Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71421 

[FR Doc. 05–23404 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–C 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Minerals Management Service 

30 CFR Part 205 

RIN 1010–AC29 

Reporting and Paying Royalties on 

Federal Leases on Takes or 

Entitlements Basis 

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service 

(MMS), Interior. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking and announcement of 

public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The MMS requests comments 

and suggestions to assist us in proposing 

regulations regarding so-called ‘‘takes 

versus entitlements’’ reporting and 

payment of royalties when oil and gas 

production is commingled upstream of 

the point of royalty measurement. See 

IV, Description of Information 

Requested, for details. 

DATES: You must submit your comments 

by January 30, 2006. A public meeting 

will be held on December 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Please use the regulation 

identifier number (RIN), RIN 1010–

AC29, in all your correspondence. 

Submit your comments, suggestions, or 

objections regarding the advanced 

notice of the proposed rulemaking by 

any of the following methods: 

By regular U.S. mail. Minerals 

Management Service, Minerals Revenue 

Management, P.O. Box 25165, MS 

302B2, Denver, Colorado 80225–0165; 

By overnight mail, courier, or handdelivery. Minerals Management Service, 

Minerals Revenue Management, 

Building 85, Room A–614, Denver 

Federal Center, West 6th Avenue and 

Kipling Blvd., Denver, Colorado 80225; 

or 

By e-mail. mrm.comments@mms.gov. 

Please submit Internet comments as an 

ASCII file and avoid the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption. 

Also, please include ‘‘Attn: RIN 1010–

AC29’’ and your name and return 


EP29no05.000</GPH>
71422 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

address in your Internet message. If you 

do not receive a confirmation that we 

have received your Internet message, 

call the contact person listed below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharron L. Gebhardt, Lead Regulatory 

Specialist, Minerals Management 

Service, Minerals Revenue Management, 

P.O. Box 25165, MS 302B2, Denver, 

Colorado 80225–0165, telephone (303) 

231–3211, FAX (303) 231–3781, or email Sharron.Gebhardt@mms.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Dates Information 

The MMS may not necessarily 

consider or include in the 

Administrative Record, for any 

proposed rule, comments that MMS 

receives after the close of the comment 

period or comments delivered to an 

address other than those listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this document. 

II. Public Meeting Information 

The MMS will hold a public meeting 

to allow the public an opportunity to 

comment on how MMS should 

implement the royalty reporting and 

payment provision at section 6(d) of the 

Federal Oil and Gas Royalty 

Simplification and Fairness Act (RSFA). 

The meeting will be held in Houston, 

Texas, on the following date at the 

following specified time and location: 

Wednesday, December 14, 2005, from 9 

a.m.–1 p.m. central time, in the San 

Antonio Room located on the second 

floor of the Sheraton North Houston 

Hotel, located at 15700 John F. Kennedy 

Blvd, Houston, Texas 77032. For further 

information, please contact Roman A. 

Geissel at (303) 231–3226. 

III. Public Comment and Meeting 

Procedures 

A. Written Comment Procedures 

We are particularly interested in 

receiving comments and suggestions 

about the topics identified in IV, 

Description of Information Requested. 

Your written comments should: (1) Be 

specific; (2) explain the reason for your 

comments and suggestions; (3) address 

the issues outlined in this notice; and 

(4) where possible, if you refer to the 

specific provision, section, or paragraph 

of statutory law, case law, or existing 

regulations, please cite that provision. 

The comments and recommendations 

that are most useful and have greater 

likelihood of influencing decisions on 

the content of a possible future 

proposed rule are: (1) Comments and 

recommendations supported by 

quantitative information or studies; and/ 

or (2) comments that include citations 

to, and analyses of, the applicable laws 

and regulations. 

B. Public Meeting Procedures 

At the public meeting, those attending 

will be able to comment on the scope, 

proposed action, and possible 

alternatives the MMS should consider. 

The purpose of the meeting is to gather 

comments and input from a variety of 

stakeholders and the public. 

