Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 65611

royalty-owners indicates a consistent

belief that oil posted prices may not

represent market value. And, while

posted prices historically were

presumed to represent actual prices

offered for a particular crude oil,

postings no longer necessarily represent

an offer to buy at that price.

Revising the benchmark system in the

regulations could remove some of the

current heavy reliance on posted oil

prices and provide MMS more

flexibility in determining proper royalty

value.

MMS is soliciting comments on the

continued applicability of oil posted

prices as a fair and reasonable indicator

of royalty value. Specifically, MMS

seeks input on how oil marketing takes

place today and whether and how oil

posted prices typically factor into oil

sales/purchases/exchanges.

MMS invites specific comments on

various aspects of posted prices as

applied to crude oil sales and royalty

value for Federal and Indian leases,

including the option of separate oil

valuation regulations for Indian leases.

MMS would like examples

demonstrating whether crude oil price

postings form the true basis for oil

values in given fields or areas—and, to

the extent possible, nationwide. And, if

the commenter feels postings don’t

reflect market value for the field or area,

MMS would like specific suggested

alternative royalty valuation

methodologies for oil not sold under

arm’s-length conditions. That is, if

postings don’t reflect market value and

because the existing benchmarks for oil

not sold under arm’s-length conditions

rely heavily on posted prices, what are

some suggested alternative valuation

benchmarks? For example:

• Are there indices or other published

prices that better reflect actual market

value than oil postings?

• Where prices posted by individual

companies differ considerably within

the same field or area, how are these

differences best reconciled?

• Are there fixed ‘‘reference’’ prices

against which quality, transportation,

and other adjustments can be made to

develop reasonable royalty values (e.g.,

West Texas Intermediate)?

• Are spot prices of sufficient

reliability and do they cover wide

enough geographic areas to use as value

bases?

• Do oil ‘‘futures’’ prices provide

meaningful bases for royalty valuation?

• What alternative valuation

method(s) best balance the needs to (a)

reflect the market value of the oil as

sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed

of; and (b) maximize administrative

efficiency for all concerned? (Please

consider the amount of information

needed by the lessee and MMS, and the

overall administrative costs of all

parties.)

For royalty valuation involving arm’slength transactions, MMS generally

accepts the contractual terms, which

may include postings. MMS further

requests comments on whether the use

of alternative methods for valuing oil

not sold under arm’s-length conditions

would impact the acceptability of

posted prices for valuing oil sold at

arm’s-length.

(b) Quantifying ‘‘Significant Quantities’’

of Oil

The current MMS royalty valuation

benchmarks for oil not sold under

arm’s-length contract rely on

‘‘significant quantity’’ determinations.

Under the benchmarks, the lessee’s or

others’ posted or contract prices used in

arm’s-length purchases or sales of

‘‘significant quantities’’ of like-quality

oil from the same field or area establish

royalty value. The first applicable of the

five benchmarks is to be used, and the

first four rely on ‘‘significant quantity’’

determinations. For example, if the

lessee sells ‘‘significant quantities’’ of its

field production at arm’s-length, the

arm’s-length contract sales price may

apply to the lessee’s other, internallytransferred crude oil from the same

field. But the existing regulations

contain no fixed definition of

‘‘significant quantities,’’ either on an

absolute or relative basis. Thus, MMS

would like comments on the best ways

to determine what constitutes

‘‘significant quantities.’’ For example:

• Is there an absolute volume

measure (barrels per day/month/year,

etc.) that would allow MMS to

determine whether specific arm’s-length

sales involve ‘‘significant quantities’’? If

so, should this volume vary by field or

area?

• Is there a fixed percentage of field

or area production that MMS can use as

a comparison basis to determine

whether specific arm’s-length sales

represent ‘‘significant quantities’’?

• What should be the comparative

basis for ‘‘significant quantity’’

determinations? Should individual

arm’s-length transactions be related to

all field production, or should some

volumes such as internal company

transfers of production or exchanges or

buy/sell exchanges with other oil

companies first be excluded from field

production?

• Are there measures other than

‘‘significant quantities’’ that may better

apply given alternative valuation

scenarios?

In providing comments on (a) and (b)

above, please consider not only current

oil marketing practices, but also any

changes that may be foreseen. MMS

intends for any oil valuation rule

changes to be flexible enough to

accommodate future oil marketing

changes as much as possible to avoid

ongoing rule modification.

In addition to comments on (a) and (b)

above, MMS would like comments on

the process to use and make potential

changes to the oil valuation rules.

Specifically, MMS would like

comments on whether any oil valuation

regulatory changes should be subject to

negotiated rulemaking procedures or

other consensual mechanisms for

developing regulations.

Dated: December 8, 1995.

Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals

Management.

[FR Doc. 95–30767 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 914

[IN–110, Amendment Number 93–7, Part II]

Indiana Permanent Regulatory

Program Amendment

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

public comment period.

