS)

during normal business hours at the

following location: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9; 75

Hawthorne Street; San Francisco, CA

94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ginger Vagenas (telephone 415–744–

1252), Mail Code AIR–3, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

As required under title V of the Clean

Air Act as amended (1990), EPA has

promulgated rules that define the

minimum elements of an approvable

state operating permits program and the

corresponding standards and

procedures by which the EPA will

approve, oversee, and withdraw

approval of state operating permits

programs (see 57 FR 32250 (July 21,

1992)). These rules are codified at 40

CFR Part 70. Title V requires states to

develop and submit to EPA, by

November 15, 1993, programs for

issuing these operating permits to all

major stationary sources and to certain

other sources. The EPA’s program

review occurs pursuant to section 502 of

the Act, which outlines criteria for

approval or disapproval.

On November 15, 1993, Pima’s title V

program was submitted. EPA proposed

interim approval of the program on July

13, 1995 (60 FR 36083). The fee

provisions of the program were found to

be fully approvable. On November 14,

1995, in response to changes in state

law, Pima amended its fee provisions

under Chapter 12, Article VI of Title 17

of the Pima County Air Quality Control

Code. Those changes were submitted to

EPA on January 14, 1997, after it

promulgated final interim approval of

Pima’s title V program (61 FR 55910,

October 30, 1996).

II. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the

submitted amendments to the fee

provisions of Pima’s title V operating

permits program. A description of the

submitted materials and an analysis of

the amendments are included below.

A. Submitted Materials

Pima’s title V program amendment

was submitted by the Arizona DEQ on

January 14, 1997. The submittal

includes the revised fee regulations

(Chapter 12, Article VI of Title 17 of the

Pima County Air Quality Control Code

as amended on November 14, 1995), a

technical support document, and a legal

opinion by the County Attorney.

Additional materials, including proof of

adoption and a commitment to provide

periodic updates to EPA regarding the

status of the fee program, were

submitted on February 26, 1997.

B. Legal Opinion

Section 502(b)(3) of the Act requires

that each permitting authority collect

fees sufficient to cover all reasonable

direct and indirect costs required to

develop and administer its title V

operating permits program. Pima’s

submittal includes an opinion from the

County Attorney regarding the adequacy

of the laws of the State of Arizona and

Pima’s amended title V program. The

County Attorney states:

[I]t is my opinion that the laws of the state

of Arizona provide adequate authority to

carry out all aspects of the amended program

submitted by the Pima County Air Quality

Control District to the EPA. * * *

[T]he Arizona Revised Statutes and Pima

County Code, Title 17, ensure that permit

fees assessed as part of the Title V (Class 1)

permit program will cover all reasonable

direct and indirect costs required to develop,

administer, and enforce Pima County’s Title

V Permit Program.

C. Permit Fee Demonstration

Each title V program submittal must

contain either a detailed demonstration

of fee adequacy or a demonstration that

aggregate fees collected from title V

sources meet or exceed $25 per ton of

emissions per year (adjusted from 1989

by the Consumer Price Index (CPI)).

Pima has submitted a detailed fee

analysis that demonstrates the fees it

will collect under the amended rules are

adequate to cover program costs.

Title V emission fees. Pima’s fee

provisions require that the owner or

operator of each source required to

obtain a title V permit shall pay an

annual emissions fee equal to $28.15 per

year per ton of actual emissions of all

regulated air pollutants, or a specified

minimum, whichever is greater. See

17.12.510.C. and 17.12.510.C.5.

Beginning in 1994, the emissions fee

rate is adjusted to reflect the increase, if

any, in the Consumer Price Index. See

17.12.510.C.4.

Emission fees are used by Pima to

cover the costs of the Title V related

activities not covered by title V permit

fees. These activities are inspection

services and associated direct and

indirect costs. Pima estimates the

annual cost of these activities to be

$68,640. Based upon known sources

and emissions reported by the sources,

and using the emission fee ($28.15 per

ton, indexed to the CPI beginning in

1994) and the fee schedule, the County

estimates its annual revenue from

emissions fees will be $70,100.

Permit fees. Pima’s fee provisions

require that applicants for permits to

construct and operate that are subject to

title V must pay the total actual cost of

reviewing and acting upon applications

for permits and permit revisions. See

17.12.510.G. and 17.12.510.I. These fees

are used to cover the cost of issuing

permits. Pima estimated the permitting

related average hourly billing costs for

permitting of title V facilities, including

salary, fringe benefits, direct non-salary