16116 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation: (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

‘‘ADDRESSES.’’

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

BOEING: Docket 97–NM–55–AD.

Applicability: Model 777–200 series

airplanes, as listed in Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 777–23A0027, dated February 13,

1997; certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For airplanes that have been modified,

altered, or repaired so that the performance

of the requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent overheating of the transformers

of the overhead electronic units (OEU),

which potentially could cause a fire in the

transformer assembly and/or other electronic

components of the OEU and could cause

smoke to enter the passenger cabin,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, replace OEU’s having part

numbers (P/N) 285W0029–3, 285W0029–3

MOD A, and 285W0029–3 MOD B, of the

passenger address and entertainment

communication systems with modified

OEU’s having P/N’s 285W0029–5,

285W0029–5 MOD A, and 285W0029–5

MOD B, in accordance with Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 777–23A0027, dated

February 13, 1997.

Note 2: Boeing Component Service Bulletin

285W0029–23–01, dated February 13, 1997,

describes procedures for reworking OEU’s

having P/N’s 285W0029–3, 285W0029–3

MOD A, and 285W0029–3 MOD B, to a

configuration having a dash number –5, and

a MOD level marking (if applicable).

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install an OEU having P/N

285W0029–3, 285W0029–3 MOD A, or

285W0029–3 MOD B, on any airplane.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March

31, 1997.

S. R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 026Service.

[FR Doc. 97–8701 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 243

RIN 1010–AC08

Policy for Release of Third-Party

Proprietary Information for the

Administrative Appeals Process and

for Alternative Dispute Resolution

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Minerals Management

Service (MMS) proposes to amend its

regulations to authorize MMS by law to

provide third-party proprietary

information to appellants and entities

involved in administrative appeals and

other Alternative Dispute Resolution

(ADR) when that information is the

basis for an MMS assessment.

Presently, MMS cannot release thirdparty commercial or financial

information (proprietary information)

because release would violate the Trade

Secrets Act which prohibits releasing

proprietary information ‘‘except as

provided by law.’’ This regulation will

provide the authority by law to release

the information. MMS’ proposed rule

would require that those receiving

relevant proprietary information sign

confidentiality and liability agreements

before the agency releases the

information.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 3, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent

to: David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules and

Publications Staff, Royalty Management

Program, Minerals Management Service,

P.O. Box 25165, MS 3101, Denver,

Colorado, 80225–0165, courier delivery

to Building 85, Denver Federal Center,

Denver, Colorado, 80225; or e-Mail

DavidlGuzy@smtp.mms.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules and

Procedures Staff, Royalty Management

Program, Minerals Management Service,

telephone (303) 231–3432, Fax (303)

231–3194, e-Mail

DavidlGuzy@smtp.mms.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

principal authors of this proposed

rulemaking are Colette Haines, Gregory

Kann, Donna Luna, Cecelia Williams,

and Sammy Wilson, MMS, and Howard

Chalker, Office of the Solicitor.

I. General

Appellants sometimes request

information MMS used to assess

additional royalties. MMS presently
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules 16117

processes requests for such information

under the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, which authorizes

MMS to withhold proprietary

information. Exemption 4 of FOIA

protects ‘‘trade secrets and commercial

or financial information obtained from a

party and privileged or confidential.’’ It

protects submitters of proprietary

information and other parties associated

with such information from the

competitive disadvantages of public

disclosure.

MMS follows Exemption 4 of FOIA to

determine if certain types of information

fall within the scope of the Trade

Secrets Act, since Exemption 4 and the

Act are coextensive. CNA Fin. Corp. v.

Donovan, 830 F.2d 1132, 1144–52 (D.C.

Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 977

(1988). Such business-related

information as sales prices or values

that producers or purchasers submit to

MMS is commercial or financial

information.

Information is privileged or

confidential if it meets one of two tests:

(1) The submitter voluntarily submits

the information to the Department but

would not customarily release the

information to the public;

(2) MMS requires the submitter to

provide the information and release of

that information could cause harm to

the competitive position of the

submitter. Critical Mass Energy Project

v. NRC, 975 F.2d 871, 879, 880 (D.C. Cir.