If you do not wish to speak at the 

meeting but you have views, questions, 

or concerns with regard to the MMS’s 

implementation of section 6(d) of RSFA, 

Public Law 104–185, Aug. 13, 1996, 110 

Stat 1700, 1713–1714, as corrected by 

Public Law 104–200, Sept. 22, 1996, 

codified at 30 U.S.C. 1721(k), entitled 

‘‘Volume Allocations of Oil and Gas 

Production,’’ you may submit written 

statements at the meeting for inclusion 

in the public record. You may also 

submit written comments and 

suggestions regardless of whether you 

attend or speak at the public meeting. 

See the ADDRESSES section of this 

document for instructions on submitting 

written comments. 

The site for the public meeting is 

accessible to individuals with physical 

impairments. If you need a special 

accommodation to participate in the 

meeting (e.g., interpretive service, 

assistive listening device, or materials in 

alternative format), please notify Lonnie 

Kimball at (281) 987–6800, no later than 

2 weeks prior to the scheduled meeting. 

Although we will make every effort to 

accommodate requests received, it may 

not be possible to satisfy every request. 

C. Public Comment Policy 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

at our Denver office during regular 

business hours and on our Web site at 

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

FRNotices/FRHome.htm, or on request 

to Sharron Gephardt at (303) 231–3211. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their individual home 

address from the rulemaking record, 

which we will honor to the extent 

allowable by law. There also may be 

circumstances in which we would 

withhold from the rulemaking record a 

respondent’s identity, as allowable by 

law. If you wish us to withhold your 

name and/or address, you must state 

this prominently at the beginning of 

your comments. However, we will not 

consider anonymous comments. 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. 

IV. Description of Information 

Requested 

On August 13, 1996, the President 

signed RSFA into law. Section 6(d) of 

RSFA, entitled, ‘‘Volume Allocations of 

Oil and Gas Production,’’ amended 

section 111 of the Federal Oil and Gas 

Royalty Management Act of 1982 

(FOGRMA), Public Law 97–451—Jan. 

12, 1983 (30 U.S.C. 1721), by adding 

new paragraphs (k)(1)–(5). The proposed 

rulemaking would implement RSFA 

amendments to FOGRMA section 

111(k)(1)–(4). 

Congress enacted these amendments 

to clarify and resolve the long-standing 

issues regarding so-called ‘‘takes versus 

entitlements.’’ Those issues arose 

primarily where the amount of natural 

gas taken (‘‘takes’’) and sold by a lessee 

from Federal leases subject to a unit or 

communitization agreement was not 

equal to the lessee’s entitled share 

(‘‘entitlements’’), based on its ownership 

interest in leases in the unit or 

communitization agreement. These 

imbalances led to numerous questions 

about who should report and pay on 

what volumes and for what leases. 

To obtain input from parties affected 

by RSFA amendments to FOGRMA 

section 111(k)(1)–(4), MMS formed a 

consultation team comprised of 

representatives from interested states, 

oil and gas trade associations, and 

MMS. The consultation team held 

meetings on October 30, November 19, 

and December 6, 1996. The meetings 

resulted in general agreement on 

definitions, the reporting requirements 

for 100-percent Federal units and 

communitization agreements, the 

definition of a ‘‘marginal property,’’ and 

how a marginal property reporting 

exception would be determined. 

Subsequent to those meetings, in the 

process of trying to develop a proposed 

rule implementing RSFA amendments 

to FOGRMA section 111(k)(1)–(4), an 

issue arose regarding the commingling 

of oil and gas production from multiple 

properties upstream of the point of 

royalty measurement. For purposes of 

this discussion: 

• A ‘‘property’’ is defined as a lease, 

unit, or communitization agreement. 

• A ‘‘100-percent Federal unit or 

communitization agreement’’ means any 

unit or communitization agreement that 

contains only Federal leases having the 

same fixed royalty rate and funds 

distribution. 

• A ‘‘unit’’ means a unit participating 

area, enhanced recovery unit, or fieldwide unit. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71423 

• A ‘‘mixed unit or communitization 

agreement’’ means any unit or 

communitization agreement other than 

100-percent Federal unit or 

communitization agreement. These are 

unit or communitization agreements 

that contain any mixture of Federal, 

Indian, state or private mineral estates, 

or that contain all Federal leases with 

different royalty rates (fixed or variable) 

or different funds distribution. 

