69118 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

The condom is used for contraceptive 

and for prophylactic purposes 

(preventing transmission of sexually 

transmitted diseases). The device may 

also be used to collect semen to aid in 

the diagnosis of infertility. 

(b) Classification. (1) Class II (special 

controls) for condoms made of materials 

other than natural rubber latex, 

including natural membrane (skin) or 

synthetic. 

(2) Class II (special controls) for 

natural rubber latex condoms. The 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Class II 

Special Controls Guidance Document: 

Labeling for Male Condoms Made of 

Natural Rubber Latex’’ will serve as the 

special control. See § 884.1(e) for the 

availability of this guidance document. 

3. Section 884.5310 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 884.5310 Condom with spermicidal 

lubricant. 

(a) Identification. A condom with 

spermicidal lubricant is a sheath which 

completely covers the penis with a 

closely fitting membrane with a 

lubricant that contains a spermicidal 

agent, nonoxynol–9. This condom is 

used for contraceptive and for 

prophylactic purposes (preventing 

transmission of sexually transmitted 

diseases). 

(b) Classification. (1) Class II (special 

controls) for condoms made of materials 

other than natural rubber latex, 

including natural membrane (skin) or 

synthetic. 

(2) Class II (special controls) for 

natural rubber latex condoms. The 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Class II 

Special Controls Guidance Document: 

Labeling for Male Condoms Made of 

Natural Rubber Latex’’ will serve as the 

special control. See § 884.1(e) for the 

availability of this guidance document. 

Dated: June 21, 2005. 

Jeffrey Shuren, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 05–22611 Filed 11–10–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Minerals Management Service 

30 CFR Parts 250, 251, and 280 

RIN 1010–AD23 

Oil, Gas, and Sulphur Operations and 

Leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS)—Recovery of Costs Related to 

the Regulation of Oil and Gas 

Activities on the OCS 

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service 

(MMS), Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: MMS is proposing regulations 

which impose new fees to process 

certain plans, applications, and permits. 

The proposed service fees would offset 

MMS’s costs of processing these plans, 

applications, and permits. 

DATES: MMS will consider all comments 

received by January 13, 2006. MMS will 

begin reviewing comments and may not 

fully consider comments received after 

January 13, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule by any of the 

following methods listed below. Please 

use the regulatory identifier number 

(RIN) 1010-AD23 as an identifier in your 

message. See also Public Comment 

Procedures under Procedural Matters. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions on the website for 

submitting comments. 

• E-mail MMS at 

rules.comments@mms.gov. Use the RIN 

in the subject line. 

• Fax: 703–787–1546. Identify with 

the RIN. 

• Mail or hand-carry comments to the 

Department of the Interior; Minerals 

Management Service; Attention: Rules 

Processing Team (RPT); 381 Elden 

Street, MS–4024; Herndon, Virginia 

20170–4817. Please reference ‘‘Recovery 

of Costs Related to the Regulation of Oil 

and Gas Activities on the OCS–AD23’’

in your comments. 

You may also send comments on the 

information collection aspects of this 

rule directly to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) via: 

OMB e-mail: 

(OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov); mail or 

hand carry to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB Attention: 

Desk Officer for the Department of the 

Interior (1010–AD23) or by fax (202) 

395–6566. Please also send a copy to 

MMS. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martin Heinze, Program Analyst, Office 

of Planning, Budget and International 

Affairs at (703) 787–1010. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Federal agencies are generally 

authorized to recover the costs of 

providing services to non-federal 

entities through the provisions of the 

Independent Offices Appropriation Act 

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

requires implementation through 

rulemaking. There are several policy 

documents that provide MMS guidance 

on the process of charging applicants for 

service costs. The governing language 

concerning cost recovery can be found 

in OMB Circular No. A–25 which states 

in part, ‘‘The provisions of this Circular 

cover all federal activities that convey 

benefits to recipients beyond those 

accruing to the general public. * * * 

When a service (or privilege) provides 

special benefits to an identifiable 

recipient, beyond those that accrue to 

the general public, a charge would be 

imposed (to recover the full costs to the 

Federal Government for providing this 

specific benefit, or the market price). 

* * * The general policy is that user 

charges will be instituted through the 

promulgation of regulations.’’ The 

Department of the Interior (DOI) Manual 

mirrors this policy (330 DM 1.3 A.). 

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 Minerals 

Document Processing’’ (December 5, 

1996). As explained in that Solicitor’s 

Opinion, some costs, such as the costs 

of programmatic environmental studies 

and programmatic environmental 

assessments in support of a general 

agency program are not recoverable 

because they create an ‘‘independent 

public benefit’’ rather than a specific 

benefit to an identifiable recipient. Id. at 

9–10. 

On March 25, 2005, MMS published 

an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal 

Register titled, ‘‘Recovery of Costs 

Related to the Regulation of Oil and Gas 

Activities on the Outer Continental 

Shelf,’’ (70 FR 15246). (The cost 

recovery fees MMS is addressing in this 

proposed rule are for different activities 

than those addressed in the recently 

promulgated final rule issued on August 

25, 2005 (70 FR 49871)). Through the 

ANPR, MMS alerted the public that we 

seek to recover the costs of processing 

certain permits and applications 

through the rulemaking process. MMS 

believes that cost recovery for the MMSprovided service of reviewing and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69119 

approving applications and permits is 

warranted because such service 

provides an identifiable recipient—the 

applicant—with direct benefits beyond 

those received by the general public. 

The ANPR invited comments, 

recommendations, and specific remarks 

on a program of collecting fees for 

reviewing certain plans and permit 

applications such as: 

• Exploration Plans (§ 250.203). 

• Development and Production Plans 

(§ 250.204). 

• Deep Water Operations Plans 

(Notice To Lessees No. 2000–N06). 

• Application for Permit to Drill 

(APD; form MMS–123). 

• Application for Permit to Modify 

(APM; form MMS–124). 

• Application to Remove a Platform 

(required by § 250.1727). 

• Facility Permits (required by 

§ 250.901 for the installation, 

modification, or repair of a platform). 

• Conservation Information 

Documents (Notice to Lessees No. 2000- 

N05). 

• Geological and Geophysical (G&G) 

Permits: Permit for Geophysical 

Exploration for Mineral Resources or 

Scientific Research on the Outer 

Continental Shelf (form MMS–328); 

Permit for Geological Exploration for 

Mineral Resources or Scientific 

Research on the OCS (form MMS–329). 

