21174 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Notices

adopted and currently uses the new

SPE/WPC definitions and these

definitions are fundamentally consistent

with IRS usage. The SEC has had

extensive dialogue starting in 1997 with

the EIA, petroleum industry and

investment community on the new SPE/

WPC definitions. The SEC has yet to

reach a decision to modify their

definitions or to adopt the SEC

definitions to be more consistent with

the SPE/WPC definitions. The dialogue

will continue. The EIA, SPE, WPC and

the SEC all recognize that definitions of

proved reserves are not static and will

continue to evolve over time.

These new definitions contain at least

two major changes from the previous

SPE definitions adopted in 1987. First,

probabilistic calculation techniques

(i.e., a range of reserves estimates with

uncertainties associated with each level

of reserve estimates) were accepted as

valid methods of estimating proved

reserves along with the traditional

deterministic techniques (i.e., a discrete

reserve estimate with an associated level

of certainty). Second, the use of an oil

or gas price averaged over a longer

historical period of time, typically one

year, rather than the price listed on a

single day was recommended in the

SPE/WPC definitions to be consistent

with the purpose of economic

estimation of reserves.

The EIA believes that allowing and

accepting probabilistic estimates of

reserves is both state-of-the-art and a

means for improving the understanding

of proved reserves The EIA expects that

most filers will continue to utilize the

deterministic methodology to determine

reserves but will accept probabilistic

estimates when appropriate. Reserves

calculated using any type of evaluation

methodology rely upon the skill,

integrity and judgment of the evaluator

and require an ample amount of reliable

data.

The EIA also believes that using an

average annual price for oil and gas

rather than a so called ‘‘market price’’

on December 31 of the reporting year as

the SEC currently requires, will lead to

more reliable proved reserves estimates,

as well as more meaningful estimates of

those reserves’ economic value.

Estimating reserves requires

consideration of both technical and

economic components. In 1998, U.S.

proved reserves of crude oil registered

the largest percentage decline in 53

years. The annualized oil price decline

from $17.40 per barrel in 1997 to $10.88

per barrel in 1998 had a significant

impact on proved reserves. Moreover,

using end of year prices [$15.04 per

barrel in December 1997 to $8.03 in

December 1998], further exacerbated the

reduction in proved reserves for most

producers and for the nation. As the oil

price falls, each additional dollar

decline has a proportionally larger

negative impact on the reported volume

of proved reserves.

The adoption of these new definitions

of proved reserves by the EIA will not

require respondents to change the way

they report information on Form EIA–

23.

Respondents should use the same

methods when estimating reserves for

the EIA as they do for the SEC. If there

is an apparent conflict in requirements

and assumptions, give precedence to the

methods used for the SEC.

Operators should note in the footnotes

whether end of year or annual average

prices were used and whether

probabilistic or deterministic methods

were utilized at the field level.

III. Request for Comments

Prospective respondents and other

interested parties should comment on

the actions discussed in Item II. The

following guidelines are provided to

assist in the preparation of comments.

Please indicate to which form(s) your

comments apply.

General Issues

A. Is the proposed collection of

information necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency and does the information have

practical utility? Practical utility is

defined as the actual usefulness of

information to or for an agency, taking

into account its accuracy, adequacy,

reliability, timeliness and the agency’s

ability to process the information it

collects.

B. What enhancements can be made

to the quality, utility and clarity of the

information to be collected?

As a Potential Respondent

A. Are the instructions and

definitions clear and sufficient? If not,

which instructions need clarification?

B. Can the information be submitted

by the due date?

C. Public reporting burden for this

collection is estimated to average 4

hours for small operators, 32 hours for

intermediate operators, and 160 hours

for large operators on Form EIA–23. In

addition, proposed Form EIA–23

modifications are anticipated to reduce

these reporting burden estimates for

intermediate operators by 4 hours and

for large operators by 16 hours. For

operators reporting on Form EIA–23P,

reporting burden is estimated at 15

minutes. For natural gas plant operators

reporting on Form EIA–64A, the

reporting burden is estimated at 6 hours.

The estimated burden includes the total

time, effort or financial resources

expended to generate, maintain, retain,

disclose and provide the information.

Please comment on the accuracy of the

burden estimates.

D. The agency estimates that the only

costs to the respondents are for the time

it will take them to complete the

collection. Please comment if

respondents will incur start-up costs for

reporting or any recurring annual costs

for operation, maintenance and

purchase of services associated with the

information collection.

E. What additional actions could be

taken to minimize the burden of this

collection of information? Such actions

may involve the use of automated,

electronic, mechanical or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

F. Does any other Federal, State or

local agency collect similar information?

If so, specify the agency, the data

element(s) and the methods of

collection.

As a Potential User

A. Is the information useful at the

levels of detail indicated on the form?

B. For what purpose(s) would the

information be used? Be specific.

C. Are there alternate sources for the

information and are they useful? If so,

what are their weaknesses and/or

strengths?