• A ‘‘stand-alone lease’’ means a lease 

or a portion of a lease that is not in a 

unit or communitization agreement. 

The RSFA cldarly identifies when it 

is appropriate to initially report and pay 

on a ‘‘takes’’ or ‘‘entitlements’’ basis for 

production from leases, units or 

communization agreements that is not 

commingled with production from other 

properties before the royalty 

measurement point. For instance: 

• When taking production from a 

100-percent Federal unit or 

communitization agreement, the 

lessee(s) must pay on actual takes (30 

U.S.C. 1721(K)(1)(A)), or 

• When taking production from a 

mixed Federal unit or communitization 

agreement, the Federal lessee(s) must 

pay on entitlements (30 U.S.C. 

1721(k)(1)(B)), or 

• When taking production from a 

stand-alone Federal lease, the lessee(s) 

must pay on takes (30 U.S.C. 

1721(k)(1)(C)). 

It is important to note that, while 

RSFA section 6(d) amended FOGRMA 

by adding section 111(k)(1), which 

addressed the reporting and payment 

requirements, the addition of section 

111(k)(2) went on to clarify that the 

requirements outlined in section 

111(k)(1) ‘‘apply only to requirements 

for reporting and paying royalties. 

Nothing in this subsection is intended 

to alter a lessee’s liability for royalties 

on oil or gas production allocated to 

lease, in accordance with the terms of 

the lease, a unit or communitization 

agreement, or any other agreement.’’

Thus, the lessee’s ultimate liability to 

pay royalties on its entitled share of 

production is not changed. 

Commingling adds additional 

complications to the issue of how to 

report and pay royalties. Not only do 

imbalances between operating rights 

owners within a property occur, but 

imbalances between properties also are 

commonplace. 

Commingling is the combining of 

production from multiple properties 

before measurement for royalty 

purposes and requires approval of the 

MMS Offshore Minerals Management 

program for offshore leases or the 

Bureau of Land Management for 

onshore leases. The commingling 

approval identifies where the volume is 

measured by royalty purposes and how 

that volume must be allocated to each 

property that is subject to the 

commingling approval. It does not affect 

how volume is allocated to leases 

within a unit or communitization 

agreement. Commingling can be, and 

often is, approved between properties 

with the same royalty rate and funds 

distribution and between properties 

with different royalty rates or different 

funds distributions. 

The RSFA provision added to 

FOGRMA at 30 U.S.C. 1721(k)(1)–(5) 

does not address the effect of 

commingling or commingling 

imbalances. Commingling complicates 

reporting requirements because there is 

an impact on royalty payments when 

there are properties with mixed royalty 

rates or funds distribution upstream of 

the approved commingling point. For 

example, assume that production from 

two stand-alone Federal leases that are 

not unitized or communitized, each 

with a different royalty rate, is 

commingled before the royalty 

measurement point. Assume that each 

lease receives a 50 percent allocation of 

the total measure production (1,000 

Mcf) under the commingling approval. 

The lessee of the lease with a 162⁄3

percent royalty rate actually sells (takes) 

750 Mcf of gas and the lessee of the 

lease with the 121⁄2 percent royalty rate 

actually sells (takes) 250 Mcf of gas. 

Based on the commingling approval, the 

leases are out of balance. The 

commingling approval determines the 

volume deemed to have been removed 

or sold from each lease upon which the 

lessees ultimately must pay royalty. 

Should each lessee pay royalties on its 

actual sales (takes), the Federal 

Government initially would be paid 

more than the royalty ultimately owed. 

If the sales were reversed, the Federal 

Government initially would be paid on 

less than the royalty ultimately owed. 

RSFA prescribes how lessees should 

initially report and pay royalty on 

production removed or sold from a lease 

or unit or communitization agreement. 