• Sand and Gravel Permits: Permit for 

Geophysical Prospecting for Mineral 

Resources or Scientific Research on the 

Outer Continental Shelf Related to 

Minerals Other than Oil, Gas, and 

Sulphur (form MMS–135); Permit for 

Geological Prospecting for Mineral 

Resources or Scientific Research on the 

Outer Continental Shelf Related to 

Minerals Other than Oil, Gas, and 

Sulphur (form MMS–136). The ANPR 

also solicited specific comments on the 

following: 

1. Are there other actions for which 

MMS should require fees to recover 

costs from operators? 

2. MMS plans to calculate the fees in 

a manner similar to that used in the 

recently published Cost Recovery Rule 

(RIN 1010–AD16, August 25, 2005, 70 

FR 49871). Are there alternative ways to 

determine fair and equitable fees? 

3. MMS may have large cost 

differences associated with issuing 

permits and reviewing plans in the 

different Regions (Gulf of Mexico, 

Pacific, Alaska); should the fee be 

uniform nationwide or vary by Region? 

Comments on the ANPR 

MMS received nine comment letters 

from industry and the general public. 

Four of the comment letters complained 

that there was insufficient time (30 

days) provided for comment in the 

ANPR. The commenters asked for an 

extension of the comment period that 

ranged from 30–45 days. One 

commenter provided examples of recent 

comment time frames on MMS 

rulemakings that ranged from 30–90 

days, and suggested that future rules 

have a standard comment period of 

either 60 or 90 days. 

An ANPR simply informs the public 

that an agency expects to publish a 

proposed rule. Because the public is 

given another opportunity to comment 

in connection with the proposed rule, 

MMS believes that 30 days is a 

sufficient comment period for an ANPR. 

This proposed rule now being published 

has a 60-day comment period. 

Three comment letters presented 

more extensive views of the offshore oil 

and gas industry. Two letters were from 

individual companies, and one letter 

was from a consortium of eight trade 

organizations that represented 

thousands of companies involved in the 

United States (U.S.) oil and gas 

industry. In general, industry 

respondents stated that the total of lease 

bonuses, rentals and royalty fees paid by 

industry adequately compensate MMS 

and the Federal Government for any 

service provided in the issuance of 

permits. Several commenters pointed to 

the MMS statistics for monies collected 

as proof that the Federal Government 

had been adequately compensated for 

the process of issuing offshore leases as 

well as ‘‘for processing the necessary 

paperwork required by regulations to 

facilitate lessees bringing their leases to 

production.’’

The relevant mineral leasing law (the 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

(OCSLA)), which granted the Secretary 

the authority to issue leases offshore on 

the OCS, was not enacted as a cost 

recovery mechanism. The monies 

collected as bonuses, rentals, and 

royalties under those leases are not 

intended to compensate the government 

for administrative costs. They instead 

reflect the value of the public’s interest 

in the resource and property. 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 payments and rentals) 

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

public’s) property interest in the leased 

minerals. None of these obligations was 

ever intended to compensate the 

government for administrative costs. 

In a related remark, one industry 

commenter asserted that a document 

cited by MMS, OMB Circular No. A–25, 

provides that new user charges should 

not be imposed in cases where other 

revenues from individuals already 

finance the government services 

provided to them. The commenter 

appears to be citing paragraph 7.c. of 

OMB Circular No. A–25, which 

addresses excise taxes. The paragraph 

states that ‘‘[n]ew user charges should 

not be proposed in cases where an 

excise tax currently finances the 

government services that benefit 

specific individuals’’ (giving the 

example of a gasoline tax to finance 

highway construction). Royalties, bonus 

payments, and rentals are not taxes, but 

payments that reflect the value of the 

resources. Reference to this paragraph of 

the OMB Circular is thus inappropriate. 

Several commenters asserted 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’’. They cite 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. 

These comments fail to acknowledge 

that the Independent Officers 

Appropriation Act (IOAA), the statute 

under whose authority MMS is 

promulgating this rule, was enacted in 

1952, and predates the OCSLA and the 

leases issued under the authority of that 

Act. The comments also misinterpret 

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 U.S. The Supreme Court 

in Mobil did not address regulations 

promulgated under authority already 

granted to the Secretary under a statute 

that predated the leases involved. 

Only two commenters responded to 

the MMS list of specific questions. 

These commenters: (1) Did not agree 

69120 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

that MMS should charge the proposed 

fees and, therefore, had no suggestions 

for additional cost recovery; (2) did not 

propose alternative methods for 

determining fees (they did, however, 

recommend that MMS continue efforts 

to improve cost effectiveness and 

provide specific details on how any fees 

are to be determined); and (3) suggested 

that fees be assigned to the different 

regions based on the actual costs in 

those regions. 

Regarding this last suggestion, MMS 

found, first, that the number of plans 

and permits processed in the Pacific and 

Alaska OCS Regions is very small. More 

than 98 percent of the MMS plan and 

permit applications processed are in the 

Gulf of Mexico (GOM) OCS Region. 

Second, MMS found that, due to the 

smaller number of plans in the Pacific 

and Alaska OCS Regions, and the 

controversy often involved with them, 

the processing costs per plan or permit 

in those regions are considerably higher 

than in the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. 

MMS has determined that because of 

the higher expense and the small 

number of plans, applications and 

permits MMS processed in the Pacific 

and Alaska Regions, it is reasonable to 

set as the standard fee for all such 

activities the average cost for the GOM 

OCS Region. This fee structure will 

avoid creating disparity among leases in 

different parts of the country, due to 

unusual conditions in some regions, for 

receiving a similar final determination 

from MMS. 

Regarding the comment that MMS 

should improve its cost and 

effectiveness, MMS will continue in its 

efforts to reduce costs through 

initiatives such as OCS Connect, a 

multi-year initiative to automate major 

business transactions and plan/ 

application/permit reviews, resulting in 

more timely decisions. 

One citizen commented that fees 

should also be recovered on 

applications for lease term pipelines; 

seismic data acquisition; surface comingling of OCS production; and 

applications for departures from 

operational requirements. All but the 

applications for departures have been 

included in the proposed rule. 

Departures were not included because 

departure requests are almost always 

part of another permit application. 

