Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)-Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Explorations of the OCS-Proprietary Terms and Data Disclosure, 16033-16040 [06-3009]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
approved the information collection
requirements contained in this AD and has
assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056.
(1) If the inspection is accomplished after
the effective date of this AD: Submit the
report within 10 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was accomplished
before the effective date of this AD: Submit
the report within 10 days after the effective
date of this AD.
Parts Installation
(h) As of the effective date of this AD, no
person may install a CFRP rudder, any series
of P/N A55471500, on any airplane, unless
the CFRP rudder has been inspected and any
applicable corrective action has been
accomplished in accordance with paragraphs
(f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March
24, 2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 06–3119 Filed 3–28–06; 12:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
21 CFR Part 3
Minerals Management Service
Change of Telephone Number;
Technical Amendment
30 CFR Parts 250 and 251
(i)(1) The Manager, International Branch,
ANM–116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Food and Drug Administration,
ACTION:
(k) You must use Airbus All Operators
Telex A310–55A2043, dated March 2, 2006,
or Airbus All Operators Telex A300–
55A6042, dated March 2, 2006, as applicable;
and Airbus Technical Disposition 943.0046/
06, dated March 2, 2006; to perform the
actions that are required by this AD, unless
the AD specifies otherwise. (Only page 1 of
Airbus All Operators Telex A310–55A2043
and Airbus All Operators Telex A300–
55A6042 contains the document number and
date of the document; no other page of the
document contains this information.) The
Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of these
documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1
Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France, for a copy of this service
information. You may review copies at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., room PL–401, Nassif Building,
Washington, DC; on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov; or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this
material at the NARA, call (202) 741–6030,
or go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Mar 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
Dated: March 23, 2006.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 06–3046 Filed 3–29–06; 8:45 am]
Food and Drug Administration
HHS.
Material Incorporated by Reference
2. Section 3.6 is amended by
removing ‘‘301–827–9229’’ and by
adding in its place ‘‘301–427–1934’’.
I
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
AGENCY:
(j) The European Aviation Safety Agency’s
airworthiness directive 2006–0066, dated
March 24, 2006, also addresses the subject of
this AD.
[Amended]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
Related Information
§ 3.6
16033
Final rule; technical
amendment.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is amending its
regulations to reflect a change in
telephone number for the Office of
Combination Products (OCP). This
action is editorial in nature and is
intended to improve the accuracy of the
agency’s regulations.
DATES: March 30, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leigh Hayes, Office of Combination
Products (HFG–3), Food and Drug
Administration, 15800 Crabbs Branch
Way, suite 200, Rockville, MD 20855,
301–427–1934.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is
amending its regulations in 21 CFR part
3 to reflect a change in the telephone
number for the OCP.
Publication of this document
constitutes final action on this change
under the Administrative Procedure Act
(5 U.S.C. 553). Notice and public
procedures are unnecessary because
FDA is merely correcting a
nonsubstantive error.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and
procedure, Biologics, Drugs, Medical
devices.
I Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR Part 3 is
amended as follows:
PART 3—PRODUCT JURISDICTION
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 17 continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 353, 355,
360, 360c–360f, 360h–360j, 360gg–360ss,
360bbb–2, 371(a), 379e, 381, 394; 42 U.S.C.
216, 262, 264.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
RIN 1010–AC81
Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)—
Geological and Geophysical (G&G)
Explorations of the OCS—Proprietary
Terms and Data Disclosure
Minerals Management Service
(MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This rule expands the
circumstances under which MMS
allows inspection of G&G data and
information. The rule also modifies the
start dates of proprietary terms for
geophysical data and information and
any derivatives of these data and
information that MMS acquires. In
addition, the rule clarifies the
proprietary terms of geological data and
information MMS acquires pursuant to
a permit.
DATES: Effective Date: May 1, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George Dellagiarino or David Zinzer at
(703) 787–1628.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final
rule implements changes put forward by
our notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) published July 17, 2002 (67 FR
46942). The comment period ended
September 16, 2002. MMS received 10
sets of written comments and
recommendations in response to the
NPR. Two sets of comments and
recommendations were from industry
associations, and eight were from
permitttees and third party users of G&G
data and information collected on the
OCS. We have carefully considered each
of these comments and
recommendations. We did not adopt
recommendations that did not appear to
be in the public’s best interest.
Discussion and Analysis of Comments
MMS has decided to proceed with the
final rule after carefully considering all
written comments on the proposed
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
16034
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
rulemaking. MMS appreciates the
candor and scope of the many
comments put forth, and the concerns of
industry. However, MMS believes that
specific concerns with the proposed
rulemaking have been addressed
properly, and that where MMS and
industry disagree, MMS is acting
appropriately, balancing the needs of
industry and the public interest.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 250.196 Data and Information
To Be Made Available to the Public or
for Limited Inspection
MMS is extending the circumstances
under which MMS selectively allows
persons with a direct and pertinent
interest to inspect proprietary G&G data
and information that are used by MMS
in certain decisions. MMS currently
allows limited inspection of data and
information related to unitization
determinations on two or more leases,
competitive reservoir determinations,
proper plans of development for
competitive reservoirs, operational
safety, and the environment. Under this
final rule, MMS will also allow limited
inspection of G&G data and information
related to field determinations and
eligibility for royalty relief. It has
become necessary to include these
circumstances to properly explain
related MMS decisions.
Comment: One commenter requested
that MMS withdraw, and other
commenters suggested changes to, the
proposed language. One of the
commenters noted that there was a
possibility that MMS could release
highly confidential data and other
information to competitors or other
groups, which would impede the flow
of information between MMS and
lessees.
Other commenters cited increased
opportunities for a competitor to
determine, at no cost, what data a
company sought to keep confidential.
These same commenters argued also
that the proposed language gives
competitors the opportunity to look at,
work, and analyze a submitting party’s
data and information without obtaining
a license, thereby depriving the data
owner of the economic benefits of
obtaining the data.
Response: MMS is proceeding with
the proposed language. The additional
circumstances under which certain data
and information may be disclosed are
necessary to properly explain decisions
related to field determinations and
eligibility for royalty relief. However, in
meetings where MMS discloses certain
data and information to persons with a
direct interest in specific MMS
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Mar 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
decisions and related issues, MMS will
not allow these persons to work or
analyze data or information submitted
by any party. MMS will not release data
or information at these meetings.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that the proposed criteria for
determining limited access to the
confidential data and information are
vague and overbroad.
