25160 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules

(b) The refusal of a witness at any

such hearing to answer any question

which has been ruled to be proper shall,

in the discretion of the administrative

law judge or hearing officer, be ground

for striking all testimony previously

given by such witness on related

matters.

(c) Notwithstanding any action taken

under paragraph (a) of this section,

misconduct including unprofessional or

improper behavior by an attorney or

party representative before the Agency,

including but not limited to such

misconduct at any hearing, shall be

ground for appropriate discipline

including suspension and/or disbarment

from practice before the Agency and/or

other sanctions.

(d) Allegations of misconduct

pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section,

except for those involving the conduct

of Agency employees, shall be handled

in accordance with the following

procedures:

(1) Allegations that an attorney or

party representative has engaged in

misconduct may be brought to the

attention of the Investigating Officer by

any person. The Investigating Officer,

for purposes of this paragraph, shall be

the Associate General Counsel, Division

of Operations-Management, or his/her

designee.

(2) The Investigating Officer or his/her

designee shall conduct such

investigation as he/she deems

appropriate. Following an investigation,

the Investigating Officer shall make a

recommendation to the General

Counsel, who shall make the

determination whether to institute

disciplinary proceedings against the

attorney or party representative. If the

General Counsel determines not to

institute disciplinary proceedings, all

interested persons shall be notified of

the determination, which shall be final.

(3) If the General Counsel decides to

institute disciplinary proceedings

against the attorney or party

representative, the General Counsel or

his/her designee shall serve the

Respondent with a complaint which

shall include: a statement of the acts

which are claimed to constitute

misconduct including the approximate

date and place of such acts together

with a statement of the discipline

recommended; notification of the right

to a hearing before an administrative

law judge with respect to any material

issues of fact or mitigation; and an

explanation of the method by which a

hearing may be requested. Sections

102.24 through 102.51, rules applicable

to unfair labor practice proceedings,

shall be applicable to the extent that

they are not contrary to the provisions

of this section.

(4) Within 14 days of service of the

disciplinary complaint, the respondent

shall respond by admitting or denying

the allegations, and may request a

hearing. If no response is filed or no

material issue of fact or relevant to

mitigation warranting a hearing is

raised, the matter may be submitted

directly to the Board. If no response is

filed, then the allegations shall be

deemed admitted.

(5) The hearing shall be conducted at

a reasonable time, date, and place. In

setting the hearing date, the

administrative law judge shall give due

regard to the respondent’s need for time

to prepare an adequate defense and the

need of the Agency and the respondent

for an expeditious resolution of the

allegations.

(6) The hearing shall be public unless

otherwise ordered by the Board or the

administrative law judge.

(7) Any person bringing allegations of

misconduct or filing a petition for

disciplinary proceedings against an

attorney or party representative shall be

given notice of the scheduled hearing

and shall be afforded the opportunity to

examine or cross-examine witnesses

called by the General Counsel and

respondent at such hearing. Any such

questioning must be limited to the

issues raised in the General Counsel’s

complaint. Any such person shall not be

a party to the disciplinary proceeding,

however, and shall not be afforded the

rights of a party to call witnesses and

introduce evidence at the hearing, to file

exceptions to the administrative law

judge’s decision, or to appeal the

Board’s decision.

(8) The respondent will, upon request,

be provided with an opportunity to read

the transcript or listen to a recording of

the hearing.

(9) The General Counsel must

establish the alleged misconduct by a

preponderance of the evidence.

(10) At any stage of the proceeding

prior to hearing, the respondent may

submit a settlement proposal to the

General Counsel, who may approve the

settlement or elect to continue with the

proceedings. Any formal settlement

reached between the General Counsel

and the respondent, providing for entry

of a Board order, shall be subject to final

approval by the Board. In the event any

settlement, formal or informal, is

reached after opening of the hearing,

such settlement must be submitted to

the administrative law judge for

approval. In the event the

administrative law judge rejects the

settlement, either the General Counsel

or the respondent may appeal such

ruling to the Board as provided in

§ 102.26.

(11) If it is found that the respondent

has engaged in misconduct in violation

of paragraph (c) of this section, the

Board may issue a final order imposing

such disciplinary sanctions as it deems

appropriate, including suspension and/

or disbarment from practice before the

Agency, and/or other sanctions.