Finally, several commenters believed 

that the fees proposed by the ANPR 

seem contrary to the administration’s 

national energy policy. They maintained 

that every dollar collected by MMS for 

the processing of applications and 

permits is a dollar that would not be 

spent producing energy on the OCS. 

MMS works closely with industry to 

ensure that energy production on the 

OCS will continue to contribute 

significantly to the nation’s energy 

supply. For example, MMS provides 

incentives for industry production of 

offshore oil and gas, such as royalty 

relief for deep-water and deep-gas 

development. The proposed service fees 

would not affect existing incentives and 

would only marginally add to the cost 

of operating offshore. 

Proposed Regulation 

What Type of Fees Does This Proposed 

Rule Propose? 

MMS is proposing fixed fees for 

certain services based on cost recovery 

principles. A fixed fee would remain the 

same for each request of a similar type. 

The fixed fee approach would provide 

objectivity and certainty because each 

applicant’s fees are based on the same 

predetermined fee structure. 

Which MMS Services Would Be Subject 

To a Cost Recovery Fee? 

The following table lists the plan/ 

application/permit requests for which 

we are proposing a cost recovery fee 

under this proposed rule. The table 

includes some additional requests that 

were not included in the ANPR. 

Service: processing of the following . . . Proposed fee 30 CFR citation 

Exploration Plan (EP) ......................................... $3,250 for each surface location ..................... § 250.211(d). 

Development and Production Plan (DPP)/Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD).$3,750 for each well proposed ........................ § 250.241. 

Deepwater Operations Plan ............................... $3,150 .............................................................. § 250.292. 

Conservation Information Document .................. $24,200 ............................................................ § 250.296. 

Application for Permit to Drill (APD; form MMS–

123).

$1,850 Initial applications only, no fee for revisions.§ 250.410(d); § 250.411; § 250.460; § 250.513; 

§ 250.515; § 250.1605; § 250.1617; 

§ 250.1622. 

Application for Permit to Modify (APM; form 

MMS–124).

$110 ................................................................. § 250.460; § 250.465; § 250.513; § 250.515; 

§ 250.613; § 250.615; § 250.1618; 

§ 250.1622; § 250.1704. 

New Facility Production Safety System Application.$4,750 (> 125 components). (Additional fee of 

$12,500 will be charged if MMS deems it 

necessary to visit a facility offshore; and 

$6,500 to visit a facility in a shipyard). 

$1,150 (25–125 components). (Additional 

fee of $7,850 will be charged if MMS 

deems it necessary to visit a facility offshore; and $4,500 to visit a facility in a 

shipyard). $570 (< 25 components).

§ 250.802(e) 

Production Safety System Application—Modification.$530 (> 125 components). $190 (25–125 

components). $80 (< 25 components).

§ 250.802(e). 

Platform Application— Installation—under the 

Platform Verification Program.

$19,900 ............................................................ § 250.905(k). 

Platform Application—Installation—Fixed Structure Under the Platform Approval Program.$2,850 .............................................................. § 250.905(k). 

Platform Application—Installation—Caisson/ 

Well Protector.

$1,450 .............................................................. § 250.905(k). 

Platform Application—Modification ..................... $3,400 .............................................................. § 250.905(k). 

New Pipeline Application—Lease Term ............. $3,100 .............................................................. § 250.1000(b). 

Pipeline Application—Modification (Lease Term) $1,800 .............................................................. § 250.1000(b). 

Pipeline Application—Modification (ROW) ......... $3,650 .............................................................. § 250.1000(b). 

Pipeline Repair Notification ................................ $340 ................................................................. § 250.1008(e). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69121 

Service: processing of the following . . . Proposed fee 30 CFR citation 

Complex Surface Commingling and Measurement Application.$3,550 (see proposed rule text) ...................... § 250.1204(a). 

Simple Surface Commingling and Measurement 

Application.

$1,200 (see proposed rule text) ...................... § 250.1204(a). 

Application to Remove a Platform ...................... $4,100 .............................................................. § 250.1727. 

Application to Decommission a Pipeline (Lease 

Term).

$1,000 .............................................................. § 250.1751 and § 250.1752. 

Application to Decommission a Pipeline (ROW) $1,900 .............................................................. § 250.1751 and § 250.1752. 

Permit for Geological or Geophysical Exploration for Mineral Resources or Scientific Research on the OCS related to oil, gas and 

Sulphur.

$1,900 .............................................................. § 251.5 (form MMS–327). 

Permit for Geological or Geophysical 

Prospecting for Mineral Resources or Scientific Research on the OCS Related to Minerals Other than Oil, Gas, and Sulphur.

$1,900 .............................................................. § 280.12 (form MMS–134). 

How Did MMS Determine the Costs To 

Be Covered By the Proposed Fees and 

What Are the Fee Amounts Based On? 

The cost methodology used in 

developing the fee schedule for the 

proposed rule includes the sum of direct 

costs and indirect costs. Direct costs are 

comprised of the salaries, benefits, 

materials and contracts/equipment 

(including information technology) and 

direct support costs attributed to 

processing each step of a request. 

Steps include receiving, validating 

and entering data, technical and 

administrative review of the plan/ 

application/permit for compliance with 

safety and other regulatory 

requirements, assessing the nature of the 

impact, National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) analysis or Categorical 

Exclusion Reviews (CERs), and site 

visits, if required. 

Indirect costs include centrally paid 

items such as telecommunications, 

space, utilities, security, property 

management, workman’s compensation 

and unemployment compensation, as 

well as bureau support functions such 

as personnel services, finance, 

procurement, and management. The 

indirect rate applied to MMS direct 

costs is 21.5 percent. 

MMS is using a cost estimation 

methodology based on its Activity 

Based Costing (ABC) System. ABC 

provides reasonable managerial 

accounting for costs and provides a 

sound basis for establishing the costs in 

this rule. 

Fiscal Year 2004 was the baseline year 

used for the cost analysis of usersubmitted plans/applications/permits. 

MMS used FY 2004 activity-based 

costing data collected through its 

timekeeping and financial systems. 

Non-labor and labor costs are coded to 

MMS work activities. Each MMS 

employee codes his or her order time to 

work activities as part of payroll 

timekeeping. Examples of MMS work 

activities include: Process Exploration 

Plans, Process Well Permits, and 

Perform NEPA Compliance for 

Development Plans and Permit 

Applications. 