One commenter suggested language
directly adapted from an industry model
data licensing contract. The suggested
language would limit disclosure of
geophysical data and information to
persons with a direct interest in related
MMS decisions and issues; and would
limit disclosure to such portions of the
data and information directly pertaining
to the decisions in question. Further,
inspection would be done on MMS
premises, in a secure environment
under direct control of MMS. MMS
would not provide copies of data and
information, nor allow viewing parties
to make, retain, or remove any copy
thereof. Another commenter suggested
that participants in the meeting agree in
writing prior to inspection to maintain
the confidentiality of the G&G data and
information disclosed or discussed.
A third commenter suggested that
these persons should be given only
passive access to the portions of the
geophysical information related to the
specific geographic areas that are the
subject of consultation. The commenter
also suggested that persons inspecting
the data and information should be
prevented from summarizing,
transcribing, reproducing, or
photocopying the geophysical
information; operating a computer
workstation on which geophysical
information is displayed; and altering or
generating displays, interpretations, or
processing of geophysical information.
They also should be prevented from
departing the MMS premises with any
geophysical information, or any
summary, description, or knowledge
thereof that is comparable to having a
copy thereof. Furthermore, under no
circumstances should MMS allow
inspection by any person of non-public
G&G data or information covering any
leased or unleased acreage not directly
associated with a specific MMS
decision. This includes, but is not
limited to, regional studies or geological
trend analysis partly or wholly based on
non-public data or information.
Response: In response to these
industry concerns, MMS is adding
language to the rule to further ensure
and clarify that proprietary G&G data
and information are disclosed only to
persons directly associated with specific
MMS decisions affecting specific
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
geographic areas, and who agree in
writing to confidentiality of the data and
information. While most disclosures of
the data and information will take place
at MMS offices, MMS retains the
prerogative of disclosing the data and
information at non-MMS sites, if
required by circumstances. However,
MMS will disclose proprietary data and
information only when necessary to
explain these types of decisions, and
will minimize the opportunity of
meeting participants to inspect the data
and information. MMS will determine
the data and information that will be
disclosed, the location of and
participants in meetings with MMS, and
the conditions of disclosure during and
after the meeting. MMS will not allow
participants to operate a computer or
reproduce or transcribe information
during a meeting, or remove data or
information from the premises.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that, if MMS is experiencing a
substantial problem in release of
confidential G&G data and information,
MMS resolve the problem through the
use of some type of form protective
order that controls the individuals who
will see and have access to data or
information, and which controls the
conditions surrounding use after
disclosure. The commenter also
suggested use of an expert not
associated with the competitor
company.
Response: MMS does not believe that
a form protective order or use of an
outside expert is necessary to properly
protect confidential G&G data and
information, and will not make the
recommended changes. MMS limits
access to data and information disclosed
at meetings to persons with a direct
interest in MMS decisions, and controls
the conditions surrounding use after
disclosure.
Section 251.14 Protecting and
Disclosing Data and Information
Submitted to MMS Under a Permit
MMS is changing the start date of the
proprietary terms for geophysical data
and information from the date that the
data and information are submitted to
MMS to the date that the permit under
which the originating data were
acquired was issued. The start date of
the proprietary term for geological data
and information currently is also the
date that the permit was issued.
Although the lengths of the proprietary
terms do not change, the net result is
that the total length of time for which
geophysical data and information are
held by MMS before public release will
be shorter than under the current rule.
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Since MMS may select and retain
geophysical data and information
numerous times from a single permit,
under the existing regulations there is a
separate start and release date for each
submission of geophysical data and
information. This has resulted in
substantial and complex recordkeeping
for submitted data and information.
This change is being made to relieve the
administrative recordkeeping burden by
using a single date (the permit issue
date) to manage the release of the
geophysical data and information
following expiration of the proprietary
term.
Comment: One commenter asked that
MMS reconsider the proposed rule, and
that MMS meet with geophysical
contractors to modify the proposal in a
manner that will allow the MMS to
achieve its recordkeeping goals while
not destroying the existence of the
geophysical contractor and Gulf of
Mexico (GOM) exploration.
Response: After carefully considering
all comments, including suggested
options, MMS is proceeding with the
proposed rule. MMS believes that
changing the start date of proprietary
terms for geophysical data and
information to the date the permit was
issued is necessary, and is the only
viable option to efficiently and properly
manage the release of the data and
information.
Comment: One commenter noted that,
in 2000, geophysical contractors in the
GOM invested $214 million in data
acquisition and initial data processing,
and $62 million in reprocessing existing
data. Similarly, in 2001, the industry
invested $281 million in data
acquisition and initial processing, and
$92 million in reprocessing existing
data.
Another commenter stated that the
economic value of privileged and
proprietary information received by the
Secretary of the Interior from permittees
and lessees is emphasized by the
requirement in the OCS Lands Act for
the Secretary of the Interior to secure
the agreement of permittees or licensees
before releasing data to states under
certain circumstances.
One commenter stated that shortening
the proprietary time period associated
with all geophysical data and
information previously submitted, and
submitted in the future, regardless of the
terms of the original permit, is
financially detrimental to the data
owners. Two commenters stated that
resetting the start date [of the
proprietary term] to the date the permit
is issued reduces the economic life of
new geophysical information, and in
effect reduces the return on investment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Mar 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
in future non-exclusive seismic
programs, hence stifling healthy
competition and investment in new
technologies and innovation.
Another commenter further stated
that investment in new non-exclusive
seismic programs will be reduced and
employment will be adversely affected.
Another commenter asserted that
competition and exploration in the
GOM will be limited to a few majors,
eliminating small to medium
exploration entities, eliminating a large
portion of the MMS leases in the GOM,
and eliminating even more geophysical
companies.
One commenter stated that since the
collection and possession of G&G data is
a valuable property right, MMS should
reconsider promulgation of a rule which
reduces or destroys the value of that
property right by earlier release through
promulgation of a regulation retroactive
to June 1976.
Response: MMS recognizes the
significant investment that the
geophysical service industry and the oil
and gas industry make in acquiring,
licensing, processing, and reprocessing
geophysical data and information; and
that the competitive and economic
value of these data and information
continues during the proprietary period.
However, only data and information
that are selected and retained by MMS
will be released to the public. Data and
information that are selected for
inspection but not retained by MMS, or
which are not selected for inspection,
are not subject to release by MMS. Data
owners and licensees may hold
geophysical data and information that
are not acquired by MMS confidential
for as long as allowed by, for example,
copyright or intellectual property law.