The commingling approval determines 

the volume removed or sold from the 

leases or unit or communitization 

agreements subject to the commingling 

approval. RSFA was silent on the effect 

of commingling approvals. We are 

asking for your input on several 

questions regarding RSFA’s application 

to production subject to a commingling 

approval before the royalty 

measurement point. Those questions 

include the following: 

(1) Should lessees of a lease or a 100- 

percent Federal unit or 

communitization agreement report and 

pay initially on their takes in a situation 

where production from that lease or unit 

or communitization agreement is 

commingled with other production 

upstream of the royalty measurement 

point: 

(2) RSFA requires that Federal lessees 

in mixed unit or communitization 

agreements report royalties on an 

entitlement basis, regardless of whether 

the unit or communitization agreement 

is subject to a commingling approval. 

Should MMS treat a commingling 

approval as the equivalent of a unit or 

communitization agreement and apply 

the RSFA reporting and payment 

provisions on that basis? For example, 

if all properties measured at the 

commingling point are 100 percent 

Federal leases or units or 

communitization agreements with the 

same fixed royalty rate and funds 

distribution, then payments could be 

made on takes. If one or more of the 

properties measured at or after the 

commingling point have different 

royalty rates (fixed or variable, different 

funds distribution, or are not 100 

percent Federal, all lessees would pay 

on entitlements. 

The three examples presented below 

illustrate some alternative 

methodologies to apply the provisions 

of RSFA to situations where production 

is commingled before royalty 

measurement. For each example, 

assume there is a stand-alone Federal 

lease with two lessees (lessee A and 

lessee B, each of whom owns 50 percent 

of the working interest), a 100-percent 

Federal unit or communitization 

agreement with two lessees (with lessee 

C owning 75 percent of the combined 

working interest in the two leases, and 

lessee D owning the remaining 25 

percent), and a state lease, all of which 

are subject to a commingling approval. 

(For simplicity, assume that all of the 

Federal leases have the same royalty 

rate.) Additionally, assume that for each 

example, the total commingled 

production allocated to the properties is 

100,000 Mcf of gas. Further assume that, 

for the month shown in the examples, 

the stand-alone Federal lease and the 

state lease are each allocated 25 percent 

of the commingled production under 

the commingling approval, and that the 

Federal unit or communitization 

agreement is allocated 50 percent. 

Further, assume that lessee A takes and 

sells 20,000 Mcf of gas. Assume that 

lessee B has no takes. Assume that 

lessee C takes and sells 30,000 Mcf of 

gas while lessee D takes and sells 23,000 

Mcf of gas. Assume that the lessee of the 

state lease takes and sells 27,000 Mcf of 

gas. In each example, lessee ownership 

percentages and liability remain the 

71424 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

same, but the volume on which royalty 

initially must be paid varies depending 

on the methology used. (The numbers 

used in the following examples are 

rounded to the nearest whole number.) 

EXAMPLE 1—‘‘PURE TAKES’’ REPORTING AND PAYING

Property 

Allocated volume per commingling approval 

(Mcf) 

Lessee Ownership 

percentage 

Entitled share 

of allocated 

volume 

(Mcf) 

Sales by lessees 

(Mcf) 

Volume on 

which royalty 

paid to MMS 

(Takes) 

(Mcf) 

Federal Lease (2 lessees) ............................... 25,000 A ............ 50 12,500 20,000 20,000 

B ............ 50 12,500 0 0 

100-percent Federal Unit or Communitization 

Agreement (2 lessees).

50,000 C ............

D ............

75 

25 

37,500 

12,500 

30,000 

23,000 

30,000 

23,000 

State Lease ...................................................... 25,000 ................ ........................ 25,000 27,000 0

Totals ........................................................ 100,000 ................ ........................ 100,000 100,000 73,000 

By using a pure takes methodology, 

the volume deemed sold and removed 

from each lease and the unit or 

communitization agreement as 

determined under the commingling 

approval is not properly accounted for. 

