Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 49871

(6) From subsection (e)(1) because it 

is often impossible to determine in 

advance if criminal law enforcement 

records contained in this system are 

relevant and necessary, but, in the 

interests of effective law enforcement, it 

is necessary to retain this information to 

aid in establishing patterns of activity 

and provide investigative leads. 

(7) From subsection (e)(2) because 

collecting information from the subject 

individual could serve notice that he or 

she is the subject of a criminal law 

enforcement matter and thereby present 

a serious impediment to law 

enforcement efforts. Further, because of 

the nature of criminal law enforcement 

matters, vital information about an 

individual frequently can be obtained 

only from other persons who are 

familiar with the individual and his or 

her activities and it often is not 

practicable to rely on information 

provided directly by the individual. 

(8) From subsection (e)(3) because 

informing individuals as required by 

this subsection could reveal the 

existence of a criminal law enforcement 

matter and compromise criminal law 

enforcement efforts. 

(9) From subsection (e)(5) because it 

is often impossible to determine in 

advance if criminal law enforcement 

records contained in this system are 

accurate, relevant, timely, and complete, 

but, in the interests of effective law 

enforcement, it is necessary to retain 

this information to aid in establishing 

patterns of activity and obtaining 

investigative leads. 

(10) From subsection (e)(8) because 

serving notice could give persons 

sufficient warning to evade criminal law 

enforcement efforts. 

(11) From subsection (g) to the extent 

that this system is exempt from other 

specific subsections of the Privacy Act.

Dated: August 19, 2005. 

Paul R. Corts, 

Assistant Attorney General for 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 05–16866 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FB–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service 

30 CFR Parts 250 and 256 

RIN 1010–AD16 

Oil, Gas, and Sulphur Operations and 

Leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS)—Cost Recovery

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service 

(MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: MMS is changing some 

existing fees and implementing several 

new fees to offset MMS’s costs of 

performing certain services relating to 

its minerals programs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is 

effective as of September 26, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angela Mazzullo, Offshore Minerals 

Management (OMM) Budget Office at 

(703) 787–1691.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Legal Authority and Policy Guidance:

The Independent Offices Appropriation 

Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701, is 

a general law applicable Governmentwide, that provides authority to MMS to 

recover the costs of providing services 

to the non-federal sector. It requires 

implementation through rulemaking. 

There are several policy documents that 

provide guidance on the process of 

charging applicants for service costs. 

These policy documents are found in 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–25, ‘‘User Charges,’’ 

and the Department of the Interior (DOI) 

Departmental Manual (DM), 330 DM 

1.3A and 6.4, ‘‘Cost Recovery’’ and 

‘‘User Charges.’’ The general policy that 

governs charges for services provided 

states that a charge ‘‘will be assessed 

against each identifiable recipient for 

special benefits derived from federal 

activities beyond those received by the 

general public’’ (OMB Circular A–25). 

The DOI Manual mirrors this policy 

(330 DM 1.3 A.). Certain activities may 

be exempted from these fees under 

certain conditions set out at 330 DM 

1.3A and 6.4.4. 

Cost Recovery Definition: In this 

rulemaking, cost recovery means 

reimbursement to MMS for its costs of 

performing a service by charging a fee 

to the identifiable applicant/beneficiary 

of the service. Further guidance is 

provided by Solicitor’s Opinion M–

36987, ‘‘BLM’s Authority to Recover 

Costs of Mineral Document Processing’’ 

(December 5, 1996). The DOI Office of 

Inspector General issued reports in 1988 

and 1995 addressing BLM’s cost 

recovery responsibilities. 

Discussion of Comments Received 

MMS published a proposed rule to 

revise some existing fees and implement 

several new fees in the Federal Register

on March 15, 2005. The comment 

period for the proposed rule closed on 

April 14, 2005. MMS received 23 sets of 

comments on the proposed rulemaking 

on 14 different issues. Respondents 

included: Anadarko, BP, Beacon 

Exploration & Production, Chevron 

Texaco, the Domestic Petroleum 

Council (DPC), EOG Resources, Exxon 

Mobil, the Independent Petroleum 

Association of America (IPAA), the 

International Association of Drilling 

Contractors (IADC), the International 

Association of Geophysical Contractors 

(IAGC), Marathon Oil, NCX Company, 

the National Ocean Industries 

Association (NOIA), the Natural Gas 

Supply Association (NGSA), Newfield 

Exploration Company, the Offshore 

Operators Committee (OOC), Shell 

Exploration & Production Company 

(Shell), Spinnaker Exploration, Success 

Energy, the U.S. Oil & Gas Association 

(USOGA), Waring & Associates, and 

WJP. These respondents raised a 

number of important issues that are 

addressed immediately below. 