MMS rarely acquires geophysical data
(e.g., raw field tapes). Moreover, since
most of the geophysical information that
MMS retains was acquired within 2 to
3 years of the date the permit was
issued, only a small amount of
geophysical information would be
released more than 3 years sooner by
using the permit date than is currently
the case when using the date of
submission to MMS.
Furthermore, as stated in the
preamble of the proposed rulemaking,
in 1988 MMS extended the proprietary
term for geophysical data from 10 years
after the date of issuance of the permit
to 50 years after the date of submission
of the data to MMS, and for geophysical
information from 10 years to 25 years
after the date of submission of the
information. Those changes, also made
retroactive to June 1976, substantially
increased the value to companies of data
and information submitted to MMS.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16035
MMS does not believe that the
proposed rule destroys or significantly
reduces the value of property rights by
earlier release through promulgation of
a retroactive regulation.
Comment: One commenter stated that
computing power and imaging
algorithms have been improving and
developing more rapidly than data
acquisition technology. Data owners
have applied these computing
technologies to existing geophysical
data which has helped to open up
exploration in areas with subsalt
structures, gas clouds, and amplitude
plays, and to illuminate deep gas on the
continental shelf. New play ideas get
tested; new technologies get developed;
and a cycle of new processing begins.
The proposed rule eliminates incentives
for data owners to invest in new
geophysical information derived from
existing geophysical data.
Another commenter stated that very
few oil and gas companies are willing to
pay the necessary fees for new seismic
data to be acquired in the GOM.
Reprocessing will continue to be the key
enhancement related to seismic data.
Response: MMS recognizes that
increased computer capacity and the
application of advanced algorithms to
older raw data, or previously processed
information, have improved imaging of
sub-bottom geology. However, the use of
modern computing techniques to
process new seismic data acquired with
advanced recording methods and
instrumentation usually yields results
that are superior to those obtained by
reprocessing older data or information.
Modern seismic data are acquired with
more sensitive and reliable instruments;
denser sampling of the sub-bottom; and
superior navigation, positioning, and
on-board data recording and processing
techniques. MMS’ experience is that
industry continues to acquire seismic
data in areas of dense coverage (e.g.,
GOM shallow shelf) with deeper seismic
targets, and in areas of relatively sparse
or no data coverage (e.g., deep water).
Comment: One commenter stated that
in some areas crowded production
facilities provide obstacles to new data
being acquired, leaving holes in the data
which can be filled in by undershooting,
but at a higher cost, or by reprocessing
legacy geophysical data to create valueadded derivative products.
Response: MMS acknowledges that
undershooting production facilities is
usually more costly than shooting in
unobstructed areas or reprocessing
legacy data. However, in practice,
acquiring new data is usually preferable
to reprocessing older data in these areas.
Comment: One commenter noted that
the seismic industry is experiencing
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
16036
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
increasing scrutiny from MMS and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries over
the impacts of acoustic pulses and other
emissions [from seismic surveys] on the
health and well being of marine
mammals, particularly the sperm whale
which is listed as an endangered
species. There are new restrictions on
data acquisition operations, and some
are suggesting that prime producing
areas of the GOM should be designated
as critical habitat which would make
access more difficult.
Response: MMS is funding a
collaborative, international effort to
study sperm whales in the GOM and
determine what, if any, potential
impacts there may be to sperm whales
as a result of seismic survey activity.
MMS also prepared a programmatic
environmental assessment on geological
and geophysical exploration activities in
the GOM. The assessment found no
significant potentially adverse impacts
to sperm whales from seismic survey
activities. MMS, as a precaution,
developed mitigation measures to avoid
or minimize any potential incidental
(accidental) take of certain marine
mammals in the GOM, and petitioned
NOAA Fisheries to promulgate
incidental take regulations governing
the conduct of seismic surveys in the
GOM. Any designation of critical habitat
for the sperm whale in the GOM would
be the responsibility of NOAA Fisheries
under established Endangered Species
Act procedures.
Comment: One commenter noted that
under the proposed changes, a company
that reprocesses older data would enjoy
a much shorter time period during
which MMS would keep the
reprocessed information confidential
than under current regulations.
Competitors could gain access to the
reprocessed information in as few as 2
years after submittal of the information
by the company.
Another commenter stated that, for
the explorer who desires to reprocess
older data in order to make a decision
as to whether to bid on a lease or not,
consideration must be given to the fact
that such a bid may precipitate a request
from MMS for the reprocessed data set
with the probability that it will be
available to others in the near future.
This will have a negative effect on
whether or not to reprocess data as the
data ages.
Response: MMS acknowledges that it
is possible that reprocessed information
derived from data or information that is
more than 20 years old could be made
available in as few as 2 years after
submittal. However, this would be a
relatively rare occurrence.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Mar 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
Processed seismic information that
has been retained by MMS and is more
than 20 years old was acquired on
widely spaced 2–D grids. Reprocessing
this older information would not result
in quality or data density comparable to
more recently acquired 2–D or 3–D
seismic data and processed information.
Also, most seismic information
submitted to MMS was processed near
or at the final stages of the processing
sequence. Most reprocessing for or by
licensees is conducted on information at
earlier stages of processing, closer in the
sequence to initial processing of edited
field tapes. Thus, for the purposes of
reprocessing publicly available seismic
information, there would be little
demand for the processed seismic
information that MMS releases,
following expiration of the proprietary
term. Furthermore, very little seismic
data would be available from MMS for
processing as MMS rarely acquires
seismic data which, if acquired, has a
50-year proprietary term.
Most of the geophysical information
that MMS selects and retains under Part
251 is information that was initially
processed/reprocessed within 3 years
after the permit date. However,
approximately 5 percent of the
information that MMS has retained was
initially processed/reprocessed more
than 3 years after the permit date. For
example, on occasion in areas of sparse
data coverage, MMS will acquire
geophysical information that was
processed or reprocessed 15 years or
more after the date of the permit under
which the source data were collected.
More commonly in these areas, MMS
will acquire geophysical information
that was processed shortly after data
acquisition by a permittee, but was not
selected and retained by MMS until 15
or more years after the data were
processed.
Comment: One commenter noted that
E&P [exploration and production]
companies (third parties) which process
geophysical data that they obtain under
license from permittees usually do not
request, nor are generally furnished,
information relative to the permits
associated with acquisition of the data.
The third parties will not have permit
information available without having to
undertake a significant effort to collect
that needed information. Also, data
libraries which have been bought out
and/or which merged with other
libraries may not be able to determine
missing permit dates.
