[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14131-14134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-7547]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
Royalty Computation on Phosphate Production on Western Public
Lands
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed revision of method for determining value
used to compute royalty payments on phosphate ore mined on western
public lands.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Minerals Management Service (MMS) is soliciting comments
on a proposal to adopt a new method for determining the value of
production used to compute royalties on phosphate ore produced from
Federal leases in the State of Idaho.
DATES: Submit comments on or before April 23, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Send your written comments to David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules
and Publications Staff, Royalty Management Program, Minerals Management
Service, PO Box 25165, MS 3021, Denver, Colorado 80225-0165; or e-Mail
RMP.[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Herbert B. Wincentsen, Chief, Solid
Minerals Valuation and Reporting Branch, Minerals Management Service,
PO Box 25165, Mail Stop 3153, Denver, Colorado 80225-0165, telephone
(303) 275-7210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 16, 1997, the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) approved an April 16, 1997, recommendation from
the Royalty Policy Committee (RPC) to revise the current method of
adjusting the value used to compute royalty payments on Federal
phosphate production.
RPC is a committee of the MMS Advisory Board (Board). The Board was
created under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The
Board's purpose includes, in relevant part, providing advice to the
Secretary, the Director, MMS, and other Department of the Interior
(Department) officials on royalty management of Federal and Indian
leases. RPC includes representatives of States which share in mineral
revenues from Federal lands; Indian tribes and allottees whose mineral
revenues MMS collects in trust; and oil and gas and solid minerals
producing industries who pay royalties; and the public.
RPC Recommendations
RPC made the following recommendations concerning phosphate
valuation which were approved by the Secretary:
1. The current indexing procedure, which utilizes the Gross
Domestic Product--Implicit Price Deflator (GDP-IPD) to annually adjust
the phosphate value for royalty calculation purposes, should be
discontinued.
2. The phosphate value should be determined using a weighted
composite index methodology having the following indices and weights:
The Chemical and Fertilizer Minerals Mining Index
(Standard Industry Code (SIC) 147), weighted at 50 percent.
The Phosphate Rock Index (SIC 1475), weighted at 25
percent.
The Phosphatic Fertilizers Index (SIC 2874), weighted at
25 percent.
The phosphate unit value would be recalculated annually, as under
the existing indexing procedure.
3. This recommended methodology should continue for 5 years, at
which time the methodology and the values determined thereunder will be
examined to assure there is a continued relationship to the
marketplace.
4. The valuation methodology applies only to Federal phosphate
production; there is no Indian phosphate production. State or fee
phosphate leases are also unaffected unless the parties to a State or
fee lease elect to use the Federal valuation methodology.
[[Page 14132]]
5. The recommended composite indexing method will not be
retroactive. The methodology will become effective if and when approved
by the Department.
Problems Identified in RPC Report
RPC identified the following problems with the current phosphate
valuation method:
1. There is a lack of open market (arm's-length) sales of phosphate
ore, the product on which the value for royalty purposes is based. The
Western phosphate industry has been, and continues to be, characterized
by vertically integrated companies. These companies consume virtually
all phosphate ore production internally, to make a variety of
downstream refined phosphate based fertilizers and elemental
phosphorus.
2. About 16 years have elapsed since the Department adopted an
indexed valuation adjustment method using GDP-IPD. As expected, the
P205 unit value has steadily increased each year,
consistent with the use of a broad-based measure of price changes such
as the GDP-IPD.
3. Comparison of the Federal GDP-IPD indexed-valuation methodology
to the market shows that its use has failed to accurately track the
relative rise and fall of a single product or market such as that for
phosphate rock; therefore, a valuation problem currently exists.
4. The valuation problem will grow with continued use of the GDP-
IPD. The continued use of the GDP-IPD will increase the
P205 unit value at the same rate as the IPD
deflates the GDP. This is not a true reflection of changes in the
phosphate marketplace because it does not take into consideration the
changing phosphate product consumption pattern and the ancillary price
impacts on phosphate ore.
Background of Phosphate Ore Valuation
Valuation Before 1975
Before 1975, phosphate royalty payments were based on a lease-
imposed minimum rate of $0.25 per ton. Federal phosphate leases have
historically carried lease terms requiring royalty to be paid on the
greater of either $0.25 per ton or 5 percent of the gross value. Under
this term, the 5 percent rate applies whenever the gross value exceeds
$5 per ton. Before 1975, the value was assumed to be less than $5 per
ton and thus the royalty rate remained fixed at $0.25 per ton.
Valuation From 1975 to 1981
In the early 1970's phosphate rock prices rapidly increased,
surpassing the $5 per ton benchmark price for application of the 5-
percent royalty rate. In 1974, an audit by the Department (the Office
of Audit and Investigation) concluded that the Federal Government was
not following its statutory mandate to collect not less than 5 percent
of the gross value.
However, required use of the ad valorem royalty rate introduced a
new problem. The Western phosphate industry is, for the most part, a
vertically integrated industry internally consuming phosphate lease ore
production in either electric furnaces to make elemental phosphorus or
in wet acid plants to make a variety of phosphate-based fertilizers.