(12) Any person found to have

engaged in misconduct warranting

disciplinary sanctions under this

section may seek judicial review of the

administrative determination.

Dated: Washington, D.C., May 14, 1996.

By direction of the Board.

John J. Toner,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–12464 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7545–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Chapter II

Review of Existing Regulations

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service

(MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Review of regulations; request

for comment.

SUMMARY: MMS performs annual

periodic reviews of its significant

regulations and asks the public to

participate in these reviews. The

purpose of the reviews is to identify and

eliminate regulations that are obsolete,

ineffective or burdensome. In addition,

the reviews are meant to identify

essential regulations that should be

revised because they are either unclear,

inefficient or interfere with normal

market conditions.

The purpose of this document is to:

Provide the public an opportunity to

comment on MMS regulations that

should be eliminated or revised; and

provide a status update of the actions

MMS has taken on comments

previously received from the public in

response to documents published March

1, 1994 and March 28, 1995.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by July 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to

Department of the Interior; Minerals

Management Service, Mail Stop 4013;

1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC

20240; Attention: Bettine Montgomery,

MMS Regulatory Coordinator, Policy

and Management Improvement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bettine Montgomery, Policy and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25161

Management Improvement, telephone

(202) 208–3976; Fax (202) 208–3118.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MMS

began a review of its regulations in early

1994 pursuant to the directives

contained in the President’s Executive

Order 12866. The Executive Order calls

for periodic regulatory reviews to ensure

that all significant regulations are

efficient and effective, impose the least

possible burden upon the public, and

are tailored no broader than necessary to

meet the agency’s objectives and

Presidential priorities.

MMS invited the public to participate

in the regulatory review. The invitation

was sent out via different media, namely

a Federal Register document dated

March 1, 1994 (59 FR 9718), MMS and

independent publications, and public

speeches by MMS officials during that

time.

MMS received approximately 40

public comments which were almost

equally divided between its Royalty

Management and Offshore Minerals

Management Programs. MMS

acknowledged the comments in a July

15, 1994 document (59 FR 36108) and

set forth its planned actions to address

the comments, along with an estimated

timetable for the actions.

In the March 28, 1995, document (60

FR 15888), MMS: (a) asked for further

public comments on its regulations, and

(b) provided a status update of actions

it had taken on the 40 public comments

received the prior year. MMS received

10 responses from the March 28

document. We believe MMS has been

very responsive to most of the

comments received, to date.

This document updates the MMS

planned actions and related timetables

on the major comments received to date.

It also solicits additional comments

from the public concerning regulations

that should be either eliminated or

revised. Since some of the public

responses received in response to prior

documents contained comments on very

specific and detailed parts of the

regulations, this document does not

address every one received. For

information on any comment submitted

which is not addressed in this

document, please contact Mrs.

Montgomery at the number and location

stated in the forward sections of this

document.

These annual reviews of regulations

have resulted in the elimination of

approximately 18 pages of regulations

from the Code of Federal Regulations

and the improvement, by rewriting, of

over 200 pages. We are fully committed

to improving our regulations and

working more closely with our

customers and constituents. This is part

of our effort to improve government by

making it more efficient and responsive.

MMS regulations are found at Title 30

in the Code of Federal Regulations. Parts

201 through 243 contain regulations

applicable to MMS’ Royalty

Management Program (note: part 213

applies to Offshore royalty rate

reductions); Parts 250 through 282 are

applicable to MMS’ Offshore Minerals

Management; and Part 290 is applicable

to Administrative Appeals.

Status Report

The following is a status report by

program area on the comments MMS

has received, to date, on its regulations.

A. Offshore Minerals Management

(OMM) Program

OMM is currently reviewing the

following eight sections of OMM

regulations.

1. Regulations applicable to

production in deepwater (30 CFR Part

250, Subpart H, Production).

Comments Received—(a) ‘‘Revise

current regulations to provide for

approval of extended flaring periods

under certain situations (e.g., deepwater

prospects, well tests, etc.) and clarify

criteria for flaring or venting small

amounts of gas’’,

(b) ‘‘Revise requirements associated

with subsea installations * * *’’, etc.