Response: The great majority of
geophysical information that MMS has
acquired for retention under Part 251 is
from permittees, which makes it easier
to obtain the applicable permit dates
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
associated with the information. MMS
acquires a smaller, though increasing,
amount of geophysical information from
third parties who obtain licenses for, or
acquire on an exclusive basis, data and
information from permittees. When
MMS acquires geophysical information
from third parties, MMS is able to
determine the associated permit date,
albeit with more effort than from the
original permittee.
Comment: Three commenters noted
that legacy seismic information from
contiguous surveys acquired under
different permits over a period of years
are sometimes reprocessed together
using new computing technology to
produce a seamless, single volume of
seismic information used to target a new
exploration objective, and to better
correlate discoveries and improve
images at the former edges of permit
areas.
One of the commenters further noted
that this single deliverable volume of
seismic information derived from
multiple permits would have to be
separated into information sets, based
on the original permit, before release to
the public.
Response: When MMS acquires
geophysical information that cannot be
adequately separated by permit date
from other information in the same area
(coincident or contiguous to each other),
the most recent permit date will be used
to determine the start of the proprietary
term for the whole volume of
information.
Comment: One commenter stated that
geophysical companies keep records of
the dates non-exclusive geophysical
information is available for license to
exploration companies. The date the
geophysical information first becomes
available would be a logical change to
the start time of the proprietary period
during which MMS retains the
information. Under this alternate
solution, the geophysical data owners
would submit to MMS the dates that the
projects were first made available and
certify that this information is accurate.
Although under this alternate proposal
the proprietary period for geophysical
information would still be shortened for
a great number of surveys that MMS has
retained, it would be less onerous than
using the permit date. This would also
allow for each new investment in new
geophysical information to have its own
25-year proprietary period.
Another commenter proposed that the
owner of geophysical data and
information should be given two
alternatives for determining the
confidentiality period for geophysical
information: (1) Use the permit date, as
in the proposed rule, or (2) start the 25-
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
year period on the date of completion of
data processing or reprocessing, on the
condition that the owner of the
information make electronic application
to MMS for a 25-year confidentiality
period; identify the area and product
name of the information, permit date,
and date of completion of the processing
or reprocessing of the information; and
certify the accuracy of information.
Various grace periods to phase in the
suggested alternatives to the proposed
rule were offered by some commenters.
Response: MMS believes that these
alternatives do not alleviate the burden
and impracticality of determining the
release dates for geophysical data and
information submitted to, and retained
by, MMS. The date that a particular set
of information is available to
exploration companies, or the date
processing or reprocessing is completed,
is not adequate. The date that MMS
acquires geophysical information
usually does not coincide with the date
the geophysical information is available
for commercial purposes. MMS usually
acquires information at a separate time
or stage of data processing and
development. Thus, the geophysical
information acquired by MMS would
not coincide in time or content with the
information offered to exploration
companies. Regarding dates on which
data processing is complete, there
would be many instances when these
dates may not be available or accurate.
For example, records are often not
available from permittees who have
gone out of business or have merged
with other companies. Also, many
companies, including permittees and
third parties, did/do not keep accurate
records of the date processing was
completed or the dates that information
was submitted to MMS.
Comment: Two commenters suggested
changing the proprietary term to a
uniform period of 40 years from the date
the permit is issued for G&G data and
information acquired under Part 251
and submitted under Parts 203, 250, or
251.
Another commenter suggested
eliminating the two-step proprietary
period for geophysical data (50 years)
and geophysical information (25 years)
by standardizing all geophysical data
and information to a 50-year period.
Another commenter suggested
granting a new start date of a 25-year
term for new geophysical information
generated when a geophysical company
creates a new and improved product by
processing data acquired 5 years ago, or
earlier.
Response: Extending the proprietary
terms of G&G data and information is
not in the public interest. The final
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Mar 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
rulemaking balances the need to
properly protect data and information
that MMS acquires from industry with
the need to increase competition for oil
and gas exploration and to provide
academia and other parties with
information that may be used to better
understand the geology of the subbottom.
By comparison, G&G data and
information acquired from lessees have
much shorter proprietary terms than
G&G data and information acquired
from permitees. For example, most logs
from wells drilled on GOM leases are
released to the public 2 years after
submittal. Geophysical data and
information acquired from lessees are
released 10 years after submittal, or
when the lease expires, whichever is
sooner. Also, proprietary terms for
offshore geophysical exploration data
and information in other countries are
usually shorter than in the United States
(U.S.). For example, for the continental
shelves of Norway, United Kingdom,
and Australia, the proprietary terms
generally range from 2 to 10 years.
Comment: One commenter voiced
concern over the amount of geophysical
information that will become public in
the next 10 years, and questioned how
digital information would be handled
when the rules were written with the
concept of paper information in mind.
The commenter noted that to date, the
information that has become public all
consists of paper copies and is
distributed on CDs in the form of PDF
files. Geophysical information that will
become available in the future will be
digital. The commenter stated that this
adds many complications to the process,
and asked who will distribute the
information.
Response: MMS releases geophysical
information on analog hard copy (paper
and plastic transparencies) and on CDs.
The information on CDs includes PDF
files of seismic line and map images,
TIFF files of seismic velocity panels,
SEG–P1 navigation files for all seismic
lines released, and digital seismic
information in SEG–Y format. In the
future, MMS may also release
geophysical information on other digital
media such as DVDs, DLT and LTO
tapes, and/or on-line.
Comment: Two commenters stated
that a huge amount of information will
become available to the public in the
coming 10 years and that management
of this information will be a very costly
endeavor. Meanwhile, data owners
already have data storage distribution
facilities in place. The commenters
suggested that MMS consider a policy
that when geophysical information
becomes publicly available, MMS list
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16037
the availability on its Web site, and
direct interested parties to the owner(s)
of the data and information for copying
and distribution.
Response: MMS does not agree to
suggestions that industry distribute
publicly released data and information.
MMS is responsible for a full,
consistent, and timely distribution of
data and information that are readily
available to the public. Not all
companies from which MMS acquired
geophysical data and information still
exist or, after mergers, have the proper
records available and/or the means to
distribute the data and information
when their proprietary terms expire.
Comment: Two commenters also
noted that in other parts of the world
the geophysical industry has
experienced companies that access
public information and use it for more
than their own information purposes.
Scanning and creating digital versions
that can be altered and resold have
occurred and are expected to continue
to occur. If this takes place in the 50year period of data exclusivity, then it
would be very detrimental to the
original data owner.
