Agency Information Collection Activities: Submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request, 13422-13425 [E6-3706]
Download as PDF
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
13422
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
with members of the public and affected
agencies concerning each proposed
collection of information * * * ’’.
Agencies must specifically solicit
comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for the agency to perform its
duties, including whether the
information is useful; (b) evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information; (c) enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
minimize the burden on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Agencies must also estimate the ‘‘nonhour cost’’ burdens to respondents or
recordkeepers resulting from the
collection of information. Therefore, if
you have costs to generate, maintain,
and disclose this information, you
should comment and provide your total
capital and startup cost components or
annual operation, maintenance, and
purchase of service components. You
should describe the methods you use to
estimate major cost factors, including
system and technology acquisition,
expected useful life of capital
equipment, discount rate(s), and the
period over which you incur costs.
Capital and startup costs include,
among other items, computers and
software you purchase to prepare for
collecting information, monitoring, and
record storage facilities. You should not
include estimates for equipment or
services purchased: (i) Before October 1,
1995; (ii) to comply with requirements
not associated with the information
collection; (iii) for reasons other than to
provide information or keep records for
the Government; or (iv) as part of
customary and usual business or private
practices.
We will summarize written responses
to this notice and address them in our
submission for OMB approval. As a
result of your comments, we will make
any necessary adjustments to the burden
in our submission to OMB.
Public Comment Procedures: MMS’s
practice is to make comments, including
names and addresses of respondents,
available for public review. If you wish
your name and/or address to be
withheld, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your
comment. MMS will honor this request
to the extent allowable by law; however,
anonymous comments will not be
considered. All submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
made available for public inspection in
their entirety.
MMS Information Collection
Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202)
208–7744.
Dated: February 27, 2006.
E.P. Danenberger,
Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. E6–3705 Filed 3–14–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submitted for Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
Review; Comment Request
Minerals Management Service
(MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Notice of a new information
collection (1010–NEW).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: To comply with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), we are notifying the public that
we have submitted to OMB an
information collection request (ICR) for
review and approval of the paperwork
requirements in the regulations under
‘‘30 CFR 256, Subparts J and K, and 30
CFR 250, Subpart J,’’ and related
documents. This notice also provides
the public a second opportunity to
comment on the paperwork burden of
these regulatory requirements.
DATES: Submit written comments by
April 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this information collection directly
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention:
Desk Officer for the Department of the
Interior via OMB e-mail:
(OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov); or by
fax (202) 395–6566; identify with (1010–
NEW).
Submit a copy of your comments to
the Department of the Interior, MMS,
via:
• MMS’s Public Connect on-line
commenting system, https://
ocsconnect.mms.gov. Follow the
instructions on the Web site for
submitting comments.
• E-mail MMS at
rules.comments@mms.gov. Use
Information Collection Number 1010–
NEW in the subject line.
• Fax: 703–787–1093. Identify with
Information Collection Number 1010–
NEW.
• Mail or hand-carry comments to the
Department of the Interior; Minerals
Management Service; Attention: Rules
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Processing Team (RPT); 381 Elden
Street, MS–4024; Herndon, Virginia
20170–4817. Please reference
‘‘Information Collection 1010–NEW’’ in
your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cheryl Blundon, Rules Processing
Team, (703) 787–1600. You may also
contact Cheryl Blundon to obtain a
copy, at no cost, of the regulations and
forms that require the subject collection
of information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: 30 CFR 256, Subparts J and K,
and 30 CFR 250, Subpart J.
Forms: MMS–149, MMS–150, MMS–
151, and MMS–152.
OMB Control Number: 1010–NEW.
Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C.
1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.),
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to prescribe rules and
regulations to administer leasing of the
OCS. Such rules and regulations will
apply to all operations conducted under
a lease. Operations on the OCS must
preserve, protect, and develop oil and
natural gas resources in a manner that
is consistent with the need to make such
resources available to meet the Nation’s
energy needs as rapidly as possible; to
balance orderly energy resource
development with protection of human,
marine, and coastal environments; to
ensure the public a fair and equitable
return on the resources of the OCS; and
to preserve and maintain free enterprise
competition. Also, the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA)
prohibits certain lease bidding
arrangements (42 U.S.C. 6213(c)).
These authorities and responsibilities
are among those delegated to the
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
under which MMS issues regulations
governing oil and gas and sulphur
operations in the OCS. This information
collection request (ICR) addresses the
regulations at 30 CFR part 250, Oil and
Gas and Sulphur Operations in the
Outer Continental Shelf, 30 CFR part
256, Leasing of Sulphur or Oil and Gas
in the OCS, and the associated
supplementary Notices to Lessees
(NTLs) and operators intended to
provide clarification, description, or
explanation of these regulations. This
ICR concerns the use of new forms to
process the transfer of interest in lease
and rights-of-way per 30 CFR part 250,
subpart J, Pipelines and Pipeline Rightsof-Way, 30 CFR 256, subpart J,
Assignments, Transfers and Extensions,
and the filing of relinquishments per 30
CFR 256, subpart K, Termination of
Leases.
