Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 72381 

information from a clearing organization 

or from information published by the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)) has 

engaged in a transaction described in 

§ 1.6043–4(c) (acquisition of control) or 

§ 1.6043–4(d) (substantial change in 

capital structure) shall file a return of 

information with respect to the 

customer, unless the customer is an 

exempt recipient as defined in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(b) Exempt recipients. A broker is not 

required to file a return of information 

under this section with respect to the 

following customers: 

(1) Any customer who receives only 

cash in exchange for its stock in the 

corporation, which must be reported by 

the broker pursuant to § 1.6045–1. 

(2) Any customer who is an exempt 

recipient as defined in § 1.6043–4(b)(5) 

or § 1.6045–1(c)(3)(i). 

(c) Form, manner and time for making 

information returns. The return required 

by paragraph (a) of this section must be 

on Forms 1096, ‘‘Annual Summary and 

Transmittal of U.S. Information 

Returns,’’ and 1099–B, ‘‘Proceeds from 

Broker and Barter Exchange 

Transactions,’’ or on an acceptable 

substitute statement. Such forms must 

be filed on or before February 28 (March 

31 if filed electronically) of the year 

following the calendar year in which the 

acquisition of control or the substantial 

change in capital structure occurs. 

(d) Contents of return. A separate 

Form 1099–B must be prepared for each 

customer. The Form 1099–B will 

request information with respect to the 

following and such other information as 

may be specified in the instructions: 

(1) The name, address and taxpayer 

identification number (TIN) of the 

customer; 

(2) The name of the corporation 

which engaged in the transaction 

described in § 1.6043–4(c) or (d); 

(3) The number and class of shares in 

the corporation exchanged by the 

customer; and 

(4) The aggregate amount of cash and 

the fair market value of any stock or 

other property provided to the customer 

in exchange for its stock. 

(e) Furnishing of forms to customers. 

The Form 1099–B prepared for each 

customer must be furnished to the 

customer on or before January 31 of the 

year following the calendar year in 

which the customer receives stock, cash 

or other property. 

(f) Single Form 1099. If a broker is 

required to file a Form 1099-B with 

respect to a customer under §§ 1.6045–

3 and 1.6045–1(c) with respect to the 

same transaction, the broker may satisfy 

the requirements of both sections by 

filing and furnishing one Form 1099–B 

that contains all the relevant 

information, as provided in the 

instructions to Form 1099–B. 

(g) Effective date. This section applies 

with respect to any acquisition of 

control and any substantial change in 

capital structure occurring after 

December 5, 2005. 

§ 1.6045–3T [Removed] 

■ Par. 5. Section 1.6045–3T is removed. 

Mark E. Matthews, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

Approved: November 22, 2005. 

Eric Solomon, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Treasury (Tax Policy). 

[FR Doc. 05–23470 Filed 12–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Minerals Management Service 

30 CFR Part 204 

RIN 1010–AC30 

States’ Decisions on Participating in 

Accounting and Auditing Relief for 

Federal Oil and Gas Marginal 

Properties 

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of states’ decisions to 

participate or not participate in 

accounting and auditing relief for 

Federal oil and gas marginal properties 

located in their state for calendar year 

2006. 

SUMMARY: The Minerals Management 

Service (MMS) published final 

regulations on September 13, 2004 (69 

FR 55076), to provide accounting and 

auditing relief for marginal Federal oil 

and gas properties. The rule requires 

MMS to publish in the Federal Register 

the decisions of the states concerned to 

allow or not to allow one or both forms 

of relief in their state. As required in the 

rule, MMS provided each state receiving 

a portion of the Federal royalties with 

a list of qualifying marginal Federal oil 

and gas properties located in the state so 

that each affected state could decide 

whether to participate in one or both 

relief options. This Notice provides the 

decisions by the respective states 

concerned to allow one or both types of 

relief. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Williams, Manager, Federal 

Onshore Oil and Gas Compliance and 

Asset Management, telephone (303) 

231–3403, FAX (303) 231–3744, e-mail 

to mary.williams@mms.gov, or mail to 

P.O. Box 25165, MS 392B2, Denver 

Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 

80225–0165. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The rule 

implemented certain provisions of 

Section 7 of the Federal Oil and Gas 

Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act 

of 1996 and provides two options for 

relief: (1) Notification-based relief for 

annual reporting, and (2) other 

requested relief, as proposed by 

industry and approved by MMS and the 

state concerned. The rule requires that 

MMS publish by December 1 of each 

year a list of the states and the decisions 

of each state regarding marginal 

property relief. 

To qualify for the first option of relief 

(notification-based relief) for calendar 

year 2006, properties must have 

produced less than 1,000 barrels-of-oilequivalent (BOE) per year for the base 

period (July 1, 2004–June 30, 2005). 

Annual reporting relief will begin on 

January 1, 2006, with the annual report 

and payment due February 28, 2007 

(unless an estimated payment is on file, 

which will move the due date to March 

31, 2007). To qualify for the second 

option of relief (other requested relief), 

properties must have produced less than 

15 BOE per well per day for the base 

period. 

The following table shows the states 

that have marginal properties, where a 

portion of the royalties are shared 

between the state and MMS, and the 

states’ decisions whether to allow one or 

both forms of relief. 

State Notification-based relief (less than 

1,000 BOE per year) 

Request-based relief (less than 15 

BOE per well per day) 

Alabama .................................................................................................. No .................................................. No. 

Arkansas .................................................................................................. Yes ................................................. Yes. 

California ................................................................................................. No .................................................. No. 