The commenters further suggested
that MMS publish a notice of ownership
and owner rights on all forms of
information released to the public; or
that such notice of ownership or owner
rights be stated in an accompanying
informational transmittal or cover letter.
The notice would state, notwithstanding
the release of geophysical information,
that the geophysical information
remains the intellectual property of the
party or parties who originally acquired
the data or created the information, and
is subject to their copyright and
ownership rights. The notice would
further state that the rights of
individuals or other entities to use this
geophysical information for their own
use upon its public release was a
condition of their securing the original
right to acquire the data, either through
their lease or by permit, and that
everyone using publicly released data or
information for any purpose other than
their own use contact its owner.
Response: In 2001, MMS started
releasing to the public seismic
information for which the 25-year
proprietary terms have expired. MMS
will continue to release, and will
announce on its Web site the
availability to the public of G&G
information without stating restrictions
on further use of the information. MMS
is not in a position to affirm or endorse
the existence or validity of specific
intellectual property rights in any
particular released information.
However, there may be some type of
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
16038
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
intellectual property right that attaches
to some types of G&G information. Users
should be aware that some of the
information may be copyright protected,
and that it is up to the user to determine
what rights, if any, may apply to
particular information. This is not an
agreement, explicit or otherwise, that
MMS is policing the use of released
information. It is the intellectual
property right owner’s responsibility to
diligently protect its rights.
Procedural Matters
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Order (E.O.) 12866)
This document is not a significant
rule and is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under E.O. 12866.
(1) This rule will not have an effect of
$100 million or more on the economy.
It will not adversely affect in a material
way the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or state, local, or
tribal governments or communities.
MMS takes all actions that result from
the change in the start dates of the
proprietary terms, with no costs to
outside parties. Similarly, there would
be no costs associated to industry
concerning our disclosing permitted
geophysical information for ensuring
proper development of fields or
reservoirs.
(2) This rule will not create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another agency. There are no other
Federal agencies involved in this
process, because it relates to release or
disclosure of geophysical data and
information.
(3) This rule does not alter the
budgetary effects or entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or rights or
obligations of their recipients. This rule
has no effect on these programs or such
rights.
(4) This rule changes the basis for the
start of proprietary terms for
geophysical data and geophysical
information acquired under a permit,
retroactive to June 11, 1976. This rule
does not raise novel legal or policy
issues, although we recognize that this
change in the start date may be
controversial. Some geophysical
companies have concerns that their data
and information may be released by
MMS earlier than under current
regulations.
However, any data to be released will
be at least 50 years old, and any
information to be released will be at
least 25 years old. As previously stated,
the intent of this rule is to alleviate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Mar 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
administrative recordkeeping burdens
and to ensure proper development of
fields or reservoirs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The Department certifies that this
document will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number
of small entities under the RFA (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This revised rule
would modify the start of the
proprietary terms for geophysical data
and information and add language to
ensure proper development of fields or
reservoirs under 30 CFR 251.14 and
250.196. The only entities affected by
this rule change are certain geophysical
companies, if still in existence, whose
data and information being held by
MMS may be released earlier than under
current regulations. The Small Business
Administration classifies geophysical
surveying and mapping services
companies under the North American
Industry Classification System Code
541360. These changes will have no
economic impact on these constituents,
as MMS takes all of the actions with no
cost to our customers.
Your comments are important. The
Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were
established to receive comments from
small businesses about Federal agency
enforcement actions. The Ombudsman
will annually evaluate the enforcement
activities and rate each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on the enforcement
actions of MMS, call toll-free 1–888–
734–3247. You may comment to the
Small Business Administration without
fear of retaliation. Disciplinary action
for retaliation by an MMS employee
may include suspension or termination
from employment with the Department
of the Interior.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under the
SBREFA, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule:
(1) Does not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more.
This rule would modify the proprietary
terms for geophysical data and
information for consistency with those
for geological data and information, and
allow for possible limited disclosure of
certain permitted information for
assuring proper development of a field
or competitive reservoir. This rule will
not impose any costs on industry.
(2) Will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, state, or
local government agencies, or
geographic areas. The modification to
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the proprietary term and change in
language regarding disclosure of
information for proper development of
fields or reservoirs will not cause a
burden in terms of finance or time for
any outside parties.
(3) Does not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
as the information to be released will be
25 years old, and any data to be released
will be 50 years old.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
The proposed revisions to 30 CFR
parts 250 and 251 refer to, but do not
change, information collection
requirements in current regulations. The
rule proposes no new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements, and an
OMB form 83–I submission to OMB
under the PRA, section 3507(d) is not
required. The PRA 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 and assigns a
control number, you are not required to
respond. OMB approved the referenced
information collection requirements for
30 CFR 250 under OMB control number
1010–0114 (22,288 burden hours,
expiration October 31, 2007; and for 30
CFR 251 under OMB control number
1010–0048 (8,272 burden hours),
expiration July 31, 2006.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
According to E. O. 13132, this rule
does not have Federalism implications.
This rule does not substantially and
directly affect the relationship between
the Federal and State Governments. The
modification to the proprietary terms
affects only our own methods of doing
business, and the added language
regarding data disclosure would only be
of interest to industry. There will be no
financial costs to states.
Takings Implications Assessment
(Executive Order 12630)
According to Executive Order 12630,
the rule does not have significant
Takings implications. A Takings
Implication Assessment is not required
because the rule would not take away or
restrict an operator’s right to collect data
and information and would have us
maintain that data and information as
proprietary under the terms of the
permit.
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order
12988)
According to E.O. 12988, the Office of
the Solicitor has determined that the
rule does not unduly burden the judicial
system and meets the requirements of
Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
The rule would have little effect on the
judicial system because it is an
administrative action to modify the
proprietary terms and support the MMS
decision making process for proper
development of fields or reservoirs.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
MMS has analyzed this rule according
to the criteria of the NEPA and 516 DM.
This rule does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. An
environmental assessment is not
required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) of 1995
This rule does not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector
of more than $100 million per year. This
rule does not create any kind of a
mandate for state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. A
statement containing the information
required by the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq. is not required.
B. Revise the introductory text as set
forth below.
I C. Revise paragraph (b) introductory
text as set forth below.
I D. Remove paragraph (b)(1);
redesignate paragraphs (b)(2) through
(10) as paragraphs (b)(1) through (9)
respectively; and revise redesignated
paragraph (b)(9) to read as set forth
below.