We will protect information from
respondents considered proprietary
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing
regulations (43 CFR part 2) and under
regulations at 30 CFR 250.196, ‘‘Data
and information to be made available to
the public,’’ and 30 CFR part 252, ‘‘OCS
Oil and Gas Information Program.’’ No
items of a sensitive nature are collected.
Responses are mandatory.
The MMS uses the information
required by 30 CFR part 250, subpart J,
‘‘Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way,’’
and 30 CFR part 256, subpart J,
‘‘Assignments, Transfers and
Extensions,’’ to track the ownership of
30 CFR 256 Subparts J and K;
30 CFR 250, Subpart J and
related NTLs
Subpart J: 256.62, 256.64,
256.65, 256.67.
leases as to record title, operating rights,
and pipeline right-of-ways. MMS will
use this information to update the
corporate database which is used to
determine what leases are available for
a Lease Sale and the ownership of all
OCS leases. Non-proprietary
information is also publicly available
from the MMS corporate database via
the internet.
Frequency: On occasion.
Estimated Number and Description of
Respondents: Approximately 200
Federal oil and gas or sulphur OCS
lessees.
Estimated Reporting and
Recordkeeping ‘‘Hour’’ Burden: The
estimated annual ‘‘hour’’ burden for this
information collection is a total of 1,512
hours. The following chart details the
individual components and estimated
hour burdens. In calculating the
burdens, we assumed that respondents
perform certain requirements in the
normal course of their activities. We
consider these to be usual and
customary and took that into account in
estimating the burden.
Average
number of
annual responses
Hour
burden
Reporting or recordkeeping requirement
File application and required information for assignment or transfer for approval/comment on filing fee (forms MMS–150 and
MMS–151).
File written request for relinquishment (form MMS–152) ...............
12
Subpart J: 250.1018 ...................
File application and required information for assignment or transfer for approval/comment on filing fee (form MMS–149).
12
Total Burden .......................
.........................................................................................................
................
Subpart K: 256.76 ......................
13423
Annual
burden
hours
⁄
2,500 applications.
1,250
⁄
323 relinquishments.
200 applications
1162
3,023 ..................
1,512
12
⁄
100
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
1 Rounded.
Estimated Reporting and
Recordkeeping ‘‘Non-Hour Cost’’
Burden: We have identified no
paperwork ‘‘non-hour cost’’ burdens
associated with the collection of
information. The fees associated with
the applications have been covered and
approved under OMB Control Number
1010–0006, expiration 3/31/07.
Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA
(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an
agency may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Until OMB approves a
collection of information, you are not
obligated to respond.
Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of
the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)
requires each agency ‘‘* * * to provide
notice * * * and otherwise consult
with members of the public and affected
agencies concerning each proposed
collection of information * * *’’
Agencies must specifically solicit
comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for the agency to perform its
duties, including whether the
information is useful; (b) evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information; (c) enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
minimize the burden on the
respondents, including the use of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:25 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
The regulations also inform the public
that they may comment at any time on
the collections of information and
provides the address to which they
should send comments. We received 14
different sets of comments from trade
associations, as well as, oil and gas
companies in response to the Federal
Register notice from respondents
covered under these regulations or who
will be submitting these forms. Their
names were: American Petroleum
Institute, National Ocean Industries
Association, Domestic Petroleum
Council, Independent Petroleum
Association of America (IPAA), U.S. Oil
and Gas Association, Offshore Operators
Committee, NCX Company, L.L.C., El
Paso Production Company.
MMS’s response to industry
comments on the Assignment Forms
were the following:
IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents
suggested that MMS develop a
transmittal sheet to be attached to the
assignment instrument. The transmittal
sheet would include the information
needed by MMS to monitor ownership
in leases, but would not alter the rights
and obligations being conveyed in the
assignment documents prepared by
industry.
MMS disagrees with this suggestion.
The purpose of the proposed forms is to
streamline and reduce the time
necessary to adjudicate assignments,
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
which are requested by industry on a
frequent basis. MMS’s past experience
indicates oversights in careful review
and preparation by industry, thereby
slowing the approval process and the
return of documents unapproved for
correction. All aspects of the approval
letter have been incorporated into the
assignment forms. When the forms are
approved by MMS, they are signed by
an authorized MMS representative and
will be returned with a computer
generated print-out of the ownership as
it exists after the assignment has been
approved.
MMS recognizes that industry
assignments are unique. In order to
accommodate this need, MMS has
identified Exhibit A for this purpose
(Exhibit A is later deleted based on
another comment). The reason for this is
to allow the companies to subject their
assignments to other legal contracts for
which MMS is not a participating party
while providing pertinent information
on the approved form in a format that
can accommodate an electronic filing in
the future, and provides information in
the exact same format each time.