The absence of significant quantities of open market sales was
problematic since the ad valorem royalty was based on the unit sale or
contract price obtained under bona fide arm's-length sales, as
specified by regulations at 30 CFR 206.301 (1997).
Following extensive analysis over several years, then Secretary
Thomas S. Kleppe decided on May 13, 1976, to use a net back valuation
methodology where in open market (arm's-length) sales of beneficiated
phosphate rock would be adjusted for beneficiation and related costs to
arrive at the gross value of mine output, which is phosphate ore. This
``Kleppe Method'' valuation procedure was made retroactive to January
1, 1975.
The Kleppe Method was difficult to administer. In an advance notice
published in the Federal Register (45 FR 74065, November 7, 1980), the
Department stated that there were two problems related to the continued
use of the Kleppe formula:
During the period 1975 through 1979, arm's-length sales, both
long-term sales and spot sales, were of sufficient magnitude to
establish a realistic product value. In 1980, however, arm's-length
sales diminished to less than 1 percent of total mine production in
the western phosphate region...
Also, this method was cumbersome, as it required the phosphate
lessees to submit all their cost and sales data. These data, in
turn, were audited by the Department and, after several months, a
gross value was established. In most years, the royalty assessment
was not determined until after the mining year was completed.
To overcome these problems, the Department recommended adoption of
an index adjustment methodology; however, no specific index was
recommended. The Department also solicited proposals on other methods
for valuing phosphate ore.
Valuation From 1981 to the Present
Effective January 1, 1981, the Department adopted the index-based
adjustment for P205 unit value determination in a Federal Register
release (46 FR 9210, January 28, 1981). The index selected was the GDP-
IPD, as published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis. In selecting that index, the Department left open
the question of future valuation procedures, stating:
If a better method is developed that more accurately reflects
the value of phosphate rock, it will be considered at that time.
MMS has routinely recalculated each year's value and provided that
value to industry. By 1995, MMS recognized that the GDP-IPD adjustment
mechanism was developing values that did not appear to correlate with
phosphate market changes. Moreover, if allowed to continue, the GDP-IPD
adjusted phosphate value would eventually become completely unrelated
to the marketplace. Operating under the RPC, the Phosphate Study Group
and later, the Phosphate Valuation Subcommittee, was formed to examine
whether an alternative valuation methodology could be agreed upon to
replace the GDP-IPD index.
Chronology of Meetings
In March 1995, MMS contacted the State of Idaho, industry, and the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) asking for expressions of interest to
form a study group to examine the Federal phosphate royalty valuation
issue. All parties contacted agreed to meet to discuss the Federal
phosphate valuation issue and, on June 22, 1995, these parties met with
MMS representatives at BLM's Pocatello office. MMS representatives
briefed the parties on (1) the phosphate valuation issue, (2) the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, and (3) the relationships of the RPC
and the various subcommittees.
In 1995, when RPC was initially formed, a subcommittee named the
Phosphate and Other Leasable Solid Minerals Subcommittee was formed.
This subcommittee was intended not only to address the phosphate
valuation issue but perhaps other, not yet specified issues for other
solid minerals. However, no additional meetings of this subcommittee
occurred subsequent to its formation.
In a letter dated February 2, 1996, the RPC Chair notified the
Chair of the Phosphate and Other Leasable Solid Minerals Subcommittee
of his decision to segregate the phosphate valuation issue. In doing
so, the Phosphate Subcommittee was created.
The Phosphate Subcommittee initially met on April 25, 1996, at J.R.
Simplot's office in Pocatello, Idaho. Rules for
[[Page 14133]]
conducting the meeting and for approving recommendations were
established. The composition of the Phosphate Subcommittee was
modified, with the Caribou County Treasurer substituting for the
representative from the Idaho State Treasurer's office. The final
composition of the Phosphate Subcommittee included industry
representatives, the Caribou County Treasurer, a representative from
the Idaho State Lands, and a member of the public. MMS facilitators and
BLM representatives also attended the meetings, providing background
material, detailed analysis of the issue, and guiding the discussion.
The Phosphate Subcommittee agreed to address the following issues:
1. Has the phosphate market changed in the last 15 years? If so,
how has it impacted valuation?
2. Is the index adjustments using the GDP-IPD accurate or is there
a more accurate method of valuing phosphate ore that should replace the
GDP-IPD adjustment method?
3. Is the value accurate or should it be adjusted?
The Phosphate Subcommittee agreed not to reconvene until a proposal
had been made. In the interim, MMS representatives and Idaho BLM
representatives met on July 23 and 24, 1996, with a Washington Office
BLM official for briefing on the purpose of the Phosphate Subcommittee.
The Phosphate Subcommittee reconvened on November 19, 1996, at
BLM's Pocatello office to discuss an October 31 proposal to use a
weighted-average composite index to adjust the annual unit value for
phosphate valuation. The members agreed to review the proposal and
reconvene in January 1997.
The Phosphate Subcommittee reconvened on January 22, 1997, at BLM's
Pocatello office. Industry concurred with the proposal. The State and
County officials, while agreeing that a valuation problem existed under
the present methodology, were unable to recommend adoption of an
alternative methodology that might impact royalty revenue streams that
benefit the school system and county infrastructure.