Action Taken or Planned—An MMS

workgroup finalized its report on

deepwater regulatory issues. The major

recommendation from the report was

that MMS should evaluate and regulate

deepwater production activities through

a ‘‘total systems’’ approach. Under this

recommendation, MMS would require a

lessee to submit a Deepwater Operations

Plan for each deepwater or subsea

development project. Individual

projects could then be evaluated within

the context of the master plan. The

Associate Director for Offshore Minerals

Management approved the report in

May 1995, and we are finalizing

guidelines and procedures for the

preparation and approval of the

Deepwater Operations Plan.

Timetable—We are preparing a Letter

to Lessees explaining the Deepwater

Operations Plan and will issue it in June

1996.

2. Regulations applicable to blowout

preventer (BOP) testing and

maintenance requirements (30 CFR

250.56 and 57).

Comments Received—‘‘Revise BOP

testing regulations to allow for less

frequent and shorter tests. Allow 14 day

BOP test interval vs. current 7

day * * *.’’

Action Taken or Planned—MMS

recently announced (March 1996) the

selection of an engineering consulting

firm to assess the performance of

blowout preventer equipment and the

frequency it should be tested. Selection

of the firm was a joint effort of MMS and

industry. MMS will use this cooperative

study in determining if increased

blowout preventer testing intervals will

afford an equal or better degree of

protection, safety, or performance. This

study requires the systematic review

and analysis of blowout preventer test

results from wells drilled on the OCS.

Timetable—The contractor will

provide us with a report on the study in

November 1966. MMS will use the

study’s results to revise our regulations

as appropriate.

3. Regulations governing safety and

pollution prevention equipment (SPPE)

(30 CFR Subpart H).

Comments Received—(a) ‘‘Reduce

associated administrative burden on

lessees and operators by eliminating

unnecessary record keeping

requirements (i.e., inventory lists,

paperwork notifications, etc.).’’ (b)

‘‘Revise regulations governing Safety

Valves to increase time between test and

allowable leakage rates.’’

Action Taken or Planned—(a) MMS is

drafting a proposed rule to revise the

regulations governing SPPE. This

proposed rule will address the concerns

raised regarding recordkeeping. (b)

MMS is reviewing Subpart H,

Production Safety Systems, and plans to

rewrite the subpart in plain English and

update requirements where warranted.

We expect to work with industry in

areas where we need further data. The

cooperative effort with the blowout

preventer study can serve as a model.

Timetable.—(a) MMS should publish

this proposed rule in the Federal

Register by September 1996. (b) MMS

will begin rewriting subpart H by this

summer. We will work with industry to

initiate needed safety value studies

early in 1997, following the joint

blowout preventer study.

4. Regulations governing conservation

of resources and diligence (30 CFR 250.

Subpart A, General and Subpart K, Oil

and Gas Production Rates).

Comment Received—(a) ‘‘Revised

Suspension of Production approval/

lease holding criteria * * *’’, (b)

‘‘Revise Determination of Well

Producibility to make wireline testing

and/or mud logging analysis optional

* * *’’, (c) ‘‘revise current regulations

to provide for approval of extending

flaring periods * * *’’, (d) ‘‘Relax

restrictions on commingling reservoirs

in a common wellbore * * *’’, (e)

‘‘Allow flexibility in the methods of
25162 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules

testing subsea wells. * * *’’, (f) ‘‘MMS

[should] determine and specify

allowable volumes of liquid

hydrocarbons that lessees could burn

without requesting approval.’’

Action Taken or Planned—For (a)

above, MMS published a proposed rule

on April 25, 1996, to extend the period

for holding a lease beyond its primary

term from 90 to 180 days. For (b) above,

MMS is currently rewriting Subpart A

in plain English. This effort will also

include any changes needed to the

regulations. We will obtain more ideas

from industry concerning what changes

are needed. For (c) above, MMS will not

relax current regulations at this time.