IPAA, et al. Letter: If MMS continues
to use the proposed forms, Part A
should define the term ‘‘record title’’
and ‘‘operating rights’’ interests, and the
conveyance language should be revised
to clearly state the conveyed right, title
and interest.
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
13424
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
The term ‘‘operating rights’’ is defined
in 30 CFR 250.105. The term ‘‘record
title’’ is well understood in the oil and
gas industry to include all property
interests in a lease that the lessee has
not transferred to others. It is not the
intent of the form to change these
meanings and there is no reference in
the forms to indicate otherwise. MMS
agrees that the conveyance language in
the proposed forms was not clear and
did not follow standard legal protocol in
its current form. Therefore, the language
has been changed in the form.
IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents
conclude that the interest columns on
the proposed forms are confusing and
they have concern for the ‘‘Final
Ownership’’ percentage when there are
multiple transactions between the
parties affecting the same properties that
would cause a different ownership
based on the time of the receipt of the
assignment.
MMS processes assignments in the
order of date received. Therefore,
multiple transactions can be accepted
and processed in order without affecting
the final ownership of the assignment.
MMS has reconsidered the necessity of
the interest columns and has concluded
that the columns can be confusing and
has predicted that assignments would
be rejected due to common errors and
misunderstandings. Therefore, MMS has
eliminated the columns and has
provided a ‘‘blank’’ after the words
‘‘Assignor(s) does hereby sell, assign,
transfer, and convey unto Assignee(s)
the following undivided right, title, and
interest.’’ This blank will contain the
decimal interest that is being conveyed
and will always be a full 8/8ths number
and will eliminate the guess work on
fractions. MMS will continue to require
that decimals be carried out to the fifth
decimal place. Exhibit ‘‘A’’ has also
been deleted. We have provided for two
Assignors and two Assignees. If more
than two are needed, industry may
duplicate the signature block and attach
to the assignment form.
IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents argue
that the assignment forms not provide
that the assignees shall fully comply
with all future regulations, but only
those ‘‘for the prevention of waste and
conservation of the natural resources of
the Outer Continental Shelf, and the
protection of correlative rights.’’
Respondents argue that anything more
exceeds MMS’s statutory authority and
constitutes an alteration of lease terms.
But the same respondents suggest that
only the first sentence of the acceptance
of lease terms be required because ‘‘the
Act and regulations apply without
including reference to either in the
assignment’’.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
We agree that the regulations apply
without recital in the assignment, but
choose to retain the statement to avoid
the type of confusion reflected in the
former comment. All MMS regulations
are binding on all lessees and operators,
unless they are expressly inconsistent
with the terms of the lease contract or
the regulation itself limits its
application.
IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents argue
that Part B of the proposed forms (all the
forms) contain unnecessary
certification, that further certifications
constitute warranties and risk
misapplication of the regulations and
lease terms. In particular, the
certification of ownership is a warranty
that frequently is limited between the
parties to a transaction. As a result the
certification would often be inconsistent
with Exhibit ‘‘B–1’’ which includes the
additional assignment terms of the
parties.
MSS does not agree. This statement is
not a warranty, but a statement that you
own the interest. The language used in
the proposed forms does not say
‘‘Assignor hereby warrants its interest in
the lease’’; it simply states that the
Assignor certifies that they own the
interest conveyed by the assignment.
MMS does not agree that this would be
inconsistent with the provisions of
Exhibit B–1.
IPAA, et al. Letter: The debarment
language in the proposed forms is
unnecessary, would require excessive
due diligence, and is already
maintained in MMS lease sale files. It
was further recited that the recently
published government-wide debarment
regulations (68 FR 66534) suggesting
that additional certifications are
inappropriate. Reference is made to the
preamble in those regulations calling for
the elimination of assurances that are
found to be unnecessary or where
technology has eliminated the need by
Federal agencies to obtain debarment
certifications. Respondents further
interpret this ruling to mean that further
use of debarment certifications after an
initial filing, are disfavored.
MMS has reviewed the recent
debarment regulations and concludes
that the proposed form language is
burdensome. However, MMS feels the
language is necessary and should be
included in the approved forms. MMS
has recently corresponded with industry
in this regard for Sale Notice issues and
has redrafted the language for use in the
proposed forms. MMS feels that this
reduced language is appropriate and
eliminates the administrative burden on
the parties.
IPAA, et al. Letter: The Equal
Opportunity Clause is redundant
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
inasmuch as there are Equal
Opportunity provisions in the lease.
MMS disagrees. Under Labor
Department regulations at 41 CFR 60–
1.4, a party who contracts with the
Unites States, such as a lessee, must
incorporate the Equal Opportunity
Clause of section 202 of Executive Order
12146 in every subcontract.
Accordingly, the clause is required in
subleases of operating rights and MMS
is including it in these forms. It is not
required for assignments in which the
assignor retains no interest in the lease,
but MMS does not believe that the fact
warrants creating separate forms for two
types of transfers.
IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents
suggest that only the first sentence of
paragraph four (page two), Part B—
Certification and Acceptance of the
forms, be required. Respondents claim
that additional language is a restatement
of lease terms, to which the assignee is
bound by the first sentence; and the Act
and regulations apply without including
reference to either assignment.
Respondents state that restating lease
terms and regulations in an assignment
inherently includes a risk of
contractually modifying lease terms and
regulations. Respondents state that
reference to compliance with all
applicable regulations now or in the
future under the Act clearly exceeds the
statutory authority granted to MMS, and
this language should be removed from
the proposed assignment forms.
The draft language restates without
alteration the terms of the underlying
lease. As noted above, all lessees and
operators are subject to all MMS
regulations, regardless of when the lease
was issued, unless they are expressly
inconsistent with the terms of the lease
contract or the regulation itself limits its
application. That section 5(a) of the Act
makes some regulations expressly
applicable to existing leases doesn’t
constitute a prohibition of other
regulations which, as duly promulgated
regulations under the Administrative
Procedures Act, have the force and
effect of law. For the very reason that
some question MMS authority to
enforce some regulations as to
preexisting leases, it is important that
the application for approval of the
assignment of such leases includes the
new lessee’s agreement to comply with
duly promulgated regulations to protect
public safety and insure accountability
for royalties. Based on this reasoning,
the language remains in the forms.
IPAA, et al. Letter: The requirement
that assignors and assignees comply
with the qualification requirements of
30 CFR part 256 is covered by the
regulations, independent of the
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
assignment. Respondents state that
MMS monitors both compliance with
the regulations and corporate authority
to sign documents by requiring listings
of corporate officers and filing powers of
attorneys. Respondents claim that
paragraph five, Part B—Certification and
Acceptance of the forms, is unnecessary
and should be removed.
MMS recognizes that the qualification
requirements are covered in the
regulations. However, MMS is
considering the issue of self-certification
to eliminate the need for updating of
qualification files. If MMS were to
approve such an action, then this
statement will need to be incorporated
on every existing and future form that
MMS uses in administration of its
programs. Therefore, the language will
remain in the assignment forms as
preparation for future utility.
IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents
claim, as a general comment, that
standardization would help but not
eliminate the need for some MMS
analysis because of the necessary
inclusion of Exhibit ‘‘B–1’’, which
includes the parties’ unique terms
negotiated for each transaction.
MMS is not privy to the special terms
and conditions between the parties and
rarely reviews such language. MMS
records are most impacted by the
information on the forms. The format is
structured to save time in reading the
document seeking information that is
transposed to the approval letter. Again,
the form is designed to include all
information that is on the approval
letters as well as conveyance language
to serve two purposes—streamlining of
review and approval and the
accommodation of electronic filing in
the future. Exhibit B–1 has been
changed to Exhibit ‘‘A’’ because we
have eliminated multiple Assignors and
Assignees, as stated above, which were
identified on the original Exhibit ‘‘A’’.
El Paso and NCX Letter: The
relinquishment form is only executed by
the record title interest owners, which
could cause issues with any operating
rights owners. The relinquishment form
contains language to disallow
relinquishments of record title where
there are producing operating rights so
as to preclude termination of producing
operating rights. MMS’s policies of
encouraging exploration and
development and of increasing
revenues, and the principle of
respecting the integrity of property
interests require refusal of
relinquishment of record title where
there are producing operating rights.
Just as the assignment forms bind the
assignee of operating rights to the lease
terms and conditions, the integrity of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
those rights conveyed should be
respected by MMS.
While MMS recognizes the issue,
MMS does not have a contract with the
operating rights owners. This
contractual right exists with the record
title owners as they are the signatory
parties to the lease instrument.
Therefore, the proposed relinquishment
form will remain as proposed and only
need execution from the record title
owners of the lease.
NCX Letter: The assignment forms do
not contain conveyance language and
are not in a form that is recordable in
adjacent county/parish record; that
there is not enough space at the top of
the forms to be accepted for recordation;
that so many elements would be
required to be added in Exhibit ‘‘B–1’’
that the common practice will become
to prepare a standard assignment and
then attach the entire assignment as
Exhibit B–1. This will lead to a
duplication effort requiring Exhibit B–1
to be executed whether it is an exhibit
or full assignment, along with the MMS
form assignment, that ‘‘B–1’’ would be
recorded in the adjacent county/parish
records and the MMS form would not.
As stated above, MMS has reworded
the language to make the instrument a
formal conveyance. The comment on
space for recordation on the front of the
document is not valid. Most county/
parish Clerk of Court offices stamp
recording information on the back page
of the document. However, in lieu of
that, MMS feels there is ample space on
the signature page for the recordation
information of the county/parish.
Specific instructions are given for the
completion of the assignment forms.
Attaching the entire assignment as
Exhibit ‘‘A’’ will be unacceptable to
MMS and will be returned unapproved.
Such an exercise will defeat the purpose
of this streamlining effort for industry
and Exhibit B–1 has been changed to
Exhibit ‘‘A’’ as set forth above.