I E. Add new paragraph (c) to read as
set forth below.
I
30 CFR Part 250
Administrative practice and
procedure, Continental shelf,
Government contracts, Oil and gas
exploration, Public lands—mineral
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
30 CFR Part 251
Continental shelf, Freedom of
information, Geological and geophysical
data, Oil and gas exploration, Public
lands—mineral resources, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 14, 2006.
R.M. ‘‘Johnnie’’ Burton,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and
Minerals Management.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
the Minerals Management Service
(MMS) amends 30 CFR parts 250 and
251 as follows:
I
PART 250—OIL AND GAS AND
SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
1. The authority citation for part 250
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq., 31 U.S.C.
9701.
2. In § 250.196 the following changes
are made:
I A. Revise the section heading as set
forth below.
I
§ 250.196 Data and information to be made
available to the public or for limited
inspection.
MMS will protect data and
information that you submit under this
part, and part 203 of this chapter, as
described in this section. Paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section describe what
data and information will be made
available to the public without the
consent of the lessee, under what
circumstances, and in what time period.
Paragraph (c) of this section describes
what data and information will be made
available for limited inspection without
the consent of the lessee, and under
what circumstances.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) MMS will release lease and permit
data and information that you submit
and MMS retains, but that are not
normally submitted on MMS forms,
according to the following table:
MMS will release
At this time
*
*
(9) Except for high-resolution data and information released under paragraph
(b)(2) of this section data and information acquired by a permit under part
251 are submitted by a lessee under
30 CFR part 203 or part 250.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
If
*
*
G&G data, analyzed geological information, processed and interpreted G&G
information.
*
*
Geological data and information: 10
years after MMS issues the permit;
Geophysical data: 50 years after MMS
issues the permit; Geophysical information: 25 years after MMS issues the
permit.
(c) MMS may allow limited
inspection, but only by persons with a
direct interest in related MMS decisions
and issues in specific geographic areas,
and who agree in writing to its
confidentiality, of G&G data and
information submitted under this part or
part 203 of this chapter that MMS uses
to:
(1) Make unitization determinations
on two or more leases;
(2) Make competitive reservoir
determinations;
(3) Ensure proper plans of
development for competitive reservoirs;
(4) Promote operational safety;
(5) Protect the environment;
(6) Make field determinations; or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Mar 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
16039
Special
provisions
*
None.
(7) Determine eligibility for royalty
relief.
§ 251.14 Protecting and disclosing data
and information submitted to MMS under a
permit.
PART 251—GEOLOGICAL AND
GEOPHYSICAL (G&G) EXPLORATIONS
OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
*
3. The authority citation for part 251
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.
4. In § 251.14 paragraph (b)
introductory text is revised, the table in
paragraph (b)(1) is revised, and
paragraph (b)(3) is added to read as
follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
*
(b) Timetable for release of G&G data
and information that MMS acquires.
Except for high-resolution data and
information released under 30 CFR
250.196(b)(2), MMS will release or
disclose data and information that you
or a third party submit and MMS retains
in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1),
(b)(2), and (b)(3) of this section.
(1) * * *
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
16040
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
If you or a third party
submit and MMS retains * * *
The Regional Director
will release them to
the public * * *
(i) Geological data
and information.
Geophysical data ......
10 years after MMS
issues the permit.
50 years after MMS
issues the permit.
25 years after MMS
issues the permit.
Geophysical information.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) MMS may allow limited
inspection, but only by persons with a
direct interest in related MMS decisions
and issues in specific geographic areas,
and who agree in writing to its
confidentiality, of G&G data and
information submitted under this part
that MMS uses to:
(i) Make unitization determinations
on two or more leases;
(ii) Make competitive reservoir
determinations;
(iii) Ensure proper plans of
development for competitive reservoirs;
(iv) Promote operational safety;
(v) Protect the environment;
(vi) Make field determinations; or
(vii) Determine eligibility for royalty
relief.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 06–3009 Filed 3–29–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
31 CFR Part 103
RIN 1506–AA29
Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network; Anti-Money Laundering
Programs; Special Due Diligence
Programs for Certain Foreign
Accounts
Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network, Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; extension of
applicability dates.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network (‘‘FinCEN’’) is
issuing this final rule extending, in part,
the applicability dates of 31 CFR
103.176 and 103.178 for certain covered
financial institutions. Those sections
require covered financial institutions to
establish due diligence procedures for
correspondent accounts and private
banking accounts that they maintain for
non-U.S. persons. This final rule
extends, from April 4, 2006 to July 5,
2006, the date on which covered
financial institutions must begin to
apply the due diligence provisions
contained in those sections to new
correspondent accounts and new private
banking accounts.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Mar 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
This final rule is effective on
March 30, 2006. The revised
applicability dates for 31 CFR 103.176
and 103.178 are set forth at 31 CFR
103.176(e)(1) and 103.178(e)(1) of the
final rule contained in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Regulatory Policy and Programs
Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network at (800) 949–2732.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
I. Background
On January 4, 2006, we published a
final rule 1 implementing section 312 of
the Uniting and Strengthening America
by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of
2001,2 which amended the Bank
Secrecy Act 3 to add new subsection (i)
to 31 U.S.C. 5318. This provision
requires each U.S. financial institution
that establishes, maintains, administers,
or manages a correspondent account or
a private banking account in the United
States for a non-U.S. person to subject
such accounts to certain anti-money
laundering measures. In particular,
financial institutions must establish
appropriate, specific, and, where
necessary, enhanced due diligence
policies, procedures, and controls that
are reasonably designed to enable the
financial institution to detect and report
instances of money laundering through
these accounts.
In addition to the general due
diligence requirements, which apply to
all correspondent accounts for non-U.S.
persons, section 5318(i)(2) specifies
additional standards for correspondent
accounts maintained for certain foreign
banks. These additional standards apply
to correspondent accounts maintained
for a foreign bank operating under an
offshore banking license, under a
license issued by a country designated
as being non-cooperative with
international anti-money laundering
principles or procedures by an
intergovernmental group or organization
of which the United States is a member
and with which designation the United
States concurs, or under a license issued
by a country designated by the Secretary
of the Treasury as warranting special
measures due to money laundering
concerns. A financial institution must
take reasonable steps to: (1) Conduct
enhanced scrutiny of a correspondent
1 Anti-Money Laundering Programs; Special Due
Diligence Programs for Certain Foreign Accounts,
71 FR 496 (Jan. 4, 2006).
2 Pub. L. 107–56.
3 Pub. L. 91–508 (codified as amended at 12
U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1957–1959, and 31 U.S.C.