Issue No. 1: The comment period 

should be extended.

MMS received seven requests to 

extend the comment period beyond 30 

days on the proposed rule. MMS 

considers this rule to be fairly 

straightforward and not exceptionally 

complex, and the fees are not significant 

in terms of potential economic impact. 

Therefore, MMS considers thirty days to 

be sufficient time for comment. 

Issue No. 2: The implementation of 

the fees in this rule will discourage 

exploration activity on the OCS, 

particularly by small businesses.

MMS received five comments on this 

issue. MMS disagrees with the 

comments. The current classification of 

a small business by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) is a company 

with fewer than 500 employees. Over 70 

percent of companies operating on the 

OCS meet that criterion. Most of these 

companies are financially sound and 

payment of cost recovery fees will not 

affect plans for exploratory drilling. In 

addition, the proposed fees represent a 

small percentage increase in operating 

costs when compared to the cost of 

drilling a well. For example, the 

proposed fees range from $150–$10,700 

while well drilling costs range from $5 

million–$23 million.

Issue No. 3: The fees being 

implemented are too high. Can more 

information be provided as to how the 

fees were calculated?

MMS received seven comments on 

this issue. Because this rule is 

implementing cost recovery authority, 

the fees were set at what it currently 

costs MMS to perform these services. 

The following example provides greater 

detail of how the costs were calculated. 

The Suspension of Operations/

Suspension of Production (SOO/SOP) 

request was broken down into five subprocesses, also shown in the table below 

49872 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

with the associated employee’s grade, 

time, and labor dollars.

Sub-process Employee’s grade/

step 

Hours spent 

on task Labor dollars 

Review application. .......................................................................................................... 13/3 ........................... 2 $74 

Perform necessary engineering, geological and/or geophysical assessment ................ 13/3, 13/6 .................. 13 490 

Attend meetings and discussions (internal and with industry) ........................................ 14/5, 13/6, 13/3 ......... 6 242 

Draft/review/discuss/final decision letter distribution ....................................................... 14/5, 13/3, 5/8 ........... 6 200 

Follow-up monitoring of activity schedule deadlines ....................................................... 13/3 ........................... 4 149 

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................... .................................... ........................ 1,155 

The labor dollars for the SOO/SOP 

request total $1,155. Given that this 

example was for the Gulf of Mexico 

Region (GOMR) only, the actual average 

benefit rate of 23.26 percent for that 

Region was applied, bringing the cost to 

$1,424. The benefit rate includes the 

Federal Government’s share of health 

insurance, life insurance, retirement, 

and social security and Medicare. To 

arrive at the final fee, the bureau-wide 

indirect cost rate of 21.5 percent is 

applied, for a new total of $1,730. As 

explained in the preamble of the 

proposed rule, the indirect cost rate 

includes costs such as rent, equipment, 

telephone service, etc. This same 

breakdown into sub-processes was done 

for the other two MMS Regions with a 

weighted average applied to establish 

the fee at $1,800. 

Since the same process was used to 

calculate all fees in this rule, and 

inclusion of all calculations would 

prove too voluminous and unwieldy, 

they are not included in this final rule. 

The preamble to the proposed rule 

provides greater detail on the process 

used to calculate all fees. 

Issue No. 4: MMS is already 

compensated for these services from the 

collection of bonus bids, rentals, and 

royalties.

MMS received seven comments on 

this issue. When a lease is issued, the 

working interest is conveyed to the 

lessee(s) to whom it is issued. The 

government reserves a royalty interest, 

which is a cost free share of the 

production or the value of the 

production. Under the bidding system 

that is characteristic of most of the 

leases, the lessee pays a bonus to obtain 

the lease that is the result of competitive 

bidding. During the primary term of a 

lease and before the lease goes into 

production (in other words, during the 

time the lessor is not receiving any 

benefit from its retained royalty 

interest), the lessee must pay annual 

rentals. All of these obligations 

(royalties, bonus bids, and rentals) 

reflect the value of the lessor’s (i.e., the 

public’s) property interest in the leased 

minerals. None of these obligations were 

ever intended to compensate the 

government for administrative costs. 

Nor was the relevant mineral leasing 

law (the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

Act (OCSLA)), which granted the 

Secretary the authority to issue leases, 

enacted as a cost recovery mechanism. 