NCX Letter: The columns for interest
decimals are confusing and should be
clarified.
MMS concurs and, as mentioned
above, deleted the columns and
replaced same with standard
conveyance language. Please see the
above comments.
NCX Letter: Commenter was confused
over the effective date of the assignment
versus the effective date of the lease and
the location of this information. Further,
it was commented that the proposed
forms do not take the place of the
transmittal letter required by the MMS
Adjudication Unit, which the
commenter claims, contains much of the
same information as the proposed
forms.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13425
The forms are clear in this regard and
MMS feels the commenter did not
thoroughly review the form before
making this statement; therefore, the
comment is invalid.
As to the transmittal letter issue,
MMS disagrees. The transmittal letter
does not contain the same information
as the assignment form. Upon
preparation of transmittal letters,
industry should be careful not to repeat
information contained in the assignment
forms. Such transmittal letters should
notify MMS of such issues as the
submittal of Designation of Operator
forms, Bonds, Oil Spill Financial
Responsibility Forms, or any other
information the submitter desires in
assisting with the review process; and
whether such information is included
with the assignment or the reasons it is
not included, which would facilitate the
initial review process by MMS staff.
Should this become a major issue, MMS
will consider recommending to industry
a standard format letter to utilize with
the transmittal of the assignment.
If you wish to comment in response
to this notice, you may send your
comments to the offices listed under the
ADDRESSES section of this notice. OMB
has up to 60 days to approve or
disapprove the information collection
but may respond after 30 days.
Therefore, to ensure maximum
consideration, OMB should receive
public comments by April 14, 2006.
Public Comment Procedures: MMS’s
practice is to make comments, including
names and addresses of respondents,
available for public review. If you wish
your name and/or address to be
withheld, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your
comment. MMS will honor the request
to the extent allowable by the law;
however, anonymous comments will
not be considered. All submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be
made available for public inspection in
their entirety.
MMS Information Collection
Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202)
208–7744.
Dated: December 9, 2005.
E.P. Danenberger,
Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. E6–3706 Filed 3–14–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13422-13425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3706]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
Agency Information Collection Activities: Submitted for Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Notice of a new information collection (1010-NEW).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we
are notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information
collection request (ICR) for review and approval of the paperwork
requirements in the regulations under ``30 CFR 256, Subparts J and K,
and 30 CFR 250, Subpart J,'' and related documents. This notice also
provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the paperwork
burden of these regulatory requirements.
DATES: Submit written comments by April 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this information collection
directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for
the Department of the Interior via OMB e-mail: (OIRA--
DOCKET@omb.eop.gov); or by fax (202) 395-6566; identify with (1010-
NEW).
Submit a copy of your comments to the Department of the Interior,
MMS, via:
MMS's Public Connect on-line commenting system, https://
ocsconnect.mms.gov. Follow the instructions on the Web site for
submitting comments.
E-mail MMS at rules.comments@mms.gov. Use Information
Collection Number 1010-NEW in the subject line.
Fax: 703-787-1093. Identify with Information Collection
Number 1010-NEW.
Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the
Interior; Minerals Management Service; Attention: Rules Processing Team
(RPT); 381 Elden Street, MS-4024; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. Please
reference ``Information Collection 1010-NEW'' in your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Blundon, Rules Processing Team,
(703) 787-1600. You may also contact Cheryl Blundon to obtain a copy,
at no cost, of the regulations and forms that require the subject
collection of information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: 30 CFR 256, Subparts J and K, and 30 CFR 250, Subpart J.
Forms: MMS-149, MMS-150, MMS-151, and MMS-152.
OMB Control Number: 1010-NEW.
Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended
(43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to prescribe rules and
regulations to administer leasing of the OCS. Such rules and
regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease.
Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and
natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to
make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as
rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development
with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure
the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and
to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. Also, the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) prohibits certain lease
bidding arrangements (42 U.S.C. 6213(c)).
These authorities and responsibilities are among those delegated to
the Minerals Management Service (MMS) under which MMS issues
regulations governing oil and gas and sulphur operations in the OCS.
This information collection request (ICR) addresses the regulations at
30 CFR part 250, Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer
Continental Shelf, 30 CFR part 256, Leasing of Sulphur or Oil and Gas
in the OCS, and the associated supplementary Notices to Lessees (NTLs)
and operators intended to provide clarification, description, or
explanation of these regulations. This ICR concerns the use of new
forms to process the transfer of interest in lease and rights-of-way
per 30 CFR part 250, subpart J, Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way,
30 CFR 256, subpart J, Assignments, Transfers and Extensions, and the
filing of relinquishments per 30 CFR 256, subpart K, Termination of
Leases.
We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary
[[Page 13423]]
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its
implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and under regulations at 30
CFR 250.196, ``Data and information to be made available to the
public,'' and 30 CFR part 252, ``OCS Oil and Gas Information Program.''
No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory.