We are reviewing the results of air

quality studies and will not make any

changes to the regulations until this

review is complete. For (d) above, MMS

issued a Letter to Lessees that allowed

for greater flexibility in dealing with

commingling issues. For (e) above, MMS

will not change the regulations. Current

regulations allow operators to request

that different testing methods be

allowed when conventional testing is

impractical. For (f) above, MMS, is

addressing the burning of liquid

hydrocarbons in a rule that we

published as proposed on February 17,

1995. MMS agrees with the benefits of

using a specific value for the term

‘‘minimal.’’ However, in approving a

request to burn liquid hydocarbons, we

need to deal with many economic,

technical, safety, and environmental

factors. Conservation is a key factor in

determining how much liquid

hydrocarbons a lessee can burn. Making

volume determinations on a case by

case basis allows us to properly

consider technical, safety, and

environmental factors.

Timetable.—A final rule addressing (f)

above, (burning small quantities of

liquid hydrocarbons) is scheduled for

publication in May 1996. Proposed rules

covering the other matters mentioned

above will be published during 1996

and early 1997.

5. Regulations regarding construction

and removal of platforms and structures

(30 CFR 250. Subpart I, Platforms and

Structures).

Comments Received—(a) ‘‘Modify

platform design wave return period

calculation by placing a cap of 100 years

on the field life calculation * * *’’, (b)

‘‘Adopt API RP2A (20th edition) Section

14, Surveys, in its entirety * * *’’, (c)

‘‘Revise site clearance requirements

* * *’’, (d) ‘‘Revise requirements for

placing protective domes over well

studs * * *’’, etc.

Action Taken or Planned—For (a)

above, MMS is reviewing this request

and considering some options. For (b)

above, MMS will not modify the

regulations. Current rules allow

operators to petition for longer

inspection intervals. On April 15–17,

1996, MMS held a workshop in New

Orleans and discussed lease

abandonment and platform removal

issues with interested parties from other

government agencies and private

industry. We will continue to work with

these parties to identify needed research

and potential changes to the regulations.

Timetable—In the coming months,

MMS will identify specific action items

and timetables for both further

regulatory changes and research.

6. Regulations applicable to

directional surveys, (30 CFR 250.51).

Comments Received—‘‘Revise

directional survey requirements to allow

composite measurement-while-drilling

directional survey to be acceptable

* * *.’’

Action Taken or Planned—MMS is

planning to rewrite the regulations

governing Oil and Gas Drilling

Operations, found in Subpart D, in plain

English. We plan to update the

regulations to keep pace with current

technology as part of the plain English

initiative.

Timetable—MMS plans to begin

drafting a proposed rule shortly,

Publication in the Federal Register

would be sometime in 1997.

7. Regulations applicable to daily

pollution inspection requirements (30

CFR 250.41).

Comments Received—‘‘Revise current

requirements for daily pollution

inspection of unmanned production

facilities * * *.’’

Action Taken or Planned—On

February 15, 1996, MMS issued a Notice

to Lessees regarding the pollution

inspection frequency for unmanned

facilities. The current regulations allow

operators to request a waiver from the

daily inspection of unmanned facilities.

The Notice to Lessees reviewed the

criteria MMS uses in determining

whether or not to grant the waiver.

Timetable—MMS has no plans to

change the regulations in this area.

8. Regulations applicable to

production safety system training (30

CFR 250.214).

Comments Received—(a) ‘‘Revise

training regulations to reduce the

associated burden on operators by

modifying requirements (e.g., frequency,

refresher requirements, structure, etc.)

and allow expanded training delivery

modes.’’ (b) ‘‘* * * training regulations

(well-control) are not clearly stated and

often not relevant * * *.’’

Action Taken or Planned—MMS

rewrote the entire section (subpart O) of

training regulations in a plain English

format and published a proposed rule in

the Federal Register on November 2,

1995 (60 FR 55683), MMS received

comments and is preparing the final

rule.

Timetable—MMS should publish the final

rule by the end of 1996.

9. Regulations applicable to Pipelines

and Pipeline Rights-of-Way (Subpart J).

Comments Received—Revise

regulations to avoid duplication of

requirements between DOI and the

Department of Transportation (DOT).

Action Taken or Planned—MMS

continues to work with DOT and with

other interested parties to develop a

new memorandum of understanding

(MOU) between DOI and DOT. After we

have a new MOU, MMS will revise

regulations to clarify rules and remove

redundant requirements, and promote

compatible regulations.

Timetable—We expect that DOI and

DOT will approve a new MOU by fall

of 1996.