The government’s authority to recover 

certain administrative costs of the type 

involved in this rulemaking is granted 

by a statute (the provision of IOAA) that 

predated the OCSLA and predated every 

lease issued under the OCSLA. The 

IOAA is not related to royalty, bonus, or 

rental obligations. 

Issue No. 5: The non-required 

document filing fee is too high, given 

that a single document can index to 

multiple leases, therefore multiplying 

the cost of a single submission.

MMS agrees. The calculation of this 

fee was reexamined and an 

inconsistency was found in the cost data 

collected for this service. The 

commenter is correct and MMS has 

deleted the upward fee adjustment from 

the rule. The non-required document 

filing fee will remain at $25 per lease 

affected. MMS also reviewed all 

remaining cost calculations affecting 

fees in this rule. 

Issue No 6: MMS states that a 

‘‘Statement of Energy Effects’’ is not 

needed, because it does not consider the 

rule to be a significant energy action; 

commenter challenges this statement.

This rule meets none of the criteria for 

a significant energy action. Executive 

Order (E.O.) 13211 defines a significant 

energy action:

Section 4(b): ‘‘Significant energy action’’ 

means any action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or regulation, 

including notices of inquiry, advanced 

notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices 

of proposed rulemaking: 

(1)(i) that is a significant regulatory action 

under E.O.12866 or any successor order; and 

(ii) is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or 

(2) that is designated by the Administrator 

of the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy action. 

(c) ‘‘Agency’’ means any authority of the 

United States (U.S.) that is an ‘‘agency’’ 

under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those 

considered to be independent regulatory 

agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5). 

Moreover, E.O. 12866 defines a significant 

regulatory action: 

(f) ‘‘Significant regulatory action’’ means 

any regulatory action that is likely to result 

in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more or adversely affect 

in a material way; the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, 

the environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the President’s 

priorities, or the principles set forth in this 

E.O.

Of the above-quoted thresholds, the 

only one that could potentially be at 

issue is section (f)(3), and MMS does not 

believe that this rule meets that 

threshold. We note again that compared 

to the costs of drilling a well, the fees 

established in this rule are not 

significant.

Issue No. 7: The proposed rulemaking 

may violate the Administrative 

Procedure Act, because it does not 

disclose the basis of MMS’s assessment 

of the costs to be recovered, other than 

to give description of certain generic 

factors purportedly considered.

See Issue No. 3 above for a more indepth description of how the fees were 

calculated. 

Issue No. 8: The proposed rule does 

not compare the proposed fees to the 

costs of similar services in the private 

sector.

To the knowledge of MMS, none of 

these services is offered by the private 

sector. Even if some of these services 

were offered by the private sector, the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 49873

fees are calculated based on the costs 

incurred by the Federal Government to 

provide the service. The costs of what 

other entities may charge for similar 

services are not relevant for purposes of 

this rule. 

Issue No. 9: It is only fair that MMS 

not accept a processing fee for requests 

that are not processed through the 

system, but are rejected early in the 

evaluation due to submittal of an 

incomplete request. How will MMS 

handle the payment for these denied 

requests, as well as verbal approvals? 

Will there be any refunds? Will credit 

card payment be accepted?

All fees imposed by this rule are nonrefundable; however, if a request is 

deemed not complete, an additional fee 

will not be charged for its resubmission. 

Any verbal approvals that might occur 

must be preceded by payment for the 

service. MMS is currently considering 

the different payment options available, 

and will notify lessees of the available 

payment options via a Notice to Lessees. 

The Notice will be issued before the 

effective date of the fees in this rule. 

Issue No. 10: Commenter recommends 

that ‘‘Should there be multiple lessees, 

all designation of operator forms shall 

be collected by one lessee and submitted 

to MMS in a single submittal subject to 

only one filing fee.’’

MMS agrees with commenter, and 

that was the original intent. Section 

§ 250.143(d) will be changed to 

incorporate this recommendation. 

Issue No. 11: Commenter does not 

agree that the agency’s legal authority 

and policy guidance require new fees or 

that the fees are required to fund the 

agency’s activities.

The Solicitor’s Office has determined 

that the Department of the Interior 

Manual and OMB Circular A–25 require 

that cost recovery action be taken 

whenever possible. While the structure 

of MMS’ appropriation does not 

mandate collection of fees, the 

President’s Budget assumes that MMS 

will collect these fees and has offset its 

appropriated funds accordingly. 

Issue No. 12: A $10,000 fee is 

excessive for processing revisions, 

modifications or amendments to unit 

agreements once the original analysis 

conducted by MMS for the original unit 

application has been completed.