The nonconsensus recommendation was presented to the RPC for
consideration on April 16, 1997. RPC approved the recommendation under
its voting rules, with 9 votes in favor, 1 opposed, and 4 abstentions.
Later, in a letter dated June 4, 1997, the Idaho State Treasurer
wrote to the Chair, RPC, endorsing the RPC recommendation and asking
that the Secretary accept and implement the recommendation.
On October 16, 1997, the Secretary approved the RPC recommendation
for revising the methodology used to compute the value used for Federal
phosphate production royalty payments.
Principal Provisions of the Proposed Valuation Revision
The following constitute the principal provisions of the proposed
valuation revisions:
1. Use Producer Price Indexes (PPI) because PPI:
Measures average changes in selling prices received by
domestic producers (import prices are excluded);
Emphasizes the reporting of realistic transaction prices,
including discounts, premiums, rebates, allowances, etc., rather than
list or book prices. No ``futures markets'' are used; and
Reflects ``point of production'' prices exclusive of
transportation.
2. No single index best represents the western phosphate industry.
However, a composite of PPI's that are closely related to the phosphate
mining industry provide a measurement that is better than the existing
GDP-IPD index:
The Phosphatic Fertilizers Index emphasizes price
movements of downstream phosphate-based fertilizers that were
manufactured from phosphate rock. All phosphate producers do not make
fertilizers. Some are elemental phosphorus producers whose downstream
refined products are not used in the fertilizer industry. Therefore,
this index, in itself, does not represent downstream price changes for
all phosphate producers.
The Chemical and Fertilizer Minerals Mining Index
represents the output of basic mining for phosphate, sodium, borates,
and potash. This is the principal index for measuring mining output,
excluding nonfuel and nonmetals. Also, these minerals are produced
extensively in the western United States; therefore, this index is
responsive to changes in western mine production.
The Phosphate Rock Index represents beneficiated rock
prices, nationwide. The nationwide output of phosphate rock is
dominated by Florida's production; therefore, even though this index
would seem to be most closely allied with the western phosphate
producers, it cannot represent the single best indicator of Idaho
production, particularly since almost all of the Idaho phosphate
production is not sold on the open market.
The weighted composite index methodology is shown in Table 1 below:
Table 1.--Composite Index Methodology for Federal Phosphate Valuation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phosphatic Fertilizer
Year fertilizer mining Rock price Composite Index unit
index index index index value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988........................................... 127.30 99.60 81.30 101.95 $0.5310
1989........................................... 126.00 104.70 88.20 105.90 0.5516
1990........................................... 115.70 106.70 93.80 105.73 0.5507
1991........................................... 117.90 108.50 96.80 107.93 0.5621
1992........................................... 107.60 108.30 103.70 106.98 0.5572
1993........................................... 97.50 104.30 97.40 100.88 0.5254
1994........................................... 118.60 102.10 94.60 104.35 0.5435
1995........................................... 139.10 104.20 98.00 111.38 0.5801
1996........................................... 150.40 108.60 101.80 117.35 0.6112
Weight Factor (percent)........................ 25 50 25 ........... ...........
Base Year 1987................................. 110.90 96.40 83.20 96.73 0.5038
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As under the existing methodology, the unit value of phosphate ore
is determined with reference to the prior year's index value compared
to the base year value. For example:
[[Page 14134]]
Existing Methodology
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MR98.092
Revised Methodology
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24MR98.093
The revised methodology would not be applied retroactively.
However, the weighted composite index calculated value would be
compared retroactively to the GDP-IPD based value to form a basis for
correcting for actual phosphate market trends. Using this comparison
technique, 1987 forms a new base value year, when the GDP-IPD indexed
value and the composite indexed (market based) value coalesced.
No attempt would be made to apply a one-time Kleppe Formula (net
back) to determine actual industry production costs and revenues for
the same reasons that were acknowledged by the Department in 1980:
There is a continued lack of bona fide open market sales
from which to base overall revenues and prices.
The process takes too long and is cumbersome, entailing
extensive data collection and consuming audit resources.
The phosphate value computed under the revised methodology would be
examined through a market analysis every 5 years, to ensure that the
new valuation methodology is, in fact, reflecting changes in the
western phosphate industry. Since the analysis that was part of the
Phosphate Subcommittee's work occurred in 1996, the values computed for
phosphate ore will be examined and compared to market data in 2001.
Potential Revenue Impact
The revenue impact associated with this proposed revision to the
value adjustment methodology is difficult to predict because the
selected indexes are relatively more volatile than the GDP-IPD and they
will follow market trends. Had this index been adopted for 1996 the
impact would have been an annual reduction in royalty of about
$444,000, or about 10.6 percent. However, royalty revenue is also
impacted by the level of production from Federal leases as well as the
unit value. Thus, royalty could either increase or decrease based
solely on changes to the level of production even without any change to
the valuation methodology.
Dated: March 17, 1998.
Lucy Querques Denett,
Associate Director for Royalty Management.
[FR Doc. 98-7547 Filed 3-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P