Colorado .................................................................................................. Yes ................................................. Yes. 

Kansas ..................................................................................................... Yes ................................................. No. 

72382 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

State Notification-based relief (less than 

1,000 BOE per year) 

Request-based relief (less than 15 

BOE per well per day) 

Louisiana ................................................................................................. Yes ................................................. Yes. 

Michigan .................................................................................................. Yes ................................................. No. 

Montana ................................................................................................... Yes ................................................. No. 

Nevada .................................................................................................... No .................................................. No. 

New Mexico ............................................................................................. No .................................................. No. 

North Dakota ........................................................................................... No .................................................. No. 

Oklahoma ................................................................................................ No .................................................. No. 

South Dakota ........................................................................................... No .................................................. No. 

Utah ......................................................................................................... No .................................................. No. 

Wyoming .................................................................................................. Yes ................................................. No. 

Federal oil and gas properties located 

in all other states are eligible for relief 

if they qualify as marginal properties 

under the rule and if no portion of the 

royalties derived from the property is 

shared with the state. 

For information on how to obtain 

relief, please refer to the rule, which can 

be viewed on the MMS Web site at 

http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/ 

FRNotices/AC30.htm. 

All correspondence, records, or 

information received in response to this 

Notice are subject to disclosure under 

the Freedom of Information Act. All 

information provided will be made 

public unless the respondent identifies 

which portions are proprietary. Please 

highlight the proprietary portions, 

including any supporting 

documentation, or mark the page(s) that 

contain proprietary data. Proprietary 

information is protected by the Federal 

Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 

1982 (30 U.S.C. 1733), the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)), the 

Indian Mineral Development Act of 

1982 (25 U.S.C. 2103), and Department 

regulations (43 CFR part 2). 

Dated: November 16, 2005. 

Lucy Querques Denett, 

Associate Director for Minerals Revenue 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 05–23621 Filed 12–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Parts 234 and 236 

[Docket No. FRA–2001–10160] 

RIN 2130–AA94 

Standards for Development and Use of 

Processor-Based Signal and Train 

Control Systems; Clarification and 

Correcting Amendments 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; clarification and 

correcting amendments. 

SUMMARY: FRA is clarifying preamble 

language and correcting rule text 

language in FRA’s Standards for 

Development and Use of ProcessorBased Signal and Train Control 

Systems, a final rule published on 

March 7, 2005 (PTC Rule). First, some 

language in the section-by-section 

analysis portion of the preamble to the 

PTC Rule inadvertently differs from the 

actual regulatory language, and FRA is 

noting the unintended variation to avoid 

confusion. Second, FRA is clarifying 

language regarding the applicability of 

new 49 CFR part 236, subpart H (the 

Processor-Based Standards) to highwayrail grade crossing warning systems 

(HGCWS). FRA wants to ensure that the 

rule language conforms with FRA’s 

initial intent that the regulation apply to 

only certain HGCWS. Therefore, FRA is 

adding a provision to clarify which 

HGCWS products may be excluded from 

the requirements of the PTC Rule. FRA 

is also adding a provision to clarify that 

certain HGCWS products excluded from 

the requirements of the Processor-Based 

Standards may, at the option of the 

railroad, be made subject to the 

Processor-Based Standards. Third, FRA 

is adding a provision to clarify which 

HGCWS products shall be included in 

the software management control plans 

pursuant to 49 CFR 236.18. Finally, FRA 

is correcting a minor error in which a 

provision of the Processor-Based 

Standards was incorrectly cited. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 4, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

McFarlin, Staff Director, Signal and 

Train Control Division, Office of Safety, 

FRA 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail 

Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone: 202–493–6203); or Melissa 

Porter, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief 

Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont, NW., Mail 

Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone: 202–493–6034). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

7, 2005, FRA published the PTC Rule, 

which establishes performance-based 

standards for the development and use 

of processor-based signal and train 

control systems. 70 FR 11052. Since the 

publication of the PTC Rule, FRA has 

determined that certain provisions need 

clarification or correction. First, FRA 

notes that some incorrect terms and an 

incorrect date were included in the 

section-by-section analysis portion of 

the preamble, all of which differ from 

the actual regulatory text. FRA is 

correcting the errors to prevent 

misinterpretations. Second, in 49 CFR 

234.275, ‘‘Processor-Based Systems,’’

FRA is clarifying the category of 

HGCWS to which it intended portions 

of the PTC Rule to apply. (All references 

in this final rule to a section or other 

provision are references to a section or 

other provision in title 49 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations, unless otherwise 

noted). FRA is correcting that section to 

include a provision to exclude certain 

HGCWS products from the requirements 

of the PTC Rule, as the agency similarly 

did for signal and train control system 

products in § 236.911. FRA is further 

correcting § 234.275 to make it explicit 

that a railroad has the right to qualify an 

excluded product and make it subject to 

the Processor-Based Standards. Third, 

FRA is clarifying what HGCWS should 

be included in a railroad’s software 

management control plan, pursuant to 

§ 236.18. Finally, FRA is correcting an 

erroneous section reference in 

§ 236.913(c)(1). The section referenced 

does not exist. FRA more specifically 

discusses these issues in the ‘‘Sectionby-Section Analysis’’ below. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

1a. Preamble Language for § 236.18, 

‘‘Software Management Control [Plan]’’

In the section-by-section analysis of 

§ 236.18, FRA referred to the correct 

term ‘‘software management control 

plan’’ variously as ‘‘software 

management control’’ and ‘‘software 

management plan.’’ FRA notes that 

‘‘software management control’’ and 

‘‘software management plan’’ are