The MMS uses the information required by 30 CFR part 250, subpart
J, ``Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way,'' and 30 CFR part 256,
subpart J, ``Assignments, Transfers and Extensions,'' to track the
ownership of leases as to record title, operating rights, and pipeline
right-of-ways. MMS will use this information to update the corporate
database which is used to determine what leases are available for a
Lease Sale and the ownership of all OCS leases. Non-proprietary
information is also publicly available from the MMS corporate database
via the internet.
Frequency: On occasion.
Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 200
Federal oil and gas or sulphur OCS lessees.
Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping ``Hour'' Burden: The
estimated annual ``hour'' burden for this information collection is a
total of 1,512 hours. The following chart details the individual
components and estimated hour burdens. In calculating the burdens, we
assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal
course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary
and took that into account in estimating the burden.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
30 CFR 256 Subparts J and K; 30 CFR Reporting or recordkeeping Hour Average number of burden
250, Subpart J and related NTLs requirement burden annual responses hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart J: 256.62, 256.64, 256.65, File application and \1/2\ 2,500 applications.... 1,250
256.67. required information for
assignment or transfer for
approval/comment on filing
fee (forms MMS-150 and MMS-
151).
Subpart K: 256.76................... File written request for \1/2\ 323 relinquish- ments. 1162
relinquishment (form MMS-
152).
Subpart J: 250.1018................. File application and \1/2\ 200 applications...... 100
required information for
assignment or transfer for
approval/comment on filing
fee (form MMS-149).
---------------------------------------------
Total Burden.................... ............................ ......... 3,023................. 1,512
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rounded.
Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping ``Non-Hour Cost'' Burden: We
have identified no paperwork ``non-hour cost'' burdens associated with
the collection of information. The fees associated with the
applications have been covered and approved under OMB Control Number
1010-0006, expiration 3/31/07.
Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)
provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated
to respond.
Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.) requires each agency ``* * * to provide notice * * * and
otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies
concerning each proposed collection of information * * *'' Agencies
must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to
perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d)
minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The regulations also inform the public that they may comment at any
time on the collections of information and provides the address to
which they should send comments. We received 14 different sets of
comments from trade associations, as well as, oil and gas companies in
response to the Federal Register notice from respondents covered under
these regulations or who will be submitting these forms. Their names
were: American Petroleum Institute, National Ocean Industries
Association, Domestic Petroleum Council, Independent Petroleum
Association of America (IPAA), U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Offshore
Operators Committee, NCX Company, L.L.C., El Paso Production Company.
MMS's response to industry comments on the Assignment Forms were
the following:
IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents suggested that MMS develop a
transmittal sheet to be attached to the assignment instrument. The
transmittal sheet would include the information needed by MMS to
monitor ownership in leases, but would not alter the rights and
obligations being conveyed in the assignment documents prepared by
industry.
MMS disagrees with this suggestion. The purpose of the proposed
forms is to streamline and reduce the time necessary to adjudicate
assignments, which are requested by industry on a frequent basis. MMS's
past experience indicates oversights in careful review and preparation
by industry, thereby slowing the approval process and the return of
documents unapproved for correction. All aspects of the approval letter
have been incorporated into the assignment forms. When the forms are
approved by MMS, they are signed by an authorized MMS representative
and will be returned with a computer generated print-out of the
ownership as it exists after the assignment has been approved.
MMS recognizes that industry assignments are unique. In order to
accommodate this need, MMS has identified Exhibit A for this purpose
(Exhibit A is later deleted based on another comment). The reason for
this is to allow the companies to subject their assignments to other
legal contracts for which MMS is not a participating party while
providing pertinent information on the approved form in a format that
can accommodate an electronic filing in the future, and provides
information in the exact same format each time.
IPAA, et al. Letter: If MMS continues to use the proposed forms,
Part A should define the term ``record title'' and ``operating rights''
interests, and the conveyance language should be revised to clearly
state the conveyed right, title and interest.
[[Page 13424]]
The term ``operating rights'' is defined in 30 CFR 250.105. The
term ``record title'' is well understood in the oil and gas industry to
include all property interests in a lease that the lessee has not
transferred to others. It is not the intent of the form to change these
meanings and there is no reference in the forms to indicate otherwise.
MMS agrees that the conveyance language in the proposed forms was not
clear and did not follow standard legal protocol in its current form.
Therefore, the language has been changed in the form.
IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents conclude that the interest columns
on the proposed forms are confusing and they have concern for the
``Final Ownership'' percentage when there are multiple transactions
between the parties affecting the same properties that would cause a
different ownership based on the time of the receipt of the assignment.