MMS has adjusted the FY 2004 

baseline plan/permit costs by the FY 

2005 New Orleans general schedule 

increase and locality adjustment of 3.26 

percent (salary adjustment for federal 

employees). We incorporated this 

adjustment into the fee schedule. 

Only direct and indirect costs 

incurred in the direct support of 

processing plans/applications/permits 

were included in the cost analysis. Costs 

were determined as follows: 

1. The FY 2004 work activity labor 

costs recorded by each employee 

supporting the plans/applications/ 

permits processes were analyzed along 

with organizational non-labor costs. 

These individual employee and nonlabor cost breakdowns were reviewed by 

the managers responsible for each group 

of employees. The managers verified the 

accuracy of the labor costs and nonlabor costs and made adjustments if 

necessary. Non-labor costs include 

travel, printing, transportation, 

contracts, equipment purchases, data 

backup and operation and maintenance 

(O&M) costs for MMS’ TIMS (Technical 

Information Management System). For 

TIMS costs, MMS determined the 

number of modules or objects in TIMS 

that assist in the review and approval of 

plans/applications/permits and 

compared that number to the total 

number of modules or objects in TIMS. 

We then used this ratio to calculate the 

proportion of TIMS O&M costs included 

in the cost analysis for these fees. IT 

infrastructure (desktop & network), 

O&M and management/administrative 

support costs were determined using the 

ratio of the plan/permit approval 

processes costs to the program’s total 

costs. 

2. Each GOM Region District is 

approximately the same size and has a 

similar workload. District permit work 

activity costs were assigned to different 

types of permits using a weighted 

percentage distribution from the 

activity-based costing system. 

3. MMS indirect costs have been 

allocated to individual plans/ 

applications/permits based on a flat 

bureau-wide indirect cost rate of 21.5 

percent applied to the program’s total 

plan/permit cost. The indirect rate was 

calculated bureau-wide for all MMS cost 

purposes using FY 2004 costs and is 

consistent with the rate charged for 

MMS administrative reimbursable 

agreements. 

This full cost analysis differs slightly 

from the methodology used in the final 

MMS cost recovery rulemaking 

published on August 25, 2005 (70 FR 

49871). MMS completed its second year 

of bureau-wide activity-based-costing at 

the end of FY 2004. MMS evaluated the 

reliability of its FY 2004 data and 

determined that it was reliable (with 

minor adjustments) for cost recovery 

analysis. Since this data was not fully 

available when the recent final rule was 

developed, that rule used employee 

surveys to identify processing costs 

rather than using costs coded to work 

activities. MMS is confident that both 

methodologies produce reliable cost 

data, but since data is now available, 

this proposed rule uses actual work 

activity (ABC) data coded into the MMS 

financial system as the basis for its cost 

analysis. 

MMS is not proposing to recover the 

following costs in this proposed rule: 

1. Operational and Safety Research—

Information derived from this program 

is directly integrated into MMS’s 

offshore operations and is used to make 

decisions pertaining to plans, safety and 

pollution inspections, enforcement 

actions, and training requirements. 

MMS cannot approve plans proposing 

69122 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

the use of new technology without this 

type of evaluation. MMS is examining 

these costs and is not proposing to 

recover these costs at this time. 

2. Regulation Development—MMS 

spends more than $1 million yearly 

developing regulations and guidance for 

the planning and permitting process. 

MMS is examining these costs and is 

not proposing to recover these costs at 

this time. 

3. Work activities funded by the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990—This includes 

research conducted to prevent or 

cleanup oil spills. It also includes the 

work of Regional and District engineers 

whose salaries are paid by funds 

provided to MMS under this Act. These 

costs have already been paid by 

industry through their contributions to 

the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

through a five-cent per barrel fee on 

imported and domestic oil that was 

collected until December 31, 1994. 

How Did MMS Round Fees? 

MMS rounded fees in the following 

manner. Fees calculated to be less than 

$1,000 have been rounded down or up 

to the nearest $10. Fees $1,000–$10,000 

have been rounded down or up to the 

nearest $50. Fees above $10,000 have 

been rounded down or up to the nearest 

$100. 

Would the Proposed Fees Be Adjusted 

for Inflation? 

Yes. Since MMS used current salary 

and expense levels, the cost figures we 

generated reflect current dollars. To 

keep the service fees in line with 

inflation, we propose to adjust the fees 

periodically according to the Implicit 

Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic 

Product (GDP), starting in 2005 dollars. 

This inflation index, as published by the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, is 

generally accepted by economists as the 

most reliable general price index and is 

used by MMS for other inflation 

adjustments. MMS would amend the 

fees by publication in the Federal 

Register. Because we are proposing to 

establish the process for changing fees 

in this rule and the application of that 

process is simply a mathematical 

calculation, new rulemaking would not 

be necessary when adjustments are 

made. MMS would also review our costs 

for administering each type of request 

every 2 years. If MMS decides to amend 

fees based on this analysis, we would do 

so through notice and comment 

rulemaking. 

How would MMS handle the payment of 

fees for denied requests or verbal 

approvals? Would there be any refunds? 

Fees proposed in this rule would be 

non-refundable. However, if a request is 

deemed not complete, an additional fee 

would not be charged for its 

resubmission. Any verbal approvals that 

MMS provides would need to be 

preceded by payment of the applicable 

fee. MMS is currently considering the 

different payment options available, and 

would notify lessees of the available 

payment options via a Notice to Lessees 

or notice in a final rule. 

Are Fixed Fees Appealable? 

No. The amount of a fixed fee would 

not be appealable to the Interior Board 

of Land Appeals because it is set by 

regulation. There is no discretion to 

change it. 

Procedural Matters 

Public Comment Procedures: All 

submissions received must include the 

agency name and Regulatory Identifier 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. 

MMS’s practice is to make comments, 

including names and addresses of 

respondents, available for public 

review. Individual respondents may 

request that we withhold their address 

from the record, which we will honor to 

the extent allowable by law. There may 

be circumstances in which we would 

withhold from the record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by the law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name and/or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. However, we will not 

consider anonymous comments. Except 

for proprietary information, we will 

make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order (E.O.) 12866) 

This proposed rule 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) The proposed rule would not have 

an annual effect of $100 million or more 

on the economy. It would 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 proposed rule would 

establish fees based on cost recovery 

principles. Based on historical filings, 

we project the fees would raise revenue 

by approximately $16.5 million 

annually. 

