Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 1995 / Notices 19771

applying the 3-Bid Rule to wildcat tracts

only.

In Phase 2 of the two-phased bid

adequacy procedures, the MMS estimate

of tract value is averaged (geometrically)

with the bids submitted. If the high bid

exceeds the ‘‘average’’ bid, it is

accepted. This averaging rule is applied

to wildcat and confirmed tracts

receiving two bids and to drainage and

development tracts receiving three or

more bids.

The three options currently being

considered for Phase 2 procedures

include replacing the geometric average

with the median of the MMS tract value

estimate and a lower percentile

parameter as the number of bids on the

tract increases, replacing the geometric

average with an arithmetic average in

the GOM Region and with the median

elsewhere, and eliminating the

geometric average with no replacement.

Whether or not changes are made in

its bid adequacy procedures, the MMS

is likely to adopt or retain at least one

criterion incorporating market

information provided by bids. In the

past, changes in bid adequacy

procedures have applied uniformly to

all OCS lease sales, regardless of the

planning area.

Should a decision be made to change

the status quo, a notice to prospective

bidders would be published in the

Federal Register, and a discussion of

the changes would be included in the

appropriate Notice of Sale.

Specific Information Requested

The MMS would like any information

that would help it, in the face of

changing conditions, to continue to

fulfill its obligation under the OCS

Lands Act to assure the receipt of fair

market value for oil and gas leases.

Given the high return on rejected bids,

what changes if any might be

appropriate in current bid adequacy

procedures? Are there options not

identified above that MMS should

consider?

Request for Comments

Specific kinds of comments are

requested at the end of each of the five

groups of policy options identified

immediately above. In general, it would

be helpful to the MMS for respondents

to focus on the extent to which the

options would help to achieve the

objectives stated in this Call for

Comment.

The MMS also requests any

information indicating that certain

options may have the potential for

important negative consequences or

would be less effective or less efficient

than other actions under MMS control.

In addition to comments on the

workability and possible effectiveness of

individual options, the MMS would

appreciate any suggestions for

combinations of policies that might be

superior to any individual options in

achieving the stated objectives.

Respondents should not limit

themselves to addressing the questions

in this Call for Comment and should

feel free to respond through the

workshop, through written comments,

or both. None of the policies discussed

in this Call for Comment, with the

exception of publishing the Indicated

Hydrocarbon List, will receive final

approval until after the comment period

has closed and all comments—whether

made at the workshop or submitted in

writing—have been considered fully.

Workshop on Proposed Policy Options

A 2-day workshop to discuss the

options presented in this Call for

Comment will be held in the Gulf of

Mexico region in mid-June 1995. The

most likely site is Houston, with

Metairie, Louisiana, as an alternate, and

the tentative dates are June 14–15. The

dates, exact location, and agenda will be

announced in a Federal Register Notice

later this month.

The first day of the workshop will be

devoted to an overall discussion of the

full set of options in this Call for

Comment. This will include a limited

discussion of the proposed guidelines

for royalty relief on active leases and the

purposes they are designed to achieve.

The second day will be reserved for a

more detailed discussion of how the

proposed guidelines for royalty relief on

active leases would work. All interested

parties are invited to both sessions, but

it would be especially valuable for those

who might write the applications for

royalty relief under the new guidelines

to attend on the second day.

While the workshop is open, free of

charge, to anyone who wishes to attend,

the MMS requests that those wishing to

attend any part of the two-day session

register in advance. Registration

information will be provided in the

upcoming Notice announcing details of

the workshop.

Assuming that a decision is made to

issue specific royalty relief guidelines

after comments have been analyzed, a

training session will be held to explain

the plan for implementation of the final

guidelines.

Timing and Means of Implementation

As mentioned above, the MMS may

issue two Notices of Proposed

Rulemaking to gain more flexibility in

the implementation of existing statutory

authority for royalty rates and the

effective length of lease terms. The

decision to seek additional regulatory

flexibility should not be interpreted as

a decision to implement any particular

policy option.

Most of the other options being

considered could be implemented under

existing authority. If, after considering

the responses to this Call for Comment

and any information gained from the

workshop, a decision is made to change

existing policies, the MMS hopes to

announce in the Federal Register a

package of proposals in time for

implementation in the mid-1996

Western GOM sale (Sale 161) and

subsequent GOM sales. Ideally, any

decisions to change policies toward

active leases would be made at the same

time.

However, the MMS is not committed

to adopting any specific options or to

meeting a specific schedule for

implementation. Regardless of any

preferred timing, the MMS will assure

that it has had adequate opportunity to

hear and consider comments from

industry, States, and other affected

parties prior to any final decisions. In

addition, the MMS will provide affected

parties sufficient time to adjust to the

decisions that eventually come out of

this process.

Cynthia Quarterman,

Director, Minerals Management Service.

[FR Doc. 95–9704 Filed 4–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

COMMISSION

[Finance Docket No. 32682]

RailTex, Inc.—Corporate Family

Transaction Exemption—Georgia and

Alabama Lines, South Carolina Central

Railroad Co., Inc. and Georgia

Southwestern Railroad, Inc.

RailTex, Inc. (RailTex), South

Carolina Central Railroad Co., Inc.

(SCC), and Georgia Southwestern

Railroad, Inc. (GSWR), have filed a

notice of exemption under 49 CFR

1180.2(d)(3) for a corporate family

transaction.

RailTex, a noncarrier corporation,

controls through stock ownership: (1)

SCC, a class III shortline rail carrier; and

(2) GSWR, a noncarrier company.