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval of the form. These comments

will also become a matter of public

record.

Statutory Authority: Section 3506 (c)(2)(A)

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Pub. L. No. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Issued in Washington, DC, April 14, 2000.

Jay H. Casselberry,

Agency Clearance Officer, Statistics and

Methods Group, Energy Information

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–9912 Filed 4–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. ER00–1816–001]

DTE-River Rouge No. 1, L.L.C.; Notice

of Filing

April 14, 2000.

Take notice that on April 12, 2000,

DTE-River Route No. 1, L.L.C. tendered

for filing a response to Staff’s deficiency

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Notices 21175

letter issued in this docket on April 7,

2000 and a revised FERC Electric Tariff,

Original Volume No. 1.

Copies of the filing were served upon

parties to the above-captioned

proceeding and the Michigan Public

Service Commission.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest such filing should file a motion

to intervene or protest with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE., DC 20426, in

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and

385.214). All such motions and protests

should be filed on or before April 24,

2000. Protests will be considered by the

Commission to determine the

appropriate action to be taken, but will

not serve to make protestants parties to

the proceedings. Any person wishing to

become a party must file a motion to

intervene. Copies of this filing are on

file with the Commission and are

available for public inspection. This

filing may also be viewed on the

Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/

online/rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for

assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–9913 Filed 4–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP00–245–000]

East Tennessee Natural Gas Company;

Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC

Gas Tariff

April 14, 2000.

Take notice that on April 12, 2000,

East Tennessee Natural Gas Company

(East Tennessee) tendered for filing as

part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second

Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets

listed in Appendix A to the filing, to be

effective May 1, 2000:

East Tennessee states that, on March

14, 2000, East Tennessee was acquired

from El Paso Energy (El Paso) and

became a wholly owned subsidiary of

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). East

Tennessee states that, pursuant to the

Stock Purchase Agreement, El Paso

entered into a Transition Agreement to

ensure the smooth operation of the East

Tennessee pipeline system for a period

of up to nine months from the closing

date (transition period). Among other

things, the Transition Agreement

requires El Paso to perform certain

capacity management activities on

behalf of East Tennessee for the daily

operations of the system during the

transition period.

East Tennessee states that, as part of

El Paso’s transition to interactive

Internet communications in compliance

with the Commission’s Order No. 587-

I, El Paso has undertaken a major

rewrite of its pipelines’ critical

computer system functions (the

‘‘PASSKEY’’ system). El Paso has

advised Duke that it intends to complete

the move to the Internet by May 1, 2000.

East Tennessee states that, because El

Paso will be performing certain capacity

management activities for East

Tennessee utilizing the PASSKEY

System during the transition period,

East Tennessee is modifying its existing

tariff and pro forma service agreements

to reflect the system and tariff changes

made by the El Paso pipelines.

East Tennessee states that the purpose

of this filing is to obtain Commission

approval for the tariff modifications in

East Tennessee’s tariff mirroring the El

Paso pipelines’ proposals in order to

implement the PASSKEY System

rewrite and the Service Upgrades by

May 1, 2000 for the duration of the

transition period and to update East

Tennessee’s mailing addresses and

contact information as a result of the

acquisition by Duke. At the end of the

transition period, East Tennessee will

file revised tariff sheets to reflect the

end of the transition period and the

implementation of the LINKr System for

East Tennessee, and will make any

additional changes necessary to conform

the operations of the East Tennessee

pipeline system with those of the other

Duke pipelines.

East Tennessee states that copies of its

filing have been mailed to all affected

customers and interested state

commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest said filing should file a motion

to intervene or a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with sections

385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s

Rules and Regulations. All such motions

or protests must be filed in accordance

with section 154.210 of the

Commission’s Regulations. Protests will

be considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceedings.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection in the Public Reference

Room. This filing may be viewed on the

web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/

rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for

assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–9865 Filed 4–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. GT00–25–000]

TransColorado Gas Transmission

Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

April 14, 2000.

Take notice that on April 12, 2000,

TransColorado Gas Transmission

Company (TransColorado) tendered for

filing to become part of its FERC Gas

Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the tariff

sheets listed to Appendix A to the filing,

to be effective May 15, 2000.

TransColorado states that due to a

change in the TransColorado

partnership, changes have been

proposed to modify the reference to the

person to whom communications

should be addressed regarding

TransColorado’s tariff and references to

a former partner, El Paso TransColorado

Company, have been removed. In

addition, miscellaneous tariff ‘‘cleanup’’ type revisions have also been made.

TransColorado states that a copy of

this filing has been served upon

TransColorado’s customers, the

Colorado Public Utilities Commission

and New Mexico Public Regulatory

Commission.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest said filing should file a motion

to intervene or a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with Sections

385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s

Rules and Regulations. All such motions

or protests must be filed in accordance

with Section 154.210 of the

Commission’s Regulations. Protests will

be considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceedings.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection in the Public Reference

Room. This filing may be viewed on the

web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/