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of

additional changes to an amendment

previously submitted by Indiana as a

modification to the State’s permanent

regulatory program (hereinafter referred

to as the Indiana program) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The

changes add new language concerning

minor field revisions to the second of

three subparts of the original

amendment. The changes are intended

to incorporate language desired by the

State.

This notice sets forth the times and

locations that the Indiana program and

the proposed amendment to that

program will be available for public

inspection, the comment period during

which interested persons may submit

written comments on the proposed

amendment, and the procedures that

will be followed for a public hearing, if

one is requested.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before 4:00 p.m. on
65612 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

January 4, 1996; if requested, a public

hearing on the proposed amendment is

scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on January 3,

1996; and requests to present oral

testimony at the hearing must be

received on or before 4:00 p.m. on

January 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

requests to testify at the hearing should

be directed to Mr. Roger W. Calhoun,

Director, Indianapolis Field Office, at

the address listed below. If a hearing is

requested, it will be held at the same

address.

Copies of the Indiana program, the

amendment, a listing of any scheduled

public meetings, and all written

comments received in response to this

notice will be available for public

review at the following locations, during

normal business hours, Monday through

Friday, excluding holidays:

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement, Indianapolis Field

Office, Minton-Capehart Federal

Building, 575 North Pennsylvania

Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, IN

46204. Telephone: (317) 226–6166.

Indiana Department of Natural

Resources, 402 West Washington

Street, Room 295, Indianapolis, IN

46204. Telephone: (317) 232–1547.

Each requester may receive, free of

charge, one copy of the proposed

amendment by contacting the OSM

Indianapolis Field Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Telephone

(317) 226–6166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Indiana Program

On July 29, 1982, the Indiana program

was made effective by the conditional

approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

Information pertinent to the general

background on the Indiana program,

including the Secretary’s findings, the

disposition of comments, and a detailed

explanation of the conditions of

approval of the Indiana program can be

found in the July 26, 1982, Federal

Register (47 FR 32107). Subsequent

actions concerning the conditions of

approval and program amendments are

identified at 30 CFR 914.10, 914.15, and

914.16.

II. Discussion of the Proposed

Amendments

Since July 29, 1982, (the date of

conditional approval of the Indiana

program), a number of changes have

been made to the Federal regulations

concerning surface coal mining and

reclamation operations. Pursuant to the

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17,

OSM informed Indiana on May 22, 1985

(Regulatory Reform I), on August 24,

1988 (Regulatory Reform II), and on

September 20, 1989 (Regulatory Reform

III), that a number of Indiana regulations

are less effective than or inconsistent

with the revised Federal requirements.

By letter dated December 30, 1993

(Administrative Record No. IND–1322),

the Indiana Department of Natural

Resources (IDNR) submitted to OSM a

State program amendment package

(number 93–7) consisting of revisions to

38 sections of the Indiana rules. These

revisions address changes to the Indiana

program that were identified in the

three letters referred to above, and

certain required program amendments.

The State has also proposed additional

changes which Indiana believes will

further improve the approved State

program. The primary focus of the

submittal is on soil capability and

restoration standards, individual civil

penalties, significant/non-significant

revisions, coal exploration, and

performance bonds.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the January 24,

1994, Federal Register (59 FR 3528),

and, in the same notice, opened the

public comment period and provided

opportunity for a public hearing on the

adequacy of the proposed amendment.

The comment period closed on February

24, 1994.

By letter dated December 6, 1995

(Administrative Record Number IND–

1415), Indiana submitted additional

minor changes to amendment 93–7.

By letter dated January 12, 1995

(Administrative Record Number IND–

1423), OSM provided Indiana with

comments concerning the proposed

amendment. Indiana responded by letter

dated January 25, 1995 (Administrative

Record Number IND–1419). In that

letter, Indiana said that it wishes to

separate amendment 93–7 into three

subparts. OSM approved the

amendments contained in subpart I on

November 9, 1995 (60 FR 56516).

By letter dated May 5, 1995

(Administrative Record Number IND–

1462), Indiana submitted additional

minor changes to subpart II of

amendment 93–7, and added a new

subparagraph at 301 IAC 12–3–121(d)

concerning minor field revisions.

Indiana proposes to add the following

language.

310 IAC 12–3–121(d).

If the director determines on a caseby-case basis or by policy guidelines

that the conditions of paragraph (c) of

this section are met and that the

proposed change does not require

technical review or design analysis, the

proposed change may be approved as a

minor field revision by the field

inspector in the inspection report or on

a form signed in the field. Minor field

revisions must be properly documented

and separately filed and may include,

but are not necessarily limited to, the

following:

(1) Soil stockpile locations and

configurations.

(2) As-built pond certifications.

(3) Minor transportation facilities

changes.