B. Royalty Management Program (RMP)

RMP is reviewing regulations in the

following subject areas.

1. Statute of Limitations and Record

Retention

Comments Received—‘‘Statute of

limitations is unclear.’’

—‘‘Establish a reciprocal 5-year statute

of limitations from the date an

obligation becomes due.’’

—‘‘Absence of a record retention

program creates some confusion.

Regulations should require record

retention to coincide with the 5-year

statute of limitations.’’

Action Taken or Planned—The extent

of the time periods covered by audits of

royalty payments has been a matter of

considerable controversy between MMS

and the minerals industry for several

years. MMS’s goal, more recently, as

reflected in the Contemporaneous Audit

Initiative, has been to conduct all audits

on a contemporaneous basis consistent

with the most effective and efficient use

of audit resources, to provide industry

with earlier closure, to streamline the

royalty collection process, and to be

more responsive to the public we serve.

Timetable—Accordingly, MMS issued

a policy memorandum on July 14, 1995,

that affirms MMS’s policy to complete

reviews and audits of royalty payments

made on Federal and Indian leased

land, including issuance of enforcement

documents for underpayments (orders

to pay or to recompute and pay). Within

the 30 U.S.C. 1713 principal documents

retention period, that is within six years

of the royalty payment due date. Some

exceptions to this requirement may

occur in RMP compliance activities.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25163

2. Interests on Overpayments

Comment received—‘‘Interest accrual

should be equitable between the Agency

and industry.’’

Action Taken or Planned—MMS does

not have statutory authority to remit

interest to companies for overpayments.

We are pursuing strategies to improve

electronic royalty reporting and paying

options to our customers. This along

with the option for companies to post

surety in lieu of paying disputed

amounts should decrease lost interest

on overpayments to MMS.

Timetable—Ongoing.

3. Gas Valuation

Comments received—‘‘Define gross

proceeds more equitably and clearly in

this ever changing gas marketing

environment.’’

—‘‘It is important that the Federal Gas

Valuation Rule final rule not

discriminate against producers which

are affiliated with marketing

companies and are party to non-armslength contracts.’’

—‘‘Extend the elimination of processing

and transportation allowance forms to

oil.’’

—‘‘* * * commends the MMS on their

use of negotiated rulemaking process

to address the valuation of gas. Rule

should result in administrative cost

savings for all parties.’’

—‘‘If the Takes vs. Entitlements policy

stays in effect, MMS should strictly

enforce reporting on actual quantities

taken for all industry participants.’’

Action Taken or Planned—Revisions

of the Valuation Regulations Governing

Allowances were published in the

Federal Register as a final rule on

February 12, 1996. This rule eliminated

most allowance forms filing

requirements for oil, gas, and coal

produced from Federal leases.

The Federal Gas Valuation proposed

rule was published in the Federal

Register on November 6, 1995, and the

comment period closed on February 5,

1996. The proposed rule represented the

consensus of the Federal Gas Valuation

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee with

representation from MMS, industry and

the states.

MMS is preparing a Federal Register

document to announce the reconvening

of the committee in June 1966 and

another Federal Register document to

reopen the public comment period. The

proposed rule would provide

alternatives to using gross proceeds as a

basis for gas valuation, such as

published natural gas index prices.

The Indian Gas Valuation Negotiated

Rulemaking Committee is developing a

proposed rule governing the valuation

for royalty purposes of natural gas

produced from Indian leases. The

proposed rule would add a methodology

to calculate the major portion value and

an alternative methodology for dual

accounting as required by Indian lease

terms. The proposed rulemaking would

simplify and add certainty to the

valuation of production from Indian

leases.

MMS is developing a proposed rule

clarifying what deductions may be taken

from gross proceeds for the costs of

transportation under Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order

No. 636.

Timetable—MMS will reconvene the

Federal Gas Valuation Negotiated

Rulemaking Committee in June 1996,

and has reopened the comment period

to discuss options for proceeding further

with a rulemaking. MMS anticipates

publishing a proposed rulemaking for

Indian gas valuation in July 1996. MMS

also expects to publish a proposed rule

on FERC Order No. 636 early this

summer.

4. Reporting Procedures and Threshold

Comments Received—‘‘Eliminate or

streamline MMS Form 2014 reporting.’’