MMS processes assignments in the order of date received. Therefore,
multiple transactions can be accepted and processed in order without
affecting the final ownership of the assignment. MMS has reconsidered
the necessity of the interest columns and has concluded that the
columns can be confusing and has predicted that assignments would be
rejected due to common errors and misunderstandings. Therefore, MMS has
eliminated the columns and has provided a ``blank'' after the words
``Assignor(s) does hereby sell, assign, transfer, and convey unto
Assignee(s) the following undivided right, title, and interest.'' This
blank will contain the decimal interest that is being conveyed and will
always be a full 8/8ths number and will eliminate the guess work on
fractions. MMS will continue to require that decimals be carried out to
the fifth decimal place. Exhibit ``A'' has also been deleted. We have
provided for two Assignors and two Assignees. If more than two are
needed, industry may duplicate the signature block and attach to the
assignment form.
IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents argue that the assignment forms
not provide that the assignees shall fully comply with all future
regulations, but only those ``for the prevention of waste and
conservation of the natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf,
and the protection of correlative rights.'' Respondents argue that
anything more exceeds MMS's statutory authority and constitutes an
alteration of lease terms. But the same respondents suggest that only
the first sentence of the acceptance of lease terms be required because
``the Act and regulations apply without including reference to either
in the assignment''.
We agree that the regulations apply without recital in the
assignment, but choose to retain the statement to avoid the type of
confusion reflected in the former comment. All MMS regulations are
binding on all lessees and operators, unless they are expressly
inconsistent with the terms of the lease contract or the regulation
itself limits its application.
IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents argue that Part B of the proposed
forms (all the forms) contain unnecessary certification, that further
certifications constitute warranties and risk misapplication of the
regulations and lease terms. In particular, the certification of
ownership is a warranty that frequently is limited between the parties
to a transaction. As a result the certification would often be
inconsistent with Exhibit ``B-1'' which includes the additional
assignment terms of the parties.
MSS does not agree. This statement is not a warranty, but a
statement that you own the interest. The language used in the proposed
forms does not say ``Assignor hereby warrants its interest in the
lease''; it simply states that the Assignor certifies that they own the
interest conveyed by the assignment. MMS does not agree that this would
be inconsistent with the provisions of Exhibit B-1.
IPAA, et al. Letter: The debarment language in the proposed forms
is unnecessary, would require excessive due diligence, and is already
maintained in MMS lease sale files. It was further recited that the
recently published government-wide debarment regulations (68 FR 66534)
suggesting that additional certifications are inappropriate. Reference
is made to the preamble in those regulations calling for the
elimination of assurances that are found to be unnecessary or where
technology has eliminated the need by Federal agencies to obtain
debarment certifications. Respondents further interpret this ruling to
mean that further use of debarment certifications after an initial
filing, are disfavored.
MMS has reviewed the recent debarment regulations and concludes
that the proposed form language is burdensome. However, MMS feels the
language is necessary and should be included in the approved forms. MMS
has recently corresponded with industry in this regard for Sale Notice
issues and has redrafted the language for use in the proposed forms.
MMS feels that this reduced language is appropriate and eliminates the
administrative burden on the parties.
IPAA, et al. Letter: The Equal Opportunity Clause is redundant
inasmuch as there are Equal Opportunity provisions in the lease.
MMS disagrees. Under Labor Department regulations at 41 CFR 60-1.4,
a party who contracts with the Unites States, such as a lessee, must
incorporate the Equal Opportunity Clause of section 202 of Executive
Order 12146 in every subcontract. Accordingly, the clause is required
in subleases of operating rights and MMS is including it in these
forms. It is not required for assignments in which the assignor retains
no interest in the lease, but MMS does not believe that the fact
warrants creating separate forms for two types of transfers.
IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents suggest that only the first
sentence of paragraph four (page two), Part B--Certification and
Acceptance of the forms, be required. Respondents claim that additional
language is a restatement of lease terms, to which the assignee is
bound by the first sentence; and the Act and regulations apply without
including reference to either assignment. Respondents state that
restating lease terms and regulations in an assignment inherently
includes a risk of contractually modifying lease terms and regulations.
Respondents state that reference to compliance with all applicable
regulations now or in the future under the Act clearly exceeds the
statutory authority granted to MMS, and this language should be removed
from the proposed assignment forms.
The draft language restates without alteration the terms of the
underlying lease. As noted above, all lessees and operators are subject
to all MMS regulations, regardless of when the lease was issued, unless
they are expressly inconsistent with the terms of the lease contract or
the regulation itself limits its application. That section 5(a) of the
Act makes some regulations expressly applicable to existing leases
doesn't constitute a prohibition of other regulations which, as duly
promulgated regulations under the Administrative Procedures Act, have
the force and effect of law. For the very reason that some question MMS
authority to enforce some regulations as to preexisting leases, it is
important that the application for approval of the assignment of such
leases includes the new lessee's agreement to comply with duly
promulgated regulations to protect public safety and insure
accountability for royalties. Based on this reasoning, the language
remains in the forms.
IPAA, et al. Letter: The requirement that assignors and assignees
comply with the qualification requirements of 30 CFR part 256 is
covered by the regulations, independent of the
[[Page 13425]]
assignment. Respondents state that MMS monitors both compliance with
the regulations and corporate authority to sign documents by requiring
listings of corporate officers and filing powers of attorneys.