(2) The proposed rule would not 

create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with 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 proposed rule would not alter 

the budgetary effects of entitlements, 

grants, user fees or loan programs, or the 

rights or obligations of their recipients. 

This change would have no effect on the 

rights of the recipients of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs. The 

fees proposed in this rule are service 

fees based on cost recovery, and not 

user fees. 

(4) This proposed rule would not raise 

novel legal or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Department certifies that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

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

The changes proposed in the rule 

would affect lessees and operators of 

leases and pipeline right-of-way holders 

on the OCS. This includes about 130 

active federal oil and gas lessees and 

115 pipeline rights-of-way holders. 

Small lessees that operate under this 

rule fall under the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

codes 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 proposed 

rule, therefore would affect a substantial 

number of small entities. 

The fees proposed in the rule would 

not have a significant economic effect 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because the fees are small compared to 

normal costs of doing business on the 

OCS. For example, depending on water 

depth and well depth, cost estimates for 

drilling a well range from $5 million to 

$23 million. Thus, the proposed fees, 

ranging from $80 to $24,200, are 

dwarfed by the millions of dollars that 

industry already commits to 

exploration, development, production, 

and transportation. 

MMS conducted an additional 

analysis to study the potential impacts 

of these fees on small entities. MMS 

charted the 2004 production of all 

companies operating on the OCS. Using 

corresponding rolling annual average 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69123 

prices, MMS calculated each company’s 

federal OCS gross revenues. Using TIMS 

(and other databases) 2004 company 

data, plan/application/permit fees were 

calculated and compared with each 

company’s calculated gross revenue. 

The analysis indicates that no company 

would have its offshore revenues 

affected by 0.5 percent or more. 

MMS does not have revenue data for 

most of the 115 pipeline right-of-way 

holders. However, MMS does not expect 

the companies to be significantly 

impacted. 

Additionally, the service fees 

established in the rule would apply in 

a non-discriminating way to both large 

and small firms. Also, applying for 

MMS services provides a benefit to both 

a large and small applicant if the 

applicant decides to operate on the 

OCS. 

Your comments are important. The 

Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were 

established to receive comments from 

small businesses about federal agency 

enforcement actions. The Ombudsman 

will annually evaluate the enforcement 

activities and rate each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on the actions of 

MMS, call 1–888–734–3247. You may 

comment to the Small Business 

Administration 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) 

The proposed rule is not a major rule 

under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). 

This proposed rule: 

(a) Would not have an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more. 

(b) Would not cause a major increase 

in costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, state, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. 

(c) Would 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 proposed 

rule would not change that requirement. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) of 1995 

This proposed rule would not impose 

an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of more than $100 million per year. The 

proposed rule would 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 proposal would not 

affect state, local, or tribal governments, 

and the effect on the private sector is 

small. 

Takings Implication Assessment (TIA) 

(Executive Order 12630) 

The proposed rule is not a 

governmental action capable of 

interference with constitutionally 

protected property rights. Thus, MMS 

did not need to prepare a TIA according 

to E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

With respect to E.O. 13132, this 

proposed rule would not have 

federalism implications. This proposed 

rule would 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 proposed rule would not 

affect that role. 

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 

12988) 

With respect to E.O. 12988, MMS 

finds that this proposed rule would not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

does meet the requirements of sections 

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

consulted with the Department of the 

Interior Office of the Solicitor 

throughout this drafting process. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 

1995 

The proposed rulemaking relates to 30 

CFR part 250, subparts B, D, E, H, I, J, 

L, P, and Q; 30 CFR part 251; and 30 

CFR part 280. The rulemaking affects 

the information collections for these 

regulations but would not change the 

approved burden hours; it would just 

add the associated fees. Therefore, OMB 

has ruled 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. If the rule is finalized, we 

will submit Form OMB 83–C to add the 

fees in each collection. 

OMB has approved the information 

collections for the affected regulations at 

30 CFR part 250, subpart B, 1010–0151; 

subpart D, 1010–0141; subpart E, 1010–

0067, subpart H, 1010–0059; subpart I, 

1010–0149; subpart J, 1010–0050; 

subpart L 1010–0051; subpart P, 1010–

0086, subpart Q, 1010–0142; 30 CFR 

part 251, 1010–0048; and 30 part CFR 

280, 1010–0072. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 

The MMS has determined that this 

rule is administrative and involves only 

procedural 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 proposed 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 action 

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 

(Executive Order 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 proposed rule is not a significant 

energy action, and therefore would 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 Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, as a significant energy action. 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 

13175) 

In accordance with E.O. 13175, this 

proposed rule would 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. MMS invites your 

comments on how to make this 

69124 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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 MMS do to 

make the rule easier to understand? 

Send a copy of any comments that 

concern how MMS 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 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Continental shelf, 

Environmental impact statements, 

Environmental protection, Government 

contracts, Investigations, Oil and gas 

exploration, Penalties, Pipelines, Public 

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

recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur. 

30 CFR Part 251 

Continental shelf, Freedom of 

information, Oil and gas exploration, 

Public lands—mineral resources, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Research. 

30 CFR Part 280 

Continental shelf, Public lands—

mineral resources, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Research. 

Dated: October 24, 2005. 

Chad Calvert, 

Acting Assistant Secretary—Land and 

Minerals Management. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Minerals Management 

Service (MMS) proposes to amend 30 

CFR parts 250, 251, and 280 as follows: 

PART 250—OIL AND GAS AND 

SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE 

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 

1. The authority citation for part 250 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

9701. 

2. In § 250.125, revise the table in 

paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 250.125 Service Fees 

(a) * * * 

SERVICE FEE TABLE

Service—processing of the following: Fee amount 30 CFR citation 

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

Suspension of Operators/Suspension of Production (SOO/SOP) Request.$1,800 .............................................................. § 250.171. 

Exploration Plan (EP) ......................................... $3,250 for each surface location ..................... § 250.211(d). 

Development and Production Plan (DPP) or 

Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD).

$3,750 for each well proposed ........................ § 250.241(e). 

Deepwater Operations Plan ............................... $3,150 .............................................................. § 50.292(p). §250.296(a). 

Conservation Information Document .................. $24,200 ............................................................ § 250.296(a). 

Application for Permit to Drill (APD; form MMS–

123).

$1,850. Initial applications only, no fee for revisions.§ 250.410(d); § 250.411; § 250.460; 

§ 250.513(b); § 250.515; § 250.1605; 

§ 250.1617(a); § 250.1622. 