—‘‘Report prior period adjustments on a

‘net’ basis.’’

—‘‘Change estimated payment from

lease level to payor level.’’

—‘‘Assess interest at the payor level—

for the Indian leases on the basis of

each Indian Tribe.’’

—‘‘Eliminate Payor Information (PIF)

Filings. This is an unnecessary and

costly reporting requirement.’’

—‘‘MMS should modify the regulations

and system tolerances/thresholds so

that only those exceptions that are

cost beneficial for MMS to pursue are

generated.’’

—‘‘Set thresholds or tolerances for

regulations to save costs to both MMS

and industry. (Example: Invoices are

sent for less than $1.00.)’’

—‘‘MMS should not implement

regulations until its systems are

programmed to handle the new

regulations.’’

Action Taken or Planned—MMS has

revised its billing thresholds and

assessments policy to reduce

administrative costs, and we continue to

review these issues through the Royalty

Policy Committee which was formed in

September 1995. The Committee’s

membership includes representatives

from states, tribes, allottee associations,

industry trade groups and other

agencies. At their initial meeting, a

Royalty Reporting and Production

Accounting Subcommittee was

established.

The Subcommittee had its first

meeting in November 1995 and agreed

to review all royalty and production

reporting forms and policies. To assure

all areas were addressed, four

workgroups were formed to review the

Payor Information Form, royalty

reporting, oil and gas production

reporting, and solids production

reporting.

The preliminary recommendations

from the workgroups cover streamlining

of all reporting forms; reducing or

eliminating redundant data collection;

changing estimates; and reviewing

thresholds for allowance and interest

billings.

Timetable—The Subcommittee

recommendations are to be finalized

and forwarded to the full committee for

their review and approval in June 1996.

The recommendations will then be

reviewed for possible implementation

by MMS. In particular,

recommendations that can be

implemented in the short term without

significant cost will be pursued by

MMS.

5. Refunds Due to Industry Which Are

Controlled by Section 10 of the Outer

Continental Shelf Lands Act

Comments Received—‘‘Section 10

refund requirements should be

eliminated. The refund process used for

onshore properties should be

established for offshore properties.’’

—‘‘Eliminate documentation

requirements for refund requests over

$250 M, and/or increase this

threshold to $500 M; raise the refund

request limit to $5 M. Exempt pure

accounting adjustments for items such

as production date adjustments and

incorrect AID numbers; exempt unit

revisions because these revisions are

often made more than two years after

the date of production; establish a

time limit on MMS for review of a

refund request to expedite the

process; and overpayments on OCS

properties should be allowed to be

offset against any OCS

underpayment.’’

Action Taken or Planned—A

legislative change would be required to

eliminate the Section 10 refund

requirements of 43 U.S.C. 1339.

Section 10(b) of 43 U.S.C. 1339(b)

requires MMS to report refunds or

credits to both Houses of Congress and

can increase the time to process refunds

and recoupments. The final rule

published on July 28, 1994 (59 FR

38359), Titled ‘‘Offsets Recoupments

and Refunds of Excess Payments of

Royalties, Rentals; Bonuses, or other

amounts under Federal Offshore
25164 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Minerals Leases’’ established

procedures for obtaining refunds and

credits of excess payments and clarified

what payments are not subject to

Section 10’s requirements. Unit

agreement revisions are covered in this

rule under ‘‘Transactions not subject to

section 10’’.

This rule also provides for a de

minimis exception to the MMS approval

process. On February 23, 1996 (61 FR

7016), MMS published a document

raising the de minimis reporting

requirements from $250 to $2,500. By

raising the de minimis level, companies

may now recover overpayments below

the de minimis amount from future

royalty payments. This change will

reduce administrative costs for MMS

and companies.

6. The Appeals Process

Comments Received—‘‘Current

appeals process is too long.’’

Action Taken or Planned—MMS has

made several administrative processing

changes to streamline the appeal

process. One change was transferring

decisionmaking on routine appeals from

the Appeals Division to the Royalty

Management Program. This has reduced

the Appeals Division’s workload by 20

percent and freed up staff to work on

more complex cases.

Other efforts included the initiation of

several pilot programs to look at

additional streamlining possibilities.

One pilot program was aimed at

decreasing the time and expense

incurred by MMS in its preparation of

an appellant’s administrative record. A

second pilot program involved

reformatting the decisionmaking process

to speed the issuance of shorter, more

timely decisions. The third pilot

program will test the use of alternative

dispute resolution mechanisms to

resolve many of the administrative

appeals.

Spinoff projects from these pilot

efforts are still ongoing and will result

in further changes to the appeals

process in the future. We are engaged in

a concentrated effort, during the spring

and summer of 1996, to resolve all of

the older, active appeals on the docket.

Also, the Royalty Policy Committee has

established an Appeals/Settlement/ADR

subcommittee which should provide

MMS with additional advice on ways to

improve the process of resolving

disputes involving royalty collections.

Timetable—The first two pilots were

put in place the latter half of 1994, and

the third pilot began the end of February

1995.

Further administrative streamlining

changes and possibly regulatory changes

by MMS are anticipated for calendar

year 1996.

7. Other MMS Regulatory Actions

—MMS is evaluating comments

received on the proposed rule to

establish liability for royalty due on

Federal and Indian leases, and to

establish responsibility to pay and

report royalty and other payments.

—MMS published an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking on valuation of

oil from Federal and Indian leases and

is evaluating the comments received

from industry, States, and Indian

tribes on this notice.

Dated: May 13, 1996.

Cynthia Quarterman,

Director, Minerals Management Service.

[FR Doc. 96–12545 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Financial Markets

Fiscal Service

31 CFR Part 356

Amendments to the Uniform Offering

Circular for the Sale and Issue of

Marketable Book-Entry Treasury Bills,

Notes and Bonds

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Financial Markets,

Treasury.

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Treasury

(Secretary) is authorized under Chapter

31 of Title 31, United States Code, to

issue United States obligations and to

offer them for sale under such terms and

conditions as the Secretary may

prescribe. The Department of the

Treasury (Department or Treasury) is

issuing this Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking to solicit comments on the

design details, terms and conditions,

and other features of a new type of

marketable book-entry security the

Treasury intends to issue, inflationprotection notes or bonds, with a return

linked to the inflation rate in prices or

wages. The Treasury is specifically

interested in comments concerning

choice of index, structure of the

security, auction technique, offering

sizes, and maturities. The Treasury also

invites comments on other specific

issues raised, as well as on any other

issues relevant to the new type of

security.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent

to: the Government Securities

Regulations Staff, Bureau of the Public

Debt, 999 E Street NW., Room 515,

Washington, DC 20239. Comments

received will be available for public

inspection and copying at the Treasury

Department Library, Room 5030, Main

Treasury Building, 1500 Pennsylvania

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman Carleton, Director, Office of

Federal Finance Policy Analysis, Office

of the Assistant Secretary for Financial

Markets, at 202–622–2680. In addition,

the Treasury plans to hold a series of

investor meetings in New York,

Washington, DC, Chicago, Boston, San

Francisco, and possibly other cities in

late May and in June 1996 to discuss the

new securities, answer questions, and

solicit comments. To request

information about attending any of these

meetings, contact the Office of

Financing, Bureau of the Public Debt, at

202–219–3350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Treasury Department intends to issue a

new type of marketable book-entry

security with a nominal return linked to

the inflation rate in prices or wages, as

officially published by the United States

Government. The Treasury is

considering various indices for this

purpose, including the Consumer Price

Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)

published by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS) of the Department of

Labor, the core CPI (CPI-U, excluding

food and energy, as published by the

BLS), the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

deflator published by the Bureau of

Economic Analysis (BEA) of the

Department of Commerce, and the

Employment Cost Index—Private

Industry (ECI) also published by BLS.

Through this notice, the Treasury is

soliciting comments on the design

details of the planned inflationprotection securities and on which

index (those mentioned above or

another index) would be most likely to

result in the broadest market for the new

securities. At the end of this notice is a

hypothetical term sheet with proposed

formulas applicable to one of the

structures being considered for the new

security.

This advance notice of proposed

rulemaking is not an offering of

securities, and any of the currently

contemplated features of inflationprotection securities that are described

in this notice may change. The terms

and conditions of particular securities

that may be offered will be set forth in