The commenter has misinterpreted 

the fee table. The proposed fee for a 

revision to a unit agreement is $760, 

while the $10,700 fee is for the original 

voluntary unitization proposal or the 

expansion of a previously approved 

voluntary unit to include additional 

acreage. To prevent further confusion 

the term, ‘‘Unitization Revision and 

Modification’’ has been changed to just 

‘‘Unitization Revision.’’ 

Issue No. 13: Eight commenters (one 

consolidated letter from eight trade 

groups) argue that because neither 

existing lease terms nor regulations in 

effect at the time of lease issuance 

contain provisions allowing the new 

cost recovery fees, regulations imposing 

such fees that are promulgated after 

lease issuance ‘‘are not within the scope 

of the contract.’’ The commenter cites 

Mobil Exploration and Producing 

Southeast, Inc. v. United States, 530 

U.S. 604 (2000), as standing for the 

proposition that offshore leases are 

subject only to regulations in existence 

at the time of lease issuance and those 

promulgated thereafter that concern 

prevention of waste and conservation of 

resources.

The comment fails to acknowledge 

that the Independent Offices 

Appropriation Act, the statute under 

whose authority MMS is promulgating 

this rule, was enacted in 1952, and 

predates the OCS Lands Act and the 

leases issued under the authority of that 

act. The comment also misinterprets the 

Mobil decision. In Mobil, the Supreme 

Court addressed a statute enacted by 

Congress years after lease issuance (the 

Outer Banks Protection Act) whose 

substantive effect was to prohibit 

exploration of a certain class of existing 

leases. The Supreme Court held the 

statute to be a breach of contract on the 

part of the United States. The Supreme 

Court in Mobil did not address the 

validity of regulations at all, including 

regulations implementing express 

statutory authority already in existence. 

Further, contrary to the commenters’ 

assertion, Solicitor’s Opinion M–36987 

is not inconsistent with the Mobil 

decision. 

The commenters are arguing 

essentially that they should not be 

obligated to pay any costs that are not 

specified in the lease instrument itself. 

That is a policy argument that the 

lessees should direct to Congress, not to 

MMS. The commenters’ policy 

preference does not nullify the 

Government’s authority (or the lessee’s 

obligations) under the IOAA when the 

IOAA applies to the particular 

administrative function involved. 

Issue No. 14: Industry will be forced 

to pass along these new costs of doing 

business to consumers.

MMS is fulfilling its obligation to 

recover the costs. As previously 

discussed, the fees are insignificant in 

relation to the overall costs of industry 

to explore for and produce crude oil. It 

would be inappropriate for MMS to 

anticipate or speculate on how the 

industry or the market will respond to 

the requirement to pay for fees. 

Summary of Changes to Proposed Rule 

In this final rule, MMS is removing 

two existing fee adjustments that were 

proposed. Due to the inconsistency that 

was found in the cost data collected in 

relation to the non-required document 

filing fee adjustment, the adjustment is 

being removed from this rule. The 

current fee amount of $25 per lease 

affected will remain in effect. 

MMS is also removing the adjustment 

of the Pipeline Right-of-Way (ROW) 

Grant Application. This fee was 

proposed to be lowered; however, 

further analysis proved that the current 

fee of $2,350 accurately reflects the cost 

to MMS to provide that service. 

Further, MMS is adding language to 

30 CFR 250.171 to clarify what has 

always been implied; to obtain a 

suspension, ‘‘Your request must 

include:’’ the four factors currently 

listed in § 250.171(a)–(d). 

Finally, since the proposed rule was 

published, the bureau has updated its 

indirect cost rate from 15 to 21.5 

percent. As required by OMB and 

Departmental guidance, indirect cost 

rates are to be included in the 

calculation of cost recovery fees. No 

specific comments addressing the 

indirect cost rate calculation were 

received. Shown below is the revised 

fee table.

Service Fee 

amount 30 CFR citation 

Change in Designation of Operator ........................................................................................................................... $150 § 250.143 

Suspensions of Operations/Suspensions of Production (SOO/SOP) Request ........................................................ 1,800 § 250.171 

*Pipeline Right-of-Way (ROW) Grant Application ..................................................................................................... 2,350 § 250.1015 

Pipeline Conversion of Lease Term to ROW ............................................................................................................ 200 § 250.1015 

Pipeline ROW Assignment ........................................................................................................................................ 170 § 250.1018 

500 feet from Lease/Unit Line Production Request .................................................................................................. 3,300 § 250.1101 

Gas Cap Production Request .................................................................................................................................... 4,200 § 250.1101 

49874 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Service Fee 

amount 30 CFR citation 

Downhole Commingling Request .............................................................................................................................. 4,900 § 250.1106 

Voluntary Unitization Proposal or Unit Expansion .................................................................................................... 10,700 § 250.1303 

Unitization Revision ................................................................................................................................................... 760 § 250.1303 

Record Title/Operating Rights (Transfer) .................................................................................................................. 170 § 256.64 

*Non-required Document Filing ................................................................................................................................. 25 § 256.64 

* Indicates no change to current amount. 