(4) Pond depth/shape/orientation.

(5) Temporary drainage control/water

storage areas.

(6) Equipment changes.

(7) Explosive storage areas.

(8) Minor mine management/support

facility locations (not refuse).

(9) Adding United States Soil

Conservation Service conservation

practices.

(10) Methods of erosion protection on

diversions.

(11) Temporary cessation orders.

(12) Minor diversion location

changes.

III. Public Comment Procedures

In accordance with provisions of 30

CFR 732.17(h), OSM is now seeking

comment on whether the amendment

proposed by Indiana satisfies the

requirements of 30 CFR 732.15 for the

approval of State program amendments.

If the amendment is deemed adequate,

it will become part of the Indiana

program.

Written Comments

Written comments should be specific,

pertain only to issues proposed in this

rulemaking, and include explanations in

support of the commenter’s

recommendations. Comments received

after the time indicated under DATES or

at locations other than the Indianapolis

Field Office will not necessarily be

considered in the final rulemaking or

included in the Administrative Record.

Public Hearing

Persons wishing to comment at the

public hearing should contact the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT by the close of

business on January 2, 1996. If no one

requests an opportunity to comment at

a public hearing, the hearing will not be

held.

Filing of a written statement at the

time of the hearing is requested as it

will greatly assist the transcriber.

Submission of written statements in

advance of the hearing will allow OSM

officials to prepare adequate responses

and appropriate questions.

The public hearing will continue on

the specified date until all persons

scheduled to comment have been heard.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 65613

Persons in the audience who have not

been scheduled to comment and who

wish to do so will be heard following

those scheduled. The hearing will end

after all persons who desire to comment

have been heard.

Public Meeting

If only one person requests an

opportunity to comment at a hearing, a

public meeting, rather than a public

hearing, may be held. Persons wishing

to meet with OSM representatives to

discuss the proposed amendment may

request a meeting at the Indianapolis

Field Office by contacting the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. All such meetings will be

open to the public and, if possible,

notices of meetings will be posted in

advance at the locations listed above

under ADDRESSES. A summary of the

meeting will be included in the

Administrative Record.

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule is exempted from

review by the Office of Management and

Budget under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12778

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12778 and

has determined that, to the extent

allowed by law, this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each such program is drafted and

promulgated by a specific State, not by

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and

30 CFR 730.11, 732.15 and

732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed

State regulatory programs and program

amendments submitted by the States

must be based solely on a determination

of whether the submittal is consistent

with SMCRA and its implementing

Federal regulations and whether the

other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730,

731, and 732 have been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA [30 U.S.C. 1292(d)]

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Hence, this rule will ensure that existing

requirements previously promulgated

by OSM will be implemented by the

State. In making the determination as to

whether this rule would have a

significant economic impact, the

Department relied upon the data and

assumptions for the counterpart Federal

regulations.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: December 12, 1995.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 95–30948 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05–95–065]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Nacote Creek, New Jersey

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: At the request of the New

Jersey Department of Transportation

(NJDOT), the Coast Guard is proposing

to change the regulations governing

operation of the Route 9 Bridge across

Nacote Creek, mile 1.5, in Smithville,

Atlantic County, New Jersey. This

proposal would require the Route 9

Bridge to open on signal except during

the period from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., when

a two-hour advance notice for openings

would be required. This change should

help relieve the bridge owner of the

burden of having a bridgetender

constantly available at times when there

are few or no quests for openings, while

still proving for the needs of navigation.

DATE: Comments must be received on or

before February 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District,

c/o Commander (obr), First Coast Guard

District, Bldg. 135A, Governors Island,

New York 10004–5073, or may be handdelivered to the same address between

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is (212) 668–7170.

Comments will become part of this

docket and will be available for

inspection and copying at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

Kassof, Bridge Administrator-NY, Fifth

Coast Guard District, (212) 668–6969.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting written views,

comments, data, or arguments. Persons

submitting comments should include

their names and addresses, identify this

rulemaking (CGD05–95–065), the

specific section of this rule to which

each comment applies, and give reasons

for each comment. The Coast Guard

requests that all comments and

attachments be submitted in an

unbound format suitable for copying

and electronic filing. If that is not

practical, a second copy of any bound

material is requested. Persons wanting

acknowledgment of receipt of comments

should enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period. It may change this rule in view

of the comments.

The Coast Guard plans no public

hearing. Persons may request a public

hearing by writing to the Commander,

Fifth Coast Guard District, c/o

Commander (obr), First Coast Guard

District at the address listed under

ADDRESSES. The request should include

reasons why a hearing would be

beneficial. If it determines that the

opportunity for oral presentations will

aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard

will hold a public hearing at a time and

place announced by a later notice in the

Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in

drafting this document are Mr. J. Arca,

Fifth Coast Guard District, Bridge