[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16116-16121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8689]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 third-party 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 David__G<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d5a0afac95a6b8a1a5fbb8b8a6fbb2baa3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="daafa0a39aa9b7aeaaf4b7b7a9f4bdb5ac">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 
David__G<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#681d1211281b051c184605051b460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="acd9d6d5ecdfc1d8dc82c1c1df82cbc3da">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

[[Page 16117]]

processes requests for such information under the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 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,

[[Page 16118]]

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 
long-term 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 Sec. 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:

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 day-to-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. Sec. 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 Third-Party 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 third-party 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?

[[Page 16120]]

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?


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 243.20.

[[Page 16121]]

    (h) You are bound by these minimum requirements whether or not they 
are set forth in the confidentiality agreement.


Sec. 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 third-party 
proprietary information.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>