1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1579

(1993).

MMS believes that commercial or

financial information less than 6 years

old concerning the volume and value of

the produced substance falls into these

categories. While MMS does not believe

that the release of either volume or

value information alone would cause

competitive harm, it seeks input on this

issue through this rulemaking.

The requirement to submit such

information rests on the lessee or its

agent, such as an operator. When a

purchaser voluntarily submits royalty

information to MMS on behalf of a

lessee, MMS evaluates the harm to the

lessee and/or its agent as well as the

purchaser.

Executive Order 12600 and the

Department of the Interior’s regulations

implementing Exemption 4 require an

agency to notify the submitter prior to

releasing propriety information (43 CFR

2.15(d)). If the submitter provides valid

objection to release, MMS must redact

(delete) or otherwise withhold

proprietary information before releasing

the requested material.

There are numerous ways in which

MMS uses third-party proprietary

information in assessing additional

royalties. For example, gas plant audits

rely on proprietary information that

third parties furnish. MMS understands

that many submitters believe that

release of this information could cause

competitive harm to them.

Another example is an assessment

based on major portion analysis, where

MMS determines the highest price paid

or offered for a major portion of oil or

gas produced from a single field or area.

Third parties, including lessees,

operators, and purchasers, submit such

information to MMS. The release of

combinations of information, such as

volume and value, could cause

competitive harm to those third parties.

The Trade Secrets Act (Act), 18 U.S.C.

1905, prohibits MMS from releasing

such information except as provided by

law. The Act provides penalties of up to

1 year in jail, a $1,000 fine, and

mandatory removal from the job for a

Federal employee who discloses

proprietary information without

authorization.

However, the Act’s prohibition on

release is not absolute. Substantive

regulations provide authorization for

release. Chrysler v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281

(1979). This proposed rule would

permit MMS to release third-party

proprietary information to those

appealing or attempting to settle

assessments based on that information.

This section does not address MMS’

release of any other type of information.

Under the proposed regulation, MMS

would inform the recipient of an

assessment based on third-party

commercial or financial information

(proprietary information) that such

information is available if the party

signs confidentiality and liability

agreements. These agreements would

require that the recipient use the

proprietary information only for

reviewing and appealing or settling an

MMS order. Also, the proprietary

information would be available only to

those individuals actually working on

the appeal or a related ADR.

The agreements would require that

the recipient accept all liability for

wrongful disclosure. Further, at its

discretion, MMS could require for good

cause that the recipient of proprietary

information meet more stringent

standards than normally required.

The recipient of an MMS order has

the right to appeal the order to the MMS

Director, or to the Deputy Commissioner

of Indian Affairs if the order relates to

an Indian lease. MMS’ proposed rule

would require the appellant to request

access to proprietary information before

the expiration of the appellant’s time to

file a statement of reasons under 30 CFR

Part 290.

MMS has determined that requiring

the appellant to make its request early

in the appeals process works best. For

example, if an appellant were to request

documents while MMS was preparing

the Director’s Decision, the agency

would have to stop work on the

decision to process the request. This

would be a particular problem because

of the 33-month limit for the

Department to decide appeals imposed

in the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty

Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996.

Additionally, if MMS were to furnish

information immediately before the

MMS Director issued a decision, the

information would be useless because

the appellant would not have time to

use the information. Because the MMS

order at issue would have notified the

appellant that such information was

available, there would be no reason to

delay the appeals process simply

because an appellant failed to promptly

request information.

Under the proposed regulations, MMS

would not release proprietary

information after the expiration of

appellant’s time to file a statement of

reasons under 30 CFR Part 290, except

to facilitate ADR. MMS could release

such information at any time during

ADR under the terms of the proposed

regulations.

Because judicial review of final

agency action is limited to the

administrative record, MMS could not

provide a requestor with proprietary

information after final agency action.

This rulemaking applies only to the

disposition of relevant third-party

proprietary information. It does not

grant any rights to appellants to obtain

admissions, depositions, or responses to

interrogatories.