Application for Permit to Modify (APM; form 

MMS–124).

$110 ................................................................. § 250.460; § 250.465(b); § 250.513(b); 

§ 250.515; § 250.613(b); § 250.615; 

§ 250.1618(a); § 250.1622; § 250.1704(g). 

New Facility Production Safety System Application for facility with more than 125 components.$4,750 (Additional fee of $12,500 will be 

charged if MMS deems it necessary to visit 

a facility offshore; and $6,500 to visit a facility in a shipyard).

§ 250.802(e). 

New Facility Production Safety System Application for facility 25–125 components.$1,150 (Additional fee of $7,850 will be 

charged if MMS deems it necessary to visit 

a facility offshore; and $4,500 to visit a facility in a shipyard).

§ 250.802(e). 

New Facility Production Safety System Application for facility with fewer than 25 components.$570 ................................................................. § 250.802(e). 

Production Safety System Application—Modification with more than 125 components reviewed.$530 ................................................................. § 250.802(e). 

Production Safety System Application—Modification with 25–125 components reviewed.$190 ................................................................. § 250.802(e). 

Production Safety System Application—Modification with fewer than 25 components reviewed.$80 ................................................................... § 250.802(e). 

Platform Application—Installation—under the 

Platform Verification Program.

$19,900 ............................................................ § 250.905(k). 

Platform Application—Installation—Fixed Structure Under the Platform Approval Program.$2,850 .............................................................. § 250.905(k). 

Platform Application—Installation—Caisson/ 

Well Protector.

$1,450 .............................................................. § 250.905(k). 

Platform Application—Modification ..................... $3,400 .............................................................. § 250.905(k). 

New Pipeline Application (Lease Term) ............. $3,100 .............................................................. § 250.1000(b). 

Pipeline Application—Modification (Lease Term) $1,800 .............................................................. § 250.1000(b). 

Pipeline Application—Modification (ROW) ......... $3,650 .............................................................. § 250.1000(b). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69125 

SERVICE FEE TABLE—Continued 

Service—processing of the following: Fee amount 30 CFR citation 

Pipeline Repair Notification ................................ $340 ................................................................. § 250.1008(e). 

Pipeline Right-of-Way (ROW) Grant Application $1,800 .............................................................. § 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. 

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

Complex Surface Commingling and Measurement Application.$3,550 .............................................................. § 250.1204(a). 

Simple Surface Commingling and Measurement 

Application.

$1,200 .............................................................. § 250.1204(a). 

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

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

Application to Remove a Platform or Other Facility.$4,100 .............................................................. § 250.1727. 

Application to Decommission a Pipeline (Lease 

Term).

$1,000 .............................................................. § 250.1751(a) or § 250.1752(a). 

Application to Decommission a Pipeline (ROW) $1,900 .............................................................. § 250.1751(a) or § 250.1752(a). 

(b) Payment of the fees listed in 

paragraph (a) must accompany the 

submission of the document for 

approval. 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. 

3. In § 250.211, add a new paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 250.211 What must the EP include? 

* * * * * 

(d) Service fee. You must include 

payment of the service fee listed in 

§ 250.125. 

4. In § 250.241, add a new paragraph 

(e) to read as follows: 

§ 250.241 What must the DPP or DOCD 

include? 

* * * * * 

(e) Service fee. You must include 

payment of the service fee listed in 

§ 250.125. 

5. In § 250.292, revise paragraphs (n) 

and (o); and add a new paragraph (p) to 

read as follows: 

§ 250.292 What must the DWOP contain? 

(n) A discussion of any new 

technology that affects hydrocarbon 

recovery systems; 

(o) A list of any alternate compliance 

procedures or departures for which you 

anticipate requesting approval; and 

(p) Payment of the service fee listed 

in § 250.125. 

6. In § 250.296, add the following 

sentence at the end of paragraph (a): 

§ 250.296 When and how must I submit a 

CID or a revision to a CID? 

(a) * * * The submission of your CID 

must be accompanied by payment of the 

service fee listed in § 250.125. 

* * * * * 

7. In § 250.410, revise the 

introductory paragraph and paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 250.410 How do I obtain approval to drill 

a well? 

You must obtain written approval 

from the District Manager before you 

begin drilling any well or before you 

sidetrack, bypass, or deepen a well. To 

obtain approval, you must: 

* * * * * 

(d) Submit the following to the 

District Manager: 

(1) An original and two complete 

copies of form MMS–123, Application 

for a Permit to Drill (APD), and form 

MMS–123S, Supplemental APD 

Information Sheet; 

(2) A separate public information 

copy of forms MMS–123 and MMS–

123S that meets the requirements of 

§ 250.127; and 

(3) Payment of the service fee listed in 

§ 250.125. 

8. In § 250.465, revise paragraph (b)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§ 250.465 When must I submit an 

Application for Permit to Modify (APM) or 

an End of Operations Report to MMS? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Your APM (form MMS–124) must 

contain a detailed statement of the 

proposed work that would materially 

change from the approved APD and the 

submission of your APM must be 

accompanied by payment of the service 

fee listed in § 250.125: 

* * * * * 

9. In § 250.513, revise the last 

sentence in paragraph (a); and revise the 

introductory language of paragraph (b) 

and paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) and 

adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 250.513 Approval and reporting of wellcompletion operations. 

(a) * * * If the completion has not 

been approved or if the completion 

objective or plans have significantly 

changed, approval for such operations 

must be requested on Form MMS–124, 

Application for Permit to Modify 

(APM). 

(b) You must submit the following 

with Form MMS–124 (or with Form 

MMS–123; Form MMS–123S): 

* * * * * 

(3) For multiple completions, a partial 

electric log showing the zones proposed 

for completion, if logs have not been 

previously submitted; 

(4) When the well-completion is in a 

zone known to contain H2S or a zone 

where the presence of H2S is unknown, 

information pursuant to § 250.490 of 

this part; and 

(5) Payment of the service fee listed in 

§ 250.125. 

* * * * * 

10. In § 250.613, revise the last 

sentence in paragraph (a) and revise the 

introductory language of paragraph (b) 

and paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) and 

adding (b)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 250.613 Approval and reporting for wellworkover operations. 

(a) * * * Approval for such 

operations must be requested on Form 

69126 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

MMS–124, Application for Permit to 

Modify. 