Respondents claim that paragraph five, Part B--Certification and
Acceptance of the forms, is unnecessary and should be removed.
MMS recognizes that the qualification requirements are covered in
the regulations. However, MMS is considering the issue of self-
certification to eliminate the need for updating of qualification
files. If MMS were to approve such an action, then this statement will
need to be incorporated on every existing and future form that MMS uses
in administration of its programs. Therefore, the language will remain
in the assignment forms as preparation for future utility.
IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents claim, as a general comment, that
standardization would help but not eliminate the need for some MMS
analysis because of the necessary inclusion of Exhibit ``B-1'', which
includes the parties' unique terms negotiated for each transaction.
MMS is not privy to the special terms and conditions between the
parties and rarely reviews such language. MMS records are most impacted
by the information on the forms. The format is structured to save time
in reading the document seeking information that is transposed to the
approval letter. Again, the form is designed to include all information
that is on the approval letters as well as conveyance language to serve
two purposes--streamlining of review and approval and the accommodation
of electronic filing in the future. Exhibit B-1 has been changed to
Exhibit ``A'' because we have eliminated multiple Assignors and
Assignees, as stated above, which were identified on the original
Exhibit ``A''.
El Paso and NCX Letter: The relinquishment form is only executed by
the record title interest owners, which could cause issues with any
operating rights owners. The relinquishment form contains language to
disallow relinquishments of record title where there are producing
operating rights so as to preclude termination of producing operating
rights. MMS's policies of encouraging exploration and development and
of increasing revenues, and the principle of respecting the integrity
of property interests require refusal of relinquishment of record title
where there are producing operating rights. Just as the assignment
forms bind the assignee of operating rights to the lease terms and
conditions, the integrity of those rights conveyed should be respected
by MMS.
While MMS recognizes the issue, MMS does not have a contract with
the operating rights owners. This contractual right exists with the
record title owners as they are the signatory parties to the lease
instrument. Therefore, the proposed relinquishment form will remain as
proposed and only need execution from the record title owners of the
lease.
NCX Letter: The assignment forms do not contain conveyance language
and are not in a form that is recordable in adjacent county/parish
record; that there is not enough space at the top of the forms to be
accepted for recordation; that so many elements would be required to be
added in Exhibit ``B-1'' that the common practice will become to
prepare a standard assignment and then attach the entire assignment as
Exhibit B-1. This will lead to a duplication effort requiring Exhibit
B-1 to be executed whether it is an exhibit or full assignment, along
with the MMS form assignment, that ``B-1'' would be recorded in the
adjacent county/parish records and the MMS form would not.
As stated above, MMS has reworded the language to make the
instrument a formal conveyance. The comment on space for recordation on
the front of the document is not valid. Most county/parish Clerk of
Court offices stamp recording information on the back page of the
document. However, in lieu of that, MMS feels there is ample space on
the signature page for the recordation information of the county/
parish.
Specific instructions are given for the completion of the
assignment forms. Attaching the entire assignment as Exhibit ``A'' will
be unacceptable to MMS and will be returned unapproved. Such an
exercise will defeat the purpose of this streamlining effort for
industry and Exhibit B-1 has been changed to Exhibit ``A'' as set forth
above.
NCX Letter: The columns for interest decimals are confusing and
should be clarified.
MMS concurs and, as mentioned above, deleted the columns and
replaced same with standard conveyance language. Please see the above
comments.
NCX Letter: Commenter was confused over the effective date of the
assignment versus the effective date of the lease and the location of
this information. Further, it was commented that the proposed forms do
not take the place of the transmittal letter required by the MMS
Adjudication Unit, which the commenter claims, contains much of the
same information as the proposed forms.
The forms are clear in this regard and MMS feels the commenter did
not thoroughly review the form before making this statement; therefore,
the comment is invalid.
As to the transmittal letter issue, MMS disagrees. The transmittal
letter does not contain the same information as the assignment form.
Upon preparation of transmittal letters, industry should be careful not
to repeat information contained in the assignment forms. Such
transmittal letters should notify MMS of such issues as the submittal
of Designation of Operator forms, Bonds, Oil Spill Financial
Responsibility Forms, or any other information the submitter desires in
assisting with the review process; and whether such information is
included with the assignment or the reasons it is not included, which
would facilitate the initial review process by MMS staff. Should this
become a major issue, MMS will consider recommending to industry a
standard format letter to utilize with the transmittal of the
assignment.
If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send
your comments to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this
notice. OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information
collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum
consideration, OMB should receive public comments by April 14, 2006.
Public Comment Procedures: MMS's practice is to make comments,
including names and addresses of respondents, available for public
review. If you wish your name and/or address to be withheld, you must
state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. MMS will honor
the request to the extent allowable by the law; however, anonymous
comments will not be considered. All submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be
made available for public inspection in their entirety.
MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202)
208-7744.
Dated: December 9, 2005.
E.P. Danenberger,
Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-3706 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P