MMS specifically requests your

comments, including rationale, on the

following issues:

1. What type of information is

proprietary? For how long after such

information is generated does it remain

proprietary? For example, when is the

proprietary information no longer of

value to the competition? Describe the

competitive harm that release of this

information would cause. Please be

mineral specific. Identify the data

elements on specific MMS forms that

you would consider proprietary either

on their own or in combination with

other data elements. Does the release of

either volume or value information

without the other cause competitive

harm?

MMS seeks mineral-specific

comments because we believe that the

release of information regarding one

mineral may cause more competitive

harm than for another. For example,
16118 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules

there is usually only one owner/

operator/payor per coal mine or lease, as

opposed to multiple such entities for an

oil and gas lease. Therefore, MMS

believes that release of coal production

and royalty data is more likely to cause

competitive harm than release of similar

information on oil and gas. Further,

because many coal contracts are longterm contracts, such information on coal

may remain proprietary longer than for

oil and gas.

2. When there is an appeal of an MMS

order or ADR, should MMS release

relevant proprietary information if the

requester signs confidentiality and

liability agreements?

3. Should MMS notify the submitters

that the proprietary information has

been requested?

4. Are the proposed safeguards of this

rulemaking adequate to protect the

submitter’s interest? Are there

additional safeguards that MMS should

include in this rule?

5. Should this rule include release of

relevant proprietary information needed

to file appeals with the MMS Director or

defend against civil penalties under 30

CFR Parts 241 or 251?

6. Should MMS restrict the proposed

list of people allowed to review the

relevant proprietary information further

than the proposed rule requires?

7. Should MMS charge fees for the

relevant proprietary information based

on the fee schedule used for FOIA

requests at 43 CFR Part 2?

As an aid to public participation in

this rulemaking, comments received

will be posted on the Internet at

http://www.rmp.mms.gov.

II. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 243.10 Definitions.

All proposed definitions in this

section are self-explanatory.

Section 243.11 When must I request

relevant third-party proprietary

information?

The paragraphs in this part would

provide time frames for filing a timely

request for relevant third-party

proprietary information. You would be

required to file a request after you file

a timely notice of appeal under 30 CFR

290.3(a)(1). You would submit a request

after you file a timely notice but before

the expiration of the time for filing a

statement of reasons or anytime during

ADR with MMS.

MMS would inform you when your

order is based on third-party proprietary

information and advise you of the

request procedures under 30 CFR

243.12.

Section 243.12 How do I request

relevant proprietary information?

This section would provide the

procedures for requesting relevant

proprietary information as well as the

address of the MMS FOIA Officer.

Section 243.13 May MMS deny my

request for relevant proprietary

information?

This section would provide that the

Associate Director for Royalty

Management (AD/RM) can deny your

request for relevant proprietary

information for good cause. The AD/RM

would deny your request if the

information requested was not used in

the order being challenged, or if it

receives a request after the time frames

outlined in § 243.11. The AD/RM could

also deny the request if you have

breached a previous confidentiality or

liability agreement.

Section 243.14 May I appeal MMS’s

denial of my request for relevant

proprietary information?

Paragraph (a) would provide that you

could appeal MMS’s denial of a request

for relevant proprietary information as

part of your appeal on the merits under

30 CFR Part 290 to the MMS Director or

the Deputy Commissioner of Indian

Affairs.

Paragraph (b) would provide that you

could not appeal a denial of a request

for relevant proprietary information

while you are in ADR.

Section 243.15 What must I do before

MMS will give me the relevant

proprietary information?

Under the proposed regulation, you

must sign confidentiality and liability

agreements before MMS will provide

relevant documents.

Paragraph (a) would require that your

organization’s Chief Operating Officer or

equivalent sign the confidentiality and

liability agreements. It would also

require that the signing official have the

authority to execute the agreement.

These agreements must be notarized.

Paragraph (b) would require that

under the confidentiality and liability

agreements you must agree to accept all

liability of any kind for wrongful

disclosure or misuse of the proprietary

information. Such liability includes, but

is not limited to, liability to the

Department; to the third party providing

the information to MMS; and to the

applicable lessee(s), lessor(s), and

operator(s).