(b) You must submit the following 

with Form MMS–124: 

* * * * * 

(2) When changes in existing 

subsurface equipment are proposed, a 

schematic drawing of the well showing 

the zone proposed for workover and the 

workover equipment to be used; 

(3) Where the well-workover is in a 

zone known to contain H2S or a zone 

where the presence of H2S is unknown, 

information pursuant to § 250.490 of 

this part; and 

(4) Payment of the service fee listed in 

§ 250.125. 

* * * * * 

11. In § 250.802, add a new paragraph 

(e)(7) to read as follows: 

§ 250.802 Design, installation, and 

operation of surface production safety 

systems. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(7) The service fee listed in § 250.125 

of this part. The fee you must pay will 

be determined by the number of 

components involved in the review and 

approval process. 

12. In § 250.905, revise the 

introductory language and table 

headings add paragraph (k) to the table 

to read as follows: 

§ 250.905 How do I get approval for the 

installation, modification, or repair of my 

platform? 

The Platform Approval Program 

requires that you submit the 

information, documents and fees listed 

in the following table for your proposed 

project. 

Required submittal Required contents Other requirements j 

* * * * * * * 

(k) Payment of the service fee listed in 

§ 250l.125.

13. In § 250.1000, revise paragraph (b) 

to read as follows: 

§ 250.1000 General Requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) An application must be 

accompanied by payment of the service 

fee listed in § 250.125 and submitted to 

the Regional Supervisor and approval 

obtained before: 

(1) Installation, modification or 

abandonment of a lease term pipeline 

(2) Installation or modification of a 

right-of-way (other than lease term) 

pipeline; or 

(3) Modification or relinquishment of 

a pipeline right-of way. 

* * * * * 

14. In § 250.1008, revise paragraph (e) 

to read as follows: 

§ 250.1008 Reports. 

* * * * * 

(e) The lessee or right-of-way holder 

must notify the Regional Supervisor 

before the repair of any pipeline or as 

soon as practicable. Your notification 

must be accompanied by payment of the 

service fee listed in § 250.125. You must 

submit a detailed report of the repair of 

a pipeline or pipeline component to the 

Regional Supervisor within 30 days 

after the completion of the repairs. In 

the report you must include the 

following: 

(1) Description of repairs, 

(2) Results of pressure test, and 

(3) Date returned to service. 

* * * * * 

15. In § 250.1204, revise paragraph 

(a)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 250.1204 Surface commingling. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Submit a written application to, 

and obtain approval from, the Regional 

Supervisor before commencing the 

commingling of production or making 

changes to previously approved 

commingling applications. Your 

application must be accompanied by 

payment of the service fee listed in 

§ 250.125. The service fees are divided 

into two levels for simple applications 

and complex applications. 

Application type Actions 

(i) Simple applications consist of those that update or correct previously 

approved measurement and commingling records such as: 

Lease terminations. 

Well status changes. 

Well name changes. 

Platform removals. 

Application cancellations 

FMP status changes. 

Meter updates. 

Operator changes. 

Meter proving and well test waivers. 

Applications to temporarily reroute production. 

Production tests prior to pipeline construction. 

(ii) Complex applications include applications not categorized as simple 

and entail: 

Creation of a new facility measurement points (FMPs). 

Association of leases or units to existing FMPs. 

Inclusion of production from additional structures. 

Meter updates which add buy-back gas meters or pigging meters. 

Other applications which are deviations from the approved allocation 

procedures. 

* * * * * 

16. In § 250.1617, revise paragraph (a) 

to read as follows: 

§ 250.1617 Application for permit to drill. 

(a) Before drilling a well under an 

approved Exploration Plan, 

Development and Production Plan, or 

Development Operations Coordination 

Document, you must file Form MMS–

123, APD, with the District Manager for 

approval. The submission of your APD 

must be accompanied by payment of the 

service fee listed in § 250.125. Before 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69127 

starting operations, you must receive 

written approval from the District 

Manager unless you received oral 

approval under § 250.140. 

* * * * * 

17. In § 250.1618, revise the section 

heading and paragraph (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 250.1618 Application for Permit to 

Modify. 

(a) You must submit requests for 

changes in plans, changes in major 

drilling equipment, proposals to 

deepen, sidetrack, complete, workover, 

or plug back a well, or engage in similar 

activities to the District Manager on 

Form MMS–124, Application for Permit 

to Modify (APM). The submission of 

your APM must be accompanied by 

payment of the service fee listed in 

§ 250.125. Before starting operations 

associated with the change, you must 

receive written approval from the 

District Manager unless you received 

oral approval under § 250.140. 

* * * * * 

18. In § 250.1704, revise the 

Decommissioning Applications and 

Reports Table to read as follows: 

§ 250.1704 When must I submit 

decommissioning applications and reports? 

* * * * * 

DECOMMISSIONING APPLICATIONS AND REPORTS TABLE

Decommissioning applications and reports When to submit Instructions 

(a) Initial platform removal application [not required in the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region].In the Pacific OCS Region or Alaska OCS 

Region, submit the application to the Regional Supervisor at least 2 years before 

production is projected to cease.

Include information required under 

§ 250.1726. 

(b) Final removal application for a platform or 

other facility.

Before removing a platform or other facility in 

the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, or not 

more than 2 years after the submittal of an 

initial platform removal application to the 

Pacific OCS Region and the Alaska OCS 

Region.

Include information required under 

§ 250.1727. 

(c) Post-removal report for a platform or other 

facility.

Within 30 days after you remove a platform or 

other facility * * *.

Include information required under 

§ 250.1729. 

(d) Pipeline decommissioning application .......... Before you decommission a pipeline * * * ........ Include information required under 

§ 250.1751(a) § 250.1752(a), as applicable. 

(e) Post-pipeline decommissioning report .......... Within 30 days after your decommission a 

pipeline * * *.

Include information required under 

§ 250.1753. 

(f) Site clearance report for a platform or other 

facility.

Within 30 days after you complete site clearance verification activities.Include information required under 

§ 250.1743(b) 

(g) Form MMS–124, Application for Permit to 

Modify (APM). The submission of your APM 

must be accompanied by payment of the 

service fee listed in § 250.125.

(1) Before you temporarily abandon or permanently plug a well or zone.Include information required under 

§§ 250.1712 and 250.1721. 

(2) Within 30 days after you plug a well .......... Include information required under 

§ 250.1717. 