SCC currently operates about 56 miles

of railroad in South Carolina. SCC also

owns three railroad lines in Georgia and

Alabama: (1) Georgia Southwestern

Division, extending from Rochelle, GA

to Mahrt, AL, and from Columbus to

Bainbridge, GA; (2) Georgia & Alabama

Division, extending from Smithville, GA
19772 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 1995 / Notices

to White Oak, AL; and (3) Georgia Great

Southern Division, extending from

Dawson to Albany, GA. The railroad

lines in Georgia and Alabama are

separately managed as divisions of SCC.

As part of a corporate restructuring,

SCC will transfer to GSWR its interests

in the railroad lines in Georgia and

Alabama. SCC and GSWR will function

as separate corporate entities, with

separate revenue centers, and each will

be managed, administered, directed, and

accounted for separately. The parties

intended to consummate on or about

April 1, 1995.

This is a transaction within a

corporate family of the type specifically

exempted from prior approval under 49

CFR 1180.2(d)(3) because it will not

result in adverse changes in service

levels, significant operational changes,

or a change in the competitive balance

with carriers outside the corporate

family.

As a condition to use of this

exemption, any employees adversely

affected by the transaction will be

protected by the conditions set forth in

New York Dock Ry.—Control—Brooklyn

Eastern Dist., 360 I.C.C. 60 (1979).

Imposition of labor protective

conditions is mandatory for transactions

under 49 U.S.C. 11343.

Petitions to revoke the exemption

under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) may be filed

at any time. The filing of a petition to

revoke will not stay the exemption’s

effectiveness. Pleadings must be filed

with the Commission and served on:

Michael W. Blaszak, 211 South Leitch

Ave., LaGrange, IL 60525.

Decided: April 14, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9781 Filed 4–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Finance Docket No. 32686]

Union County Industrial Railroad

Company—Acquisition and Operation

Exemption—Consolidated Rail

Corporation

Union County Industrial Railroad

Company (Union), a noncarrier, has

filed a verified notice under 49 CFR Part

1150, Subpart D—Exempt Transactions

to acquire and operate a 3.9-mile rail

line, owned by Consolidated Rail

Corporation (Conrail), between milepost

169.7, at or near New Columbia, and

milepost 173.6, at or near Milton, in

Union County, PA. The transaction was

consummated April 4, 1995.

This proceeding is related to Richard

D. Robey—Continuance in Control

Exemption—Union County Industrial

Railroad Company, Finance Docket No.

32686 (Sub-No. 1), wherein Richard D.

Robey has concurrently filed a petition

for exemption to continue to control

Union upon its becoming a rail carrier.

If the verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the

proceeding to revoke the exemption

under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) may be filed

at any time. The filing of a petition to

reopen will not stay the exemption’s

effectiveness. An original and 10 copies

of all pleadings must be filed with the

Commission. In addition, one copy must

be served on Richard R. Wilson, Vuono,

Lavelle & Gray, 2310 Grant Building,

Pittsburgh, PA 15219.

Decided: April 14, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9780 Filed 4–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services; COPS AHEAD and COPS

FAST Grant Programs; Notice

AGENCY: Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services.

ACTION: Notice of final program

guidelines adopting with no changes.

SUMMARY: On January 18, 1995, the

Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services, U.S. Department of Justice

published, for a 45-day public comment

period, interim guidelines to accompany

the COPS AHEAD and COPS FAST

programs (60 FR 3648). The 45-day

period elapsed with one comment

received and the interim guidelines are

adopted as final.

DATES: Final guidelines are effective

April 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charlotte C. Black, Assistant General

Counsel, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, U.S. Department of

Justice, 1100 Vermont Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20005; telephone (202)

514–3750.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number for COPS AHEAD and COPS

FAST is 16.710.

Dated: April 10, 1995.

Joseph E. Brann,

Director.

[FR Doc. 95–9800 Filed 4–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice of Lodging a Final Judgment by

Consent Pursuant to the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA)

Notice is hereby given that on April

10, 1995, a proposed consent decree in

United States v. Edward Azrael, et al.,

Civ. A. No. WN–89–2898, was lodged

with the United States District Court for

the District of Maryland. The complaint

in this action seeks recovery of costs

and injunctive relief under Sections 106

and 107(a) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), as

amended by the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act

of 1986, Pub. L. 99–499, 42 U.S.C. 9606,

9607(a). This action involves the Kane

and Lombard Superfund Site located in

Baltimore, Maryland. Under the

proposed Consent Decree, Edward

Azrael, Harriet Azrael and the Estate of

Cele Landay (the ‘‘Settlors’’) will pay

$375,000.00 to the United States and

$175,000.00 to the State of Maryland

toward reimbursement of past and

future costs incurred by the United

States and the State of Maryland in

performing certain response actions at

the Kane and Lombard Superfund Site.

The Decree also requires the Settlors to

provide to EPA and the State of

Maryland access to the Site at all times

for the performance of further response

actions at the Site. The Decree reserves

the right of the United States to seek

further injunctive relief should the

Settlors fail to meet the requirements of

the Decree and to seek recovery of costs

associated with damage to natural

resources.

The Department of Justice will receive

comments relating to the proposed

consent decree for a period of thirty

days from the date of publication of this

notice. Comments should be addressed

to the Assistant Attorney General of the

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, Department of Justice, P.O.

Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station,

Washington, D.C. 20044, and should

refer to United States v. Edward Azrael,

et al., DOJ Reference No. 90–11–2–299.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney for the District of

Maryland, U.S. Courthouse, Eighth

Floor, 101 W. Lombard Street,

Baltimore, Md. 21201; Region III Office