For example, assume that, on a

lessee’s behalf, a purchaser of oil and

gas from a Federal or Indian lease

submitted proprietary information to

MMS, who in turn provided that

information to an appellant under this

section. The appellant would be

responsible for any and all damages to

the lessee, lessor, and purchaser for any

violation of the confidentiality or

liability agreements which caused harm

to the competitive position of these

parties. This would be true whether the

lessee, lessor, or purchaser sought such

damages from MMS or the appellant.

Paragraph (c) would require you to

submit new confidentiality and liability

agreements for each appeal unless MMS

determines that the appeal can be

covered by an existing agreement. MMS

could determine that previous

confidentiality and liability agreements

for an appeal may cover a subsequent

ADR.

Section 243.16 Do I pay a fee for the

relevant proprietary information?

This section would require you to pay

the billed amount that MMS charges

you for producing the relevant

proprietary information. For example,

the MMS general administrative costs

would include researching, copying,

and producing data on magnetic tapes

and computer disks, among other items.

MMS would base these costs on the

FOIA fees charged under 43 CFR Part 2.

The bill would accompany the relevant

proprietary information.

Section 243.17 What are my

obligations and restrictions in using the

relevant third-party proprietary

information MMS provides?

This section would prohibit you from

using third-party proprietary

information to gain a competitive

advantage over the submitter or other

parties associated with the data, and to

cause any other harm to the competitive

position of the submitter.

Paragraph (a) would provide that you

may use the proprietary information

only to evaluate and challenge the

relevant order.

Paragraph (b) would restrict access to

the proprietary information to the

specific individuals listed in this

paragraph.

Paragraph (c) would require that those

parties reviewing the proprietary

information sign a certification

statement attesting that they have read

the confidentiality and liability

agreements and that they agree to be

bound by them.

Paragraph (d) would require you to

maintain all certification statements and

make them available to MMS upon

request.

Paragraph (e) would require that you

provide all certification statements to

the MMS FOIA Officer within 30 days

after:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules 16119

(1) the Department issues a final

nonappealable decision, or

(2) you and MMS conclude ADR with

a final agreement, or

(3) you withdraw the appeal or

request for ADR.

Paragraph (f) would require you to

identify any third-party proprietary

information if you use the relevant

proprietary information in an appeal or

during ADR.

Paragraph (g) would require that you

return the documents as outlined in

§ 243.20.

Paragraph (h) would require you to be

bound by the minimum confidentiality

requirements under this regulation

whether or not they are set forth in the

confidentiality agreement.

Section 243.18 May MMS require me

to meet more stringent confidentiality

standards than those minimum

requirements under this regulation?

This section would advise you that for

good cause MMS could hold you to

more stringent standards and explain in

writing why they are necessary. One

example of good cause would be an

appellant’s failure to comply with

previous confidentiality and/or liability

agreements.

MMS might also determine that in

some cases the company officials

directly involved in the appeal would

also be involved in that company’s dayto-day decision making. Their access to

third-party proprietary information

could cause competitive harm to the

submitter of, or other parties associated

with, that information. In these cases,

MMS could limit review of proprietary

information to outside counsel or

consultants.

Section 243.19 Am I relieved of the

confidentiality and/or liability

agreements and all liability after the

appeal process or the ADR process is

over?

This section would advise that you

must always comply with the terms of

the confidentiality and liability

agreements even after:

(1) the Department issues a final

nonappealable decision, or

(2) you and MMS conclude ADR with

a final agreement, or

(3) you withdraw the appeal or

request for ADR.

You will continue to be liable for any

damage resulting from your wrongful

disclosure of the proprietary

information.

Section 243.20 What do I do with the

relevant proprietary information after

the appeal process or the ADR process

is over?

This section would advise you of the

proper disposition of the relevant

proprietary information.

Section 243.21 What happens if I don’t

return the relevant proprietary

information?

This section would require

appropriate sanctions if you fail to

return the relevant proprietary

information.

III. Procedural Matters

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic

effect on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.). The

proposed rule will provide the

authorization by law for MMS to

provide appellants with documents

furnished by third parties and which

contain proprietary information that

MMS used to calculate an order.

Executive Order 12630

The Department certifies that the rule

does not represent a governmental

action capable of interference with

constitutionally protected property

rights. Thus, a Takings Implication

Assessment need not be prepared under

Executive Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental

Actions and Interference with

Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights.’’

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule does not meet the

criteria for a significant rule requiring

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under Executive Order

12866.

Executive Order 12988

The Department has certified to OMB

that this rule meets the applicable

reform standards provided in Sections

3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order

12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule has been examined under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

and contains no reporting and

information collection requirements.

Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995

The Department has determined and

certifies according to the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et

seq., that this rule will not impose a cost

of $100 million or more in any given

year on local, Tribal, State governments

or the private sector.

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969

We have determined that this

rulemaking is not a major Federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment, and a detailed

statement under section 102(2)(C) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is not

required.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 243

Coal, Continental shelf, Geothermal

energy, Government contracts, Indian

lands, Mineral royalties, Natural gas,

Petroleum, Public lands—mineral

resources.

Dated: March 27, 1997.

Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals

Management.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, we propose to amend 30 CFR

Part 243 by adding the following:

PART 243—APPEALS—ROYALTY

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Subpart B—Release of Relevant ThirdParty Proprietary Information

1. The authority citation for part 243

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301 et seq.; 25 U.S.C.

396 et seq., 396a et seq., 2101 et seq.; 30

U.S.C. 181 et seq., 351 et seq., 1001 et seq.,

1701 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1301

et seq., 1331 et seq., 1801 et seq.

2. Subpart B is added to read as

follows:

Subpart B—Release of Relevant Proprietary

Third-Party Information

Sec.

243.10 Definitions.

243.11 When must I request relevant thirdparty proprietary information?

243.12 How do I request relevant

proprietary information?

243.13 May MMS deny my request for

relevant proprietary information?

243.14 May I appeal MMS’s denial of my

request for relevant proprietary

information?

243.15 What must I do before MMS will

give me the relevant proprietary

information?

243.16 Do I pay a fee for the relevant

proprietary information?

243.17 What are my obligations and

restrictions in using the relevant

proprietary information MMS provides?

243.18 May MMS require me to meet more

stringent confidentiality standards in

some cases?
16120 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules

243.19 Am I relieved of the confidentiality

and liability agreements and all liability

after the appeals process or the ADR

process is over?

243.20 What do I do with the relevant

proprietary information after the appeals

process or the ADR process is over?

243.21 What happens if I don’t return the

relevant proprietary information?

§ 243.10 Definitions.

Alternative dispute resolution means

using methods other than litigation to

settle disputes. These methods may

include mediation, arbitration,

settlement negotiation, minitrials,

conciliation, fact finding, and

facilitation.

Appellant means a person with an

administrative appeal of an order from

the Minerals Management Service,

pending under 30 CFR 290 or 30 CFR

241.51(a)(4). For purposes of this

subpart only, an appellant also includes

a person involved in alternative dispute

resolution (ADR) with MMS.

Proprietary information means

commercial or financial information

obtained from a third party and

privileged or confidential.

Relevant proprietary information

means any proprietary information a

third party furnished and that MMS

used to issue and support an order. If

MMS did not rely on the information for

the challenged order, then it is not

relevant proprietary information. Public

information is not relevant proprietary

information.

Third-party means any party other

than the appellant or the Department.

You means the person requesting the

information and the employer.

§ 243.11 When must I request relevant

proprietary information?

(a) You may obtain relevant

proprietary information when MMS

informs you that an order you received

is based on such information, advises

you of the request procedures under 30

CFR 243.12, and receives your timely

request for such information. You may

obtain relevant proprietary information

only at the time provided in this

section.

(b) If you timely appeal an MMS order

under 30 CFR 241.51(a)(4) or 30 CFR

290, you may timely request relevant

proprietary information from MMS until

the expiration of the time to file your

statement of reasons.

(c) If you are in ADR, you may request

relevant proprietary information until a

final settlement is reached or ADR is

terminated.

§ 243.12 How do I request relevant

proprietary information?

(a) You must send a written request

for relevant proprietary information to:

Minerals Management Service, Royalty

Management Program, Freedom of

Information Act Officer, Re: Request for

Relevant Proprietary Information, P.O.

Box 25165 MS 3062, Denver, Colorado

80225–0165.

Overnight courier address: Minerals

Management Service, Royalty

Management Program, Denver Federal

Center, Building 85, Denver, Colorado

80225.

(b) In your request:

(1) Identify the relevant proprietary

information you are requesting; and

(2) Include the MMS Appeal Docket

Number (if available); and

(3) Identify any existing

confidentiality and liability agreements

you have under this part and advise if

they are related to this request.

§ 243.13 May MMS deny my request for

relevant proprietary information?

The Associate Director for Royalty

Management (AD/RM) will deny your

request if the requested information is

not relevant proprietary information or

if the request is received after the

timeframes outlined in § 243.11. The

AD/RM also may deny the request if you

have breached a previous

confidentiality or liability agreement or

for other good cause.

§ 243.14 May I appeal MMS’s denial of my

request for relevant proprietary

information?

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, if MMS denies your

request for relevant proprietary

information, you may appeal that denial

as part of your appeal on the merits

under 30 CFR part 290. If MMS denies

your request in whole or in part after the

date your statement of reasons is due in

your appeal, you may file a

supplemental statement of reasons. You

must file this supplement within 60

days after you receive notice that MMS

denies your request.

(b) You cannot appeal a denial for a

request for relevant proprietary

information during ADR.

§ 243.15 What must I do before MMS will

give me the relevant proprietary

information?

(a) Your organization’s Chief

Operating Officer or equivalent official

must sign the MMS confidentiality and

liability agreements. In the agreements,

the signing official also must attest to

having the authority to sign them. These

agreements must be notarized.

(b) You must agree under the

confidentiality and liability agreements

to accept all liability of any kind for

wrongful disclosure or misuse of the

proprietary information. Such liability

includes, but is not limited to, liability

to the Department, or the Indian lessor,

the third party providing the proprietary

information, and the applicable lessee(s)

and operator(s).

(c) You must submit new

confidentiality and liability agreements

for each appeal or ADR unless MMS

determines that existing agreements

cover the appeal or ADR. For example,

if you obtained relevant proprietary

information through the appeals

process, some or all provisions of your

original confidentiality and liability

agreements may cover a subsequent

ADR.

§ 243.16 Do I pay a fee for the relevant

proprietary information?

You must pay the amount MMS

charges you for the administrative cost

of providing the relevant proprietary

information. The charges are based on

the fees used for Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) requests at 43

CFR Part 2. MMS will send you the bill

with the relevant proprietary

information.

§ 243.17 What are my obligations and

restrictions in using the relevant proprietary

information MMS provides?

(a) You may use relevant proprietary

information only for evaluating and

challenging the relevant order.

(b) Only the following persons may

review the relevant proprietary

information:

(1) Your counsel and persons directly

assisting your counsel in preparing the

relevant appeal or associated ADR; and

(2) Those persons in your employ

directly preparing the appeal or ADR.

(c) You must ensure that before any

person reviews the relevant proprietary

information they:

(1) Sign and date the certification

statement attesting that they have read

and understand the confidentiality and

liability agreements; and

(2) Agree to be bound by them.

(d) You must maintain all certification

statements and provide them to the

MMS FOIA Officer upon request.

(e) You must provide all certification

statements to the MMS FOIA Officer

within 30 days after:

(1) The Department issues a final

decision;

(2) You and MMS conclude ADR with

a final agreement; or

(3) You withdraw the appeal or

request for ADR.

(f) You must state on the front of any

appeal or ADR document that it

contains relevant proprietary

information. You also must identify the

relevant proprietary information on

each page or record.

(g) You must return the documents as

provided in § 243.20.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Proposed Rules 16121

(h) You are bound by these minimum

requirements whether or not they are set

forth in the confidentiality agreement.

§ 243.18 May MMS require me to meet

more stringent confidentiality standards in

some cases?

MMS, at its discretion, may advise

you in writing that it will hold you to

more stringent standards. For example,

MMS may require that only outside

counsel review relevant proprietary

information if you have breached a

previous confidentiality and/or liability

agreement, or if you are a direct

competitor of the submitter of the thirdparty proprietary information.

§ 243.19 Am I relieved of the

confidentiality and liability agreements and

all liability after the appeals process or the

ADR process is over?

You must comply with the terms of

the confidentiality and liability

agreements even after the appeals

process or the ADR process is

completed. For example, if a final

decision is reached through the

administrative process or ADR, or you

withdraw your appeal or ADR request,

you will continue to be liable for any

damage resulting from your wrongful

disclosure of the proprietary

information.

§ 243.20 What do I do with the relevant

proprietary information after the appeals

process or the ADR process is over?

(a) You must return all relevant

proprietary information to the MMS

FOIA Officer at the address in § 243.12

(a), along with all copies, excerpts, or

summaries of such information, within

60 days after:

(1) The Department issues a final

decision;

(2) You and MMS conclude ADR with

a final agreement; or

(3) You withdraw the appeal or

request for ADR.

§ 243.21 What happens if I don’t return the

relevant proprietary information?

You will be subject to appropriate

sanctions including civil penalties

under 30 CFR Part 241 if you fail to

return the relevant proprietary

information.

[FR Doc. 97–8689 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

30 CFR Parts 202 and 216

RIN 1010–AC23

Amendments to Standards for

Reporting and Paying Royalties on

Gas and the Gas Analysis Report

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service

(MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Minerals Management

Service proposes to amend its

regulations requiring operators in the

Gulf of Mexico Region to report gas at

the standard conditions of 14.73 psia

(instead of 15.025 psia) and adjusted to

60 degrees Fahrenheit. This change will

make the regulations consistent with

proposed changes to 30 CFR Part 250.

MMS also proposes to change the

requirement for submitting Form MMS–

4055, Gas Analysis Report (GAR), from

a semiannual basis to submitting a GAR

when requested by MMS. This

reduction of reporting will help satisfy

the requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 by eliminating

reports that are no longer used.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent

to: David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules and

Procedures Staff, Royalty Management

Program, Minerals Management Service,

P.O. Box 25165, MS 3101, Denver,

Colorado 80225–0165; courier delivery

to Building 85, Denver Federal Center,

Denver, Colorado 80225; or e-Mail

DavidlGuzy@smtp.mms.gov.

Comments received will be posted on

the Internet at http://

www.rmp.mms.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are

limiting the comment period to 30 days

because this proposal is a minor

wording change to the existing

regulations, and it parallels the

proposed offshore rule.

The intention of the amendments is to

keep the regulations in parts 202 and

216 relating to royalty consistent with

those relating to offshore minerals

management and to reduced reporting

requirements on the public.

MMS is seeking comments on the

applicable industry standards and

practices regarding the pressure at

which gas should be measured. Please

comment on whether reporting gas

measurement at the standard pressure of

14.73 psia is appropriate or whether

some other pressure should be adopted.

The principal author of this proposed

rulemaking is Lawrence K. Barker of the

Compliance Verification Division,

Lakewood, Colorado.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department certifies that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.).

This proposed rule would revise RMP’s

rules for reporting gas at the same

standards as Offshore Minerals

Management’s rules.

Executive Order 12630

The Department certifies that this

proposed rule does not represent a

governmental action capable of

interference with constitutionally

protected property rights. Thus, a

Takings Implication Assessment need

not be prepared under Executive Order

12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.’’

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule has been

examined under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995; no new

reporting and information collection

requirements are included. The current

information collection requirements

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq., and assigned

Clearance Number 1010–0040.

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule does not meet the

criteria for a significant rule requiring

review by OMB.

Executive Order 12988

The Department has certified to OMB

that this proposed rule meets the

applicable reform standards in section 3

(a) and (b)(2).

Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995

The Department has determined and

certifies that this proposed rule will not

impose a cost of $100 million or more

in any given year on local, tribal, State

governments, or the private sector.

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969

We have determined that this

proposed rulemaking is not a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment, and

a detailed statement under section

192(2)(c) of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c))

is not required.

List of Subjects

30 CFR Part 202

Coal, Continental shelf, Geothermal

energy, Government contracts, Indian