5311–5314 and 5316–5332).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
account maintained for or on behalf of
such a foreign bank to guard against
money laundering and to report
suspicious activity; (2) ascertain
whether such a foreign bank provides
correspondent accounts to other foreign
banks and, if so, ascertain the identity
of those foreign banks and conduct due
diligence as appropriate; and (3)
identify the owners of such a foreign
bank if its shares are not publicly
traded.
Section 5318(i) also sets forth
minimum due diligence requirements
for private banking accounts for nonU.S. persons. Specifically, a covered
financial institution must take
reasonable steps to ascertain the identity
of the nominal and beneficial owners of,
and the source of funds deposited into,
private banking accounts, as necessary
to guard against money laundering and
to report suspicious transactions. The
institution must also conduct enhanced
scrutiny of private banking accounts
requested or maintained for or on behalf
of senior foreign political figures,
including their family members and
their close associates. Such enhanced
scrutiny must be reasonably designed to
detect and report transactions that may
involve the proceeds of foreign
corruption.
On February 23, 2006, the Investment
Company Institute (‘‘ICI’’), the
Securities Industry Association (‘‘SIA’’),
and the Futures Industry Association
(‘‘FIA’’) 4 submitted letters expressing
concern that it will be difficult for their
members to implement the due
diligence rules for correspondent
accounts and private banking accounts
by the compliance dates for new
accounts in each rule. On March 10,
2006, The Clearing House Association
L.L.C. (‘‘The Clearing House’’)
submitted a letter expressing the same
concern on behalf of its member banks.5
The associations have explained that
additional time is needed for their
4 The ICI is the national association of the U.S.
investment company industry, including 8,554
open-end investment companies (mutual funds),
7,654 closed-end investment companies, 162
exchange-traded funds, and five sponsors of unit
investment trusts. The SIA is a trade association
whose membership includes more than 600
securities firms, including investment banks,
broker-dealers, and mutual fund companies. The
FIA describes itself as a principal spokesman for the
commodity futures and options industry, with a
regular membership composed of approximately 40
of the largest futures commission merchants and
approximately 150 associate members representing
all segments of the futures industry.
5 The members of The Clearing House are Bank
of America, N.A.; The Bank of New York; Citibank,
N.A.; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas;
HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.;
LaSalle Bank National Association; UBS AG; U.S.
Bank National Association; Wachovia Bank, N.A.;
and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16033-16040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3009]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Parts 250 and 251
RIN 1010-AC81
Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)--Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Explorations of the OCS--
Proprietary Terms and Data Disclosure
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule expands the circumstances under which MMS allows
inspection of G&G data and information. The rule also modifies the
start dates of proprietary terms for geophysical data and information
and any derivatives of these data and information that MMS acquires. In
addition, the rule clarifies the proprietary terms of geological data
and information MMS acquires pursuant to a permit.
DATES: Effective Date: May 1, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Dellagiarino or David Zinzer at
(703) 787-1628.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule implements changes put
forward by our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published July 17,
2002 (67 FR 46942). The comment period ended September 16, 2002. MMS
received 10 sets of written comments and recommendations in response to
the NPR. Two sets of comments and recommendations were from industry
associations, and eight were from permitttees and third party users of
G&G data and information collected on the OCS. We have carefully
considered each of these comments and recommendations. We did not adopt
recommendations that did not appear to be in the public's best
interest.
Discussion and Analysis of Comments
MMS has decided to proceed with the final rule after carefully
considering all written comments on the proposed
[[Page 16034]]
rulemaking. MMS appreciates the candor and scope of the many comments
put forth, and the concerns of industry. However, MMS believes that
specific concerns with the proposed rulemaking have been addressed
properly, and that where MMS and industry disagree, MMS is acting
appropriately, balancing the needs of industry and the public interest.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 250.196 Data and Information To Be Made Available to the Public
or for Limited Inspection
MMS is extending the circumstances under which MMS selectively
allows persons with a direct and pertinent interest to inspect
proprietary G&G data and information that are used by MMS in certain
decisions. MMS currently allows limited inspection of data and
information related to unitization determinations on two or more
leases, competitive reservoir determinations, proper plans of
development for competitive reservoirs, operational safety, and the
environment. Under this final rule, MMS will also allow limited
inspection of G&G data and information related to field determinations
and eligibility for royalty relief. It has become necessary to include
these circumstances to properly explain related MMS decisions.
Comment: One commenter requested that MMS withdraw, and other
commenters suggested changes to, the proposed language. One of the
commenters noted that there was a possibility that MMS could release
highly confidential data and other information to competitors or other
groups, which would impede the flow of information between MMS and
lessees.
Other commenters cited increased opportunities for a competitor to
determine, at no cost, what data a company sought to keep confidential.
These same commenters argued also that the proposed language gives
competitors the opportunity to look at, work, and analyze a submitting
party's data and information without obtaining a license, thereby
depriving the data owner of the economic benefits of obtaining the
data.
Response: MMS is proceeding with the proposed language. The
additional circumstances under which certain data and information may
be disclosed are necessary to properly explain decisions related to
field determinations and eligibility for royalty relief. However, in
meetings where MMS discloses certain data and information to persons
with a direct interest in specific MMS decisions and related issues,
MMS will not allow these persons to work or analyze data or information
submitted by any party. MMS will not release data or information at
these meetings.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed criteria for
determining limited access to the confidential data and information are
vague and overbroad.
One commenter suggested language directly adapted from an industry
model data licensing contract. The suggested language would limit
disclosure of geophysical data and information to persons with a direct
interest in related MMS decisions and issues; and would limit
disclosure to such portions of the data and information directly
pertaining to the decisions in question. Further, inspection would be
done on MMS premises, in a secure environment under direct control of
MMS. MMS would not provide copies of data and information, nor allow
viewing parties to make, retain, or remove any copy thereof. Another
commenter suggested that participants in the meeting agree in writing
prior to inspection to maintain the confidentiality of the G&G data and
information disclosed or discussed.
A third commenter suggested that these persons should be given only
passive access to the portions of the geophysical information related
to the specific geographic areas that are the subject of consultation.
The commenter also suggested that persons inspecting the data and
information should be prevented from summarizing, transcribing,
reproducing, or photocopying the geophysical information; operating a
computer workstation on which geophysical information is displayed; and
altering or generating displays, interpretations, or processing of
geophysical information. They also should be prevented from departing
the MMS premises with any geophysical information, or any summary,
description, or knowledge thereof that is comparable to having a copy
thereof. Furthermore, under no circumstances should MMS allow
inspection by any person of non-public G&G data or information covering
any leased or unleased acreage not directly associated with a specific
MMS decision. This includes, but is not limited to, regional studies or
geological trend analysis partly or wholly based on non-public data or
information.
Response: In response to these industry concerns, MMS is adding
language to the rule to further ensure and clarify that proprietary G&G
data and information are disclosed only to persons directly associated
with specific MMS decisions affecting specific geographic areas, and
who agree in writing to confidentiality of the data and information.
While most disclosures of the data and information will take place at
MMS offices, MMS retains the prerogative of disclosing the data and
information at non-MMS sites, if required by circumstances. However,
MMS will disclose proprietary data and information only when necessary
to explain these types of decisions, and will minimize the opportunity
of meeting participants to inspect the data and information. MMS will
determine the data and information that will be disclosed, the location
of and participants in meetings with MMS, and the conditions of
disclosure during and after the meeting. MMS will not allow
participants to operate a computer or reproduce or transcribe
information during a meeting, or remove data or information from the
premises.
Comment: One commenter suggested that, if MMS is experiencing a
substantial problem in release of confidential G&G data and
information, MMS resolve the problem through the use of some type of
form protective order that controls the individuals who will see and
have access to data or information, and which controls the conditions
surrounding use after disclosure. The commenter also suggested use of
an expert not associated with the competitor company.
Response: MMS does not believe that a form protective order or use
of an outside expert is necessary to properly protect confidential G&G
data and information, and will not make the recommended changes. MMS
limits access to data and information disclosed at meetings to persons
with a direct interest in MMS decisions, and controls the conditions
surrounding use after disclosure.
Section 251.14 Protecting and Disclosing Data and Information Submitted
to MMS Under a Permit
MMS is changing the start date of the proprietary terms for
geophysical data and information from the date that the data and
information are submitted to MMS to the date that the permit under
which the originating data were acquired was issued. The start date of
the proprietary term for geological data and information currently is
also the date that the permit was issued. Although the lengths of the
proprietary terms do not change, the net result is that the total
length of time for which geophysical data and information are held by
MMS before public release will be shorter than under the current rule.
[[Page 16035]]
Since MMS may select and retain geophysical data and information
numerous times from a single permit, under the existing regulations
there is a separate start and release date for each submission of
geophysical data and information. This has resulted in substantial and
complex recordkeeping for submitted data and information. This change
is being made to relieve the administrative recordkeeping burden by
using a single date (the permit issue date) to manage the release of
the geophysical data and information following expiration of the
proprietary term.
Comment: One commenter asked that MMS reconsider the proposed rule,
and that MMS meet with geophysical contractors to modify the proposal
in a manner that will allow the MMS to achieve its recordkeeping goals
while not destroying the existence of the geophysical contractor and
Gulf of Mexico (GOM) exploration.
Response: After carefully considering all comments, including
suggested options, MMS is proceeding with the proposed rule. MMS
believes that changing the start date of proprietary terms for
geophysical data and information to the date the permit was issued is
necessary, and is the only viable option to efficiently and properly
manage the release of the data and information.
Comment: One commenter noted that, in 2000, geophysical contractors
in the GOM invested $214 million in data acquisition and initial data
processing, and $62 million in reprocessing existing data. Similarly,
in 2001, the industry invested $281 million in data acquisition and
initial processing, and $92 million in reprocessing existing data.
Another commenter stated that the economic value of privileged and
proprietary information received by the Secretary of the Interior from
permittees and lessees is emphasized by the requirement in the OCS
Lands Act for the Secretary of the Interior to secure the agreement of
permittees or licensees before releasing data to states under certain
circumstances.
One commenter stated that shortening the proprietary time period
associated with all geophysical data and information previously
submitted, and submitted in the future, regardless of the terms of the
original permit, is financially detrimental to the data owners. Two
commenters stated that resetting the start date [of the proprietary
term] to the date the permit is issued reduces the economic life of new
geophysical information, and in effect reduces the return on investment
in future non-exclusive seismic programs, hence stifling healthy
competition and investment in new technologies and innovation.
Another commenter further stated that investment in new non-
exclusive seismic programs will be reduced and employment will be
adversely affected. Another commenter asserted that competition and
exploration in the GOM will be limited to a few majors, eliminating
small to medium exploration entities, eliminating a large portion of
the MMS leases in the GOM, and eliminating even more geophysical
companies.
One commenter stated that since the collection and possession of
G&G data is a valuable property right, MMS should reconsider
promulgation of a rule which reduces or destroys the value of that
property right by earlier release through promulgation of a regulation
retroactive to June 1976.
Response: MMS recognizes the significant investment that the
geophysical service industry and the oil and gas industry make in
acquiring, licensing, processing, and reprocessing geophysical data and
information; and that the competitive and economic value of these data
and information continues during the proprietary period. However, only
data and information that are selected and retained by MMS will be
released to the public. Data and information that are selected for
inspection but not retained by MMS, or which are not selected for
inspection, are not subject to release by MMS. Data owners and
licensees may hold geophysical data and information that are not
acquired by MMS confidential for as long as allowed by, for example,
copyright or intellectual property law.
MMS rarely acquires geophysical data (e.g., raw field tapes).
Moreover, since most of the geophysical information that MMS retains
was acquired within 2 to 3 years of the date the permit was issued,
only a small amount of geophysical information would be released more
than 3 years sooner by using the permit date than is currently the case
when using the date of submission to MMS.
Furthermore, as stated in the preamble of the proposed rulemaking,
in 1988 MMS extended the proprietary term for geophysical data from 10
years after the date of issuance of the permit to 50 years after the
date of submission of the data to MMS, and for geophysical information
from 10 years to 25 years after the date of submission of the
information. Those changes, also made retroactive to June 1976,
substantially increased the value to companies of data and information
submitted to MMS.
MMS does not believe that the proposed rule destroys or
significantly reduces the value of property rights by earlier release
through promulgation of a retroactive regulation.
Comment: One commenter stated that computing power and imaging
algorithms have been improving and developing more rapidly than data
acquisition technology. Data owners have applied these computing
technologies to existing geophysical data which has helped to open up
exploration in areas with subsalt structures, gas clouds, and amplitude
plays, and to illuminate deep gas on the continental shelf. New play
ideas get tested; new