Under this methodology, MMS could be 

paid on a volume either greater than or 

less than that on which the lessees 

ultimately owe royalty because the takes 

on which the Federal lessees reported 

and paid royalty would not always 

equal the volume on which royalty is 

due under the commingling approval. In 

this example, the MMS would be paid 

royalty on 2,000 Mcf less than the 

volume on which the Federal lessees 

ultimately owe royalty because under 

the commingling approval the Federal 

lessees owe royalty on 75,000 Mcf and 

on a pure takes basis, the Federal lessees 

only paid on 73,000 Mcf. Therefore, 

adopting this methodology presumably 

would require each royalty reporter to 

adjust royalty payments (at least on an 

annual basis) to its entitled volume 

(equal to its ownership percentage times 

the volume allocated to its lease or unit 

or communitization agreement under 

the commingling approval). 

EXAMPLE 2.—‘‘PURE ENTITLEMENTS’’ REPORTING AND PAYING

Property 

Allocated volume per commingling approval 

(Mcf) 

Lessee Ownership 

percentage 

Entitled share 

of allocated 

volume 

(Mcf) 

Sales by lessee 

(Mcf) 

Volume on 

which royalty 

paid to MMS 

(entitlements) 

(Mcf) 

Federal Lease (2 lessees) ............................... 25,000 A ............ 50 12,500 20,000 12,500 

B ............ 50 12,500 0 12,500 

100-percent Federal Unit or Communitization 

Agreement (2 lessees).

50,000 C ............

D ............

75 

25 

37,500 

12,500 

30,000 

23,000 

37,500 

12,500 

State Lease ...................................................... 25,000 ................ ........................ 25,000 27,00 0 

Totals ........................................................ 100,000 ................ ........................ 100,000 100,000 75,000 

Reporting on a ‘‘pure entitlements’’

basis that the Federal government is 

made whole with respect to royalties, 

but would not allow for initial reporting 

and payment based on takes if 

production is commingled before the 

royalty measurement point. Under this 

methodology, MMS would be made 

whole each month because lessees 

would report and pay on their entitled 

volume each month, even if a particular 

lessee (lessee B in this example) took no 

production. Therefore, an adjustment to 

the entitled volume, as discussed above 

for Example 1, would not be necessary. 

EXAMPLE 3.—‘‘PROPORTIONATE TAKES’’ REPORTING AND PAYING

Property 

Allocated volume per commingling approval 

(Mcf) 

Lessee Ownership 

percentage 

Entitled share 

of allocated 

volume 

(Mcf) 

Sales by lessee 

(Mcf) 

Volume on 

which royalty 

paid to MMS 

(proportionate 

takes) 

(Mcf) 

Federal Lease (2 lessees) ............................... 25,000 A ............ 50 12,500 20,000 25,000 

B ............ 50 12,500 0 0 

100-percent Federal Unit or Communitization 

Agreement (2 lessees).

50,000 C ............

D ............

75 

25 

37,500 

12,500 

30,000 

23,000 

28,302 

21,698 

State Lease ...................................................... 25,000 ................ ........................ 25,000 27,000 0

Totals ........................................................ 100,000 ................ ........................ 100,000 100,000 75,000 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71425 

This methodology would combine 

takes and entitlements by requiring 

lessees to report and pay on volumes 

equal to the sales by the lessee divided 

by the total sales for the property times 

the allocated volume under the 

commingling approval for the property. 

Consider lessees C and D: In this 

example, lessee C would report and pay 

on 28,302 Mcf, even though it actually 

took 30,000 Mcf, and its entitled volume 

is 37,500 Mcf. The 28,302 Mcf is 

computed as follows: 

(30,000 Mcf/53,000 Mcf) × 50,000 Mcf 

= 28,302 Mcf for lessee C, where 53,000 

Mcf (total sales for the property) is the 

sum of 30,000 Mcf (lessee C’s total sales) 

and 23,000 Mcf (lessee D’s total sales), 

and 50,000 Mcf is the allocated volume 

under the commingling approval for the 

property. Lessee D’s initial reporting 

and payment would be computed 

similarly. 

Considering lessees A and B: If a 

lessee took no production (lessee B in 

this example), it would not have to pay 

any royalty. However, a lessee (lessee A 

in this example) could pay royalty on a 

volume greater than either its actual 

takes or its entitled share. Under this 

methodology, MMS would be made 

whole each month because it would 

receive royalty based on the total 

Federal production subject to the 

commingling approval each month. 