Procedural Matters 

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 

12866) 

This document is not a significant 

rule as determined by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and is 

not subject to review under E.O. 12866. 

(1) This rule will not have an annual 

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. This rule establishes fees 

based on cost recovery principles. Based 

on historical filings, MMS projects the 

fees will raise revenue by approximately 

$1.65 million annually.

(2) This rule will not create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency because the costs 

incurred are for specific MMS services 

and other agencies are not involved in 

these aspects of the OCS program. 

(3) This rule will not alter the 

budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, 

user fees, or loan programs or the rights 

or obligations of their recipients. This 

change will have no effect on the rights 

of the recipients of entitlements, grants, 

user fees, or loan programs. The fees 

established by this rule are service fees 

based on cost recovery, and not user 

fees. 

(4) This rule will not raise novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

MMS certifies that this rule will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

This change will affect lessees and 

operators of leases in the OCS. This 

includes about 130 Federal oil and gas 

lessees and 115 holders of pipeline 

rights-of-way. Small lessees that operate 

under this rule will fall under the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) North 

American Industry Classification 

System Codes (NAICS) 211111, Crude 

Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction 

and 213111, Drilling Oil and Gas Wells. 

For these NAICS code classifications, a 

small company is one with fewer than 

500 employees. Based on these criteria, 

an estimated 70 percent of these 

companies are considered small. This 

rule, therefore, affects a substantial 

number of small entities. 

The fees established in the rule will 

not have a significant economic effect 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because the fees are very small 

compared to normal costs of doing 

business on the OCS. For example, the 

fees range from $150 to $10,700 while 

the cost of drilling a well ranges from $5 

million to $23 million. 

Additionally, the fees established in 

the rule will apply to both large and 

small firms in the same way. Applying 

for MMS services provides a benefit to 

the applicant (both large and small) if 

the applicant decides to operate in the 

OCS. 

Comments are important. The SBA 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were 

established to receive comments from 

small business 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 actions of 

MMS, call 1–888–734–3247. You may 

comment to the SBA without fear of 

retaliation. Disciplinary action for 

retaliation by an MMS employee may 

include suspension or termination from 

employment with the DOI. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) 

This is not a major rule under the 

SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). This rule: 

(a) Does 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. 

Leasing on the U.S. OCS is limited to 

residents of the U.S. or companies 

incorporated in the U.S. This rule does 

not change that requirement. 

Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA) 

of 1995 (E.O. 12866) 

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 UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) is not required. This is because the 

rule will not affect State, local, or tribal 

governments, and the effect on the 

private sector is small. 

Takings Implication Assessment (E.O. 

12630) 

With respect to E.O. 12630, the rule 

will not have significant takings 

implications. A Takings Implication 

Assessment is not required. The 

rulemaking is not a governmental action 

capable of interfering with 

constitutionally protected property 

rights. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

With respect to E.O.13132, the rule 

will not have federalism implications. It 

will not substantially and directly affect 

the relationship between the Federal 

and State Governments. To the extent 

that State and local governments have a 

role in OCS activities, this change will 

not affect that role. 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

With respect to E.O. 12988, the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that this 

rule will not unduly burden the judicial 

system, and meets the requirements of 

Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the E.O. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 

This rulemaking relates to 30 CFR 

part 250, subparts A, J, K, and M, and 

to 30 CFR part 256, subpart J. The 

rulemaking affects the information 

collections for these regulations but will 

not change the approved burden hours, 

just the associated fees. Therefore, OMB 

has determined that there is no change 

in the information collection and that 

MMS does not need to make a formal 

submission by Form OMB 83-I for this 

rulemaking. When this rule becomes 

effective, MMS will submit Form OMB 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 49875

83–C to modify the fees in each 

collection. 

OMB has approved the information 

collections for the affected regulations 

as 30 CFR part 250, subpart A, OMB 

Control Number 1010–0114 (expiration 

10/31/07); subpart J, 1010–0050 

(expiration 1/31/06); subpart K, 1010–

0041 (expiration 7/31/06); and subpart 

M, 1010–0068 (expiration 8/31/05, 

currently in renewal); and as 30 CFR 

part 256, subpart J, 1010–0006, 

(expiration 3/31/07). 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 OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 

The MMS has determined that this 

rule is administrative and involves 

changes addressing fee requirements. 

Therefore, it is categorically excluded 

from environmental review under 

section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA, pursuant 

to 516 DM 2.3A and 516 DM 2, 

Appendix 1, Item 1.10. 

In addition, the rule does not meet 

any of the 10 criteria for exceptions to 

categorical exclusions listed in 516 DM 

2, Appendix 2. Pursuant to Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations (40 

CFR 1508.4) and the environmental 

policies and procedures of the 

Department of the Interior, the term 

‘‘categorical exclusions’’ means 

categories of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment and which have no such 

effect in procedures adopted by a 

Federal agency and therefore require 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement. 

Effects on the Nation’s Energy Supply 

(E.O. 13211) 

E.O. 13211 requires the agency to 

prepare a Statement of Energy Effects 

when it takes a regulatory action that is 

identified as a significant energy action. 

This rule is not a significant energy 

action, and therefore does not require a 

Statement of Energy Effects, because it: 

(1) Is not a significant regulatory 

action under E.O. 12866, 

(2) Is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, and 

(3) Has not been designated by the 

Administrator of the OIRA, OMB, as a 

significant energy action. 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175) 

In accordance with E.O. 13175, this 

rule will not have tribal implications 

that impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian tribal 

governments. 

Clarity of This Regulation 

E.O. 12866 requires each agency to 

write regulations that are easy to 

understand. We invite your comments 

on how to make this proposed 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) Is the description of the rule in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this preamble helpful in understanding 

the rule? What else can 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 e-mail the comments to this 

address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

List of Subjects 

30 CFR Part 250 

Continental shelf, Environmental 

impact statements, Environmental 

protection, Government contracts, 

Investigations, Mineral royalties, Oil 

and gas development and production, 

Oil and gas exploration, Oil and gas 

reserves, Penalties, Pipelines, Public 

lands-mineral resources, Public landsrights-of-way, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur 

development and production, Sulphur 

exploration, Surety bonds. 

30 CFR Part 256 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Continental shelf, 

Environmental protection, Government 

contracts, Intergovernmental relations, 

Minerals Management Service, Oil and 

gas exploration, Public lands-mineral 

resources, Public lands-rights-of-way, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Surety bonds.

Dated: August 5, 2005. 

Chad Calvert, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and 

Minerals Management.

n For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

the Minerals Management Service 

(MMS) amends 30 CFR parts 250 and 256 

as follows:

PART 250—OIL AND GAS AND 

SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE 

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF

n 1. Revise the authority citation for part 

250 to read as follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq., 31 U.S.C. 

9701.

n 2. In 30 CFR part 250, subpart A, add 

a new § 250.125 and add a new 

undesignated center heading preceding 

the new § 250.125 to read as follows:

Subpart A—General

* * * * *

Fees

§ 250.125 Service fees. 

(a) The table in this paragraph (a) 

shows the fees that you must pay to 

MMS for the services listed. The fees 

will be adjusted periodically according 

to the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross 

Domestic Product by publication of a 

document in the Federal Register. If a 

significant adjustment is needed to 

arrive at the new actual cost for any 

reason other than inflation, then a 

proposed rule containing the new fees 

will be published in the Federal 

Register for comment.

SERVICE FEE TABLE

[Effective September 26, 2005] 

Service Fee 

amount 30 CFR citation 

(1) Change In Designation of Operator ..................................................................................................................... $150 § 250.143 

(2) Suspension of Operations/Suspension of Production (SOO/SOP) Request ...................................................... 1,800 § 250.171 

(3) Pipeline Right-of-Way (ROW) Grant Application ................................................................................................. 2,350 § 250.1015 

(4) Pipeline Conversion of Lease Term to ROW ...................................................................................................... 200 § 250.1015 

(5) Pipeline ROW Assignment ................................................................................................................................... 170 § 250.1018 

(6) 500 feet from Lease/Unit Line Production Request ............................................................................................ 3,300 § 250.1101 

49876 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

SERVICE FEE TABLE—Continued

[Effective September 26, 2005] 

Service Fee 

amount 30 CFR citation 

(7) Gas Cap Production Request .............................................................................................................................. 4,200 § 250.1101 

(8) Downhole Commingling Request ......................................................................................................................... 4,900 § 250.1106 

(9) Voluntary Unitization Proposal or Unit Expansion ............................................................................................... 10,700 § 250.1303 

(10) Unitization Revision ............................................................................................................................................ 760 § 250.1303 

(b) Once a fee is paid, it is 

nonrefundable, even if an application or 

other request is withdrawn. If your 

application is returned to you as 

incomplete, you are not required to 

submit a new fee with the amended 

application.

n 3. In § 250.143, add a new paragraph 

(d) to read as follows:

§ 250.143 How do I designate an operator?

* * * * *

(d) If you change the designated 

operator on your lease, you must pay 

the service fee listed in § 250.125 of this 

subpart with your request for a change 

in designation of operator. Should there 

be multiple lessees, all designation of 

operator forms must be collected by one 

lessee and submitted to MMS in a single 

submittal, which is subject to only one 

filing fee.

n 4. Revise § 250.171 to read as follows:

§ 250.171 How do I request a suspension? 

You must submit your request for a 

suspension to the Regional Supervisor, 

and MMS must receive the request 

before the end of the lease term (i.e., end 

of primary term, end of the 180-day 

period following the last leaseholding 

operation, and end of a current 

suspension). Your request must include: 

(a) The justification for the 

suspension including the length of 

suspension requested; 

(b) A reasonable schedule of work 

leading to the commencement or 

restoration of the suspended activity; 

(c) A statement that a well has been 

drilled on the lease and determined to 

be producible according to §§ 250.115, 

250.116, or 250.1603 (SOP only); 

(d) A commitment to production (SOP 

only); and 

(e) The service fee listed in § 250.125 

of this subpart.

n 5. In § 250.1015, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows:

§ 250.1015 Applications for pipeline rightof-way grants. 

(a) You must submit an original and 

three copies of an application for a new 

or modified pipeline ROW grant to the 

Regional Supervisor. The application 

must address those items required by 

§ 250.1007(a) or (b) of this subpart, as 

applicable. It must also state the 

primary purpose for which you will use 

the ROW grant. If the ROW has been 

used before the application is made, the 

application must state the date such use 

began, by whom, and the date the 

applicant obtained control of the 

improvement. When you file your 

application, you must pay the rental 

required under § 250.1012 of this 

subpart, as well as the service fees listed 

in § 250.125 of this part for a pipeline 

ROW grant to install a new pipeline, or 

to convert an existing lease term 

pipeline into a ROW pipeline. An 

application to modify an approved ROW 

grant must be accompanied by the 

additional rental required under 

§ 250.1012 if applicable. You must file 

a separate application for each ROW.

* * * * *

n 6. In § 250.1018, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows:

§ 250.1018 Assignment of pipeline right-ofway grants.

* * * * *

(b) Any application for approval for 

an assignment, in whole or in part, of 

any right, title, or interest in a right-ofway grant must be accompanied by the 

same showing of qualifications of the 

assignees as is required of an applicant 

for a ROW in § 250.1015 of this subpart 

and must be supported by a statement 

that the assignee agrees to comply with 

and to be bound by the terms and 

conditions of the ROW grant. The 

assignee must satisfy the bonding 

requirements in § 250.1011 of this 

subpart. No transfer will be recognized 

unless and until it is first approved, in 

writing, by the Regional Supervisor. The 

assignee must pay the service fee listed 

in § 250.125 of this part for a pipeline 

ROW assignment request.

n 7. In § 250.1101, add a new paragraph 

(f) to read as follows:

§ 250.1101 General requirements and 

classification of reservoirs.

* * * * *

(f) The lessee must pay the service fee 

listed in § 250.125 of this part with its 

request for either a 500 feet from lease/

unit line production interval or to 

produce from a completion in an 

associated gas cap of a sensitive 

reservoir under this section.

n 8. In § 250.1106, add a new paragraph 

(d) to read as follows:

§ 250.1106 Downhole commingling.

* * * * *

(d) The applicant must pay the service 

fee listed in § 250.125 of this part with 

its request for downhole commingling.

n 9. In § 250.1303, add a new paragraph 

(d) to read as follows:

§ 250.1303 How do I apply for voluntary 

unitization?

* * * * *

(d) You must pay the service fee listed 

in § 250.125 of this part with your 

request for a voluntary unitization 

proposal or the expansion of a 

previously approved voluntary unit to 

include additional acreage. 

Additionally, you must pay the service 

fee listed in § 250.125 with your request 

for unitization revision.

PART 256—LEASING OF SULPHUR OR 

OIL AND GAS IN THE OUTER 

CONTINENTAL SHELF

n 10. Revise the authority citation for 

part 256 to read as follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 

6213, 31 U.S.C. 9701.

n 11. Add a new § 256.63 to read as 

follows:

§ 256. 63 Service fees. 

(a) The table in this paragraph (a) 

shows the fees that you must pay to 

MMS for the services listed. The fees 

will be adjusted periodically according 

to the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross 

Domestic Product by publication of a 

document in the Federal Register. If a 

significant adjustment is needed to 

arrive at the new actual cost for any 

reason other than inflation, then a 

proposed rule containing the new fees 

will be published in the Federal 

Register for comment.

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 164 / Thursday, August 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 49877

SERVICE FEE TABLE

[Effective September 26, 2005] 

Service Fee 

amount 30 CFR citation 

(1) Record Title/Operating Rights (Transfer) ............................................................................................................. $170 § 256.64 

(2) Non-required Document Filing ............................................................................................................................. 25 § 256.64 

(b) Once a fee is paid, it is 

nonrefundable, even if an application or 

other request is withdrawn. If your 

application is returned to you as 

incomplete, you are not required to 

submit a new fee with the amended 

application.

n 12. In § 256.64, revise paragraph (a)(8) 

to read as follows:

§ 256.64 How to file transfers.

* * * * *

(a) * * * 

(8) You must pay the service fee listed 

in § 256.63 of this subpart with your 

application for approval of any 

instrument of transfer you are required 

to file (Record Title/Operating Rights 

(Transfer) Fee). Where multiple 

transfers of interest are included in a 

single instrument, a separate fee applies 

to each individual transfer of interest. 

For any document you are not required 

to file by these regulations but which 

you submit for record purposes per 

lease affected, you must also pay the 

service fee listed in § 256.63 (Nonrequired Document Filing Fee). Such 

documents may be rejected at the 

discretion of the authorized officer.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–16854 Filed 8–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD08–05–025] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Mississippi River, Rock Island, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

temporarily changing the regulation 

governing the Rock Island Railroad & 

Highway Drawbridge, across the Upper 

Mississippi River at Mile 482.9, at Rock 

Island, Illinois. The drawbridge need 

not open for river traffic and may 

remain in the closed-to-navigation 

position from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. on 

September 25, 2005. This rule allows 

the drawbridge be maintained in the 

closed-to-navigation position to allow 

the annually scheduled running of a 

foot race as part of a local community 

event.

DATES: This rule is effective 8 a.m. to 11 

a.m., September 25, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, are part of 

this docket (CGD08–05–025) and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

room 2.107f in the Robert A. Young 

Federal Building, Eighth Coast Guard 

District, 1222 Spruce Street, Saint Louis, 

MO 63103, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Commander (obr), Eighth 

Coast Guard District, maintains the 

public docket for this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge 

Administrator, (314) 539–3900, 

extension 2378.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory History 

On June 2, 2005, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled Drawbridge Operation 

Regulation; Mississippi River, Iowa and 

Illinois in the Federal Register (70 FR 

32276). We received no comment letters 

on the proposed rule. No public meeting 

was requested, and none was held. 

Background and Purpose 

On March 29, 2005, the Department of 

the Army, Rock Island Arsenal, 

requested a temporary change to the 

operation of the Rock Island Railroad & 

Highway Drawbridge, across the Upper 

Mississippi River, Mile 482.9, at Rock 

Island, Illinois to allow the drawbridge 

to remain in the closed-to-navigation 

position for a three hour period while a 

foot race is held in the city of 

Davenport, IA. The drawbridge has a 

vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above 

normal pool in the closed-to-navigation 

position. Navigation on the waterway 

consists primarily of commercial tows 

and recreational watercraft that will be 

minimally impacted by the limited 

closure period of three hours. Presently, 

the draw opens on signal for the passage 

of river traffic. The Rock Island Arsenal 

requested the drawbridge be permitted 

to remain closed-to-navigation from 8 

a.m. until 11 a.m. on Sunday, 

September 25, 2005. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

The Coast Guard received no 

comment letters. No changes will be 

made to this temporary rule. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). 

The Coast Guard expects that this 

temporary change to operation of the 

Rock Island Railroad & Highway 

Drawbridge will have minimal 

economic impact on commercial traffic 

operating on the Upper Mississippi 

River. This temporary change has been 

written in such a manner as to allow for 

minimal interruption of the 

drawbridge’s regular operation. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

121), we want to assist small entities in