(3) Before you install a subsea protective device.Refer to § 250.1722(a). 

(4) Within 30 days after your complete a protective device trawl test.Include information required under 

250.1722(d). 

(5) Before you remove any casing stub or 

mud line suspension equipment and any 

subsea protective device.

Refer to § 250.1723. 

(6) Within 30 days after you complete site 

clearance verfication activities.

Include information required under 

§ 250.1743(a). 

19. In § 250.1727, revise the 

introductory paragraph to read as 

follows: 

§ 250.1727 What information must I 

include in my final application to remove a 

platform or other facility? 

You must submit to the Regional 

Supervisor, a final application for 

approval to remove a platform or other 

facility. Your application must be 

accompanied by payment of the service 

fee listed in § 250.125. If you are 

proposing to use explosives, provide 

three copies of the application. If you 

are not proposing to use explosives, 

provide two copies of the application. 

Include the following information in the 

final removal application, as applicable: 

* * * * * 

20. In § 250.1751, revise paragraph (a) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 250.1751 How do I decommission a 

pipeline in place? 

* * * * * 

(a) Submit a pipeline 

decommissioning application in 

triplicate to the Regional Supervisor for 

approval. Your application must be 

accompanied by payment of the service 

fee listed in § 250.125. Your application 

must include the following information: 

* * * * * 

21. In § 250.1752, revise the 

introductory text of paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 250.1752 How do I remove a pipeline? 

* * * * * 

(a) Submit a pipeline removal 

application in triplicate to the Regional 

Supervisor for approval. Your 

application must be accompanied by 

payment of the service fee listed in 

§ 250.125. Your application must 

include the following information: 

* * * * * 

69128 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

PART 251—GEOLOGICAL AND 

GEOPHYSICAL (G&G) EXPLORATIONS 

OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 

22. The authority citation for part 251 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

9701. 

23. In § 251.5, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 251.5 Applying for permits or filing 

Notices. 

(a) Permits. You must submit a signed 

original and three copies of the MMS 

permit application form (Form MMS–

327). The form includes names of 

persons, type, location, purpose, and 

dates of activity, and environmental and 

other information. A nonrefundable 

service fee of $ 1,900 must accompany 

your application. The time period for 

extensions is defined on the permit form 

(Form MMS–328 (Geophysical 

Prospecting) or MMS–329 (Geological 

Prospecting)). 

* * * * * 

PART 280—PROSPECTING FOR 

MINERALS OTHER THAN OIL, GAS, 

AND SULPHUR ON THE OUTER 

CONTINENTAL SHELF 

24. The authority citation for part 280 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

4332 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701. 

25. In § 280.12, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 280.12 What must I include in my 

application or notification? 

(a) Permits. You must submit to the 

RD a signed original and three copies of 

the permit application form (form 

MMS–134) at least 30 days before the 

startup date for activities in the permit 

area. If unusual circumstances prevent 

you from meeting this deadline, you 

must immediately contact the RD to 

arrange an acceptable deadline. The 

form includes names of persons, type, 

location, purpose, and dates of activity, 

as well as environmental and other 

information. A nonrefundable service 

fee of $ 1,900 must accompany your 

application. The time period for 

extensions is defined on the permit form 

(Form MMS–135 (Geophysical 

Exploration) or MMS–136 (Geological 

Exploration)). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–22504 Filed 11–10–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD09–05–131] 

RIN 1625–AA11 

Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago 

Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, 

IL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to establish a permanent regulated 

navigation area on the Chicago Sanitary 

and Ship Canal on the Illinois Waterway 

near Romeoville, IL. This permanent 

regulated navigation area will place 

navigational and operational restrictions 

on all vessels transiting through the 

demonstration electrical dispersal 

barrier located on the Chicago Sanitary 

and Ship Canal. This regulated 

navigation area is necessary to protect 

vessels and their crews from harm as a 

result of electrical discharges emitting 

from the electrical dispersal barrier as 

vessels transit over it. 

DATES: Comments and related materials 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

December 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander 

(dpw–1) Ninth Coast Guard District, 

1240 E.9th Street, Room 2069, 

Cleveland, OH 44199. The Ninth Coast 

Guard District Planning and 

Development Section (dpw–1) 

maintains the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, will 

become part of this docket and will be 

available for inspection or copying 

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have further questions on this rule, 

contact CDR K. Phillips, Planning and 

Development Section, Ninth Coast 

Guard District, Cleveland, OH at (216) 

902–6045. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to submit 

comments and related materials. If you 

submit a comment, please include your 

name and address, identify the docket 

number for this rulemaking [CGD09–05–

131], indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. You may submit your 

comments and material by mail (see 

ADDRESSES). If you submit them by mail 

or delivery, submit them in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying and electronic 

filing. If you submit them by mail and 

would like to know that they reached 

the facility, please enclose a stamped, 

self-addressed postcard or envelope. We 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period, 

which may result in a modification to 

the rule. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a public meeting (see ADDRESSES) 

explaining why one would be 

beneficial. If we determine that one 

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold 

one at a time and place announced by 

a later notice in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

On January 7, 2005, the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, in close 

coordination with the U. S. Coast Guard, 

conducted preliminary safety tests on 

the electrical dispersal barrier located at 

Mile Marker 296.5 of the Chicago 

Sanitary and Ship Canal near 

Romeoville, IL. This barrier was 

constructed to prevent Asian Carp from 

entering Lake Michigan through the 

Illinois River system by generating a 

low-voltage electric field across the 

canal. The Coast Guard and Army Corps 

of Engineers conducted field tests to 

ensure the continued safe navigation of 

commercial and recreational traffic 

across the barrier; however, results 

indicated a significant arcing risk and 

hazardous electrical discharges as 

vessels transited the barrier posing a 

significant risk to navigation through 

the barrier. To mitigate these risks, the 

proposed rule would place navigational 

and operational restrictions on all 

vessels transiting through the vicinity. 

On January 26, 2005 a regulated 

navigational area (RNA) was published 

in the Federal Register (70 FR 3625) as 

a temporary final rule. The temporary 

final rule was extended on August 10, 

2005 (70 FR 46407). Testing has 

continued since the regulation was first 

proposed in January 2005, but has not 

yet been completed. Preliminary results 

indicate that further tests and analysis 

are warranted and that this process may 

continue for an undetermined period of 

time. Therefore, the Coast Guard is 

proposing to establish a permanent 

RNA.