Therefore, an adjustment to the entitled 

volume, as discussed above for Example 

1, would not be necessary. In Example 

3, lessees would have to adjust their 

payments among themselves. 

As explained above, in instances 

where a lessee pays on ‘‘Pure 

Entitlements’’ such as Example 2, or 

‘‘Proportionate Takes’’ such as Example 

3, the lessee may take production that 

is more or less than its entitled share. In 

that case, a lessee would need to value 

its entitled share. The MMS believes 

that the best means of valuing the 

entitled share is to apply a volume 

weighted average of the royalty values 

of the volumes actually taken to the 

entitled shared volumes. The MMS 

requests comments on any other 

alternatives for valuing such volumes. 

In addition, MMS is interested in 

receiving comments on these three 

Examples which describe alternative 

methodologies. The MMS is also 

interested in receiving comments on any 

other alternative methodologies. If you 

propose a methodology different from 

those discussed above, please use our 

example criteria and explain why you 

believe your methodology is the best 

alternative. In addition, MMS would 

like your input on how the various 

methodologies would affect your 

business practices, bookkeeping, etc. 

Dated: November 14, 2005. 

R.M. ‘‘Johnnie’’ Burton, 

Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 05–23380 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 925 

[Docket No. MO–038–FOR] 

Missouri Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment 

period and opportunity for public 

hearing on proposed amendment. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), are announcing receipt of a 

proposed amendment to the Missouri 

regulatory program (Missouri program) 

under the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the 

Act). Missouri intends to revise its 

program to improve operational 

efficiency. 

Currently, we are substituting direct 

Federal enforcement for portions of the 

Missouri program. With the substitution 

of Federal enforcement authority, we 

outlined a process by which Missouri 

could regain full authority for its 

program. As part of this process, 

Missouri proposes to amend its 

approved regulatory program and 

submitted a temporary emergency 

regulatory program rule (emergency 

rule). The purpose of the emergency 

rule is to revise Missouri’s regulations 

regarding bonding of surface coal 

mining and reclamation operations to 

allow Missouri to transition from a 

‘‘bond pool’’ approach to a ‘‘full cost 

bond’’ approach. We are announcing 

receipt of the emergency rule in this 

rulemaking. Missouri has indicated that, 

in the near future, it will submit a 

permanent regulatory program rule 

(permanent rule) regarding its bonding 

regulations and that this rule will 

contain regulatory language that is 

substantially identical to the language in 

this emergency rule. If we approve the 

emergency rule and Missouri submits 

the permanent rule with language that 

has the same meaning as the emergency 

rule, we will publish a final rule and the 

permanent rule will become part of the 

Missouri program. 

This document gives the times and 

locations that the Missouri program and 

proposed amendment to that program 

are available for your inspection, the 

comment period during which you may 

submit written comments on the 

amendment, and the procedures that we 

will follow for the public hearing, if one 

is requested. 

DATES: We will accept written 

comments on this amendment until 4 

p.m., c.t., December 29, 2005. If 

requested, we will hold a public hearing 

on the amendment on December 27, 

2005. We will accept requests to speak 

at a hearing until 4 p.m., c.t. on 

December 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. MO–038–FOR, 

by any of the following methods: 

• E-mail: IFOMAIL@osmre.gov. 

Include Docket No. MO–038–FOR in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Andrew R. 

Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field Division, 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement, 501 Belle Street, 

Alton, Illinois 62002. 

• Fax: (618) 463–6470 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ heading 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

review copies of the Missouri program, 

this amendment, and all written 

comments received in response to this 

document, you must go to the address 

listed below during normal business 

hours, Monday through Friday, 

excluding holidays. You may receive 

one free copy of the amendment by 

contacting OSM’s Alton Field Division. 

Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field 

Division, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, 501 Belle 

Street, Alton, Illinois 62002, Telephone: 

(618) 463–6460, E-mail: 

IFOMAIL@osmre.gov. 

In addition, you may review a copy of 

the amendment during regular business 

hours at the following location: 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, Land Reclamation Program, 

205 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 176, 

Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, 

Telephone: (573) 751–4041. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field 

Division. Telephone: (618) 463–6460. Email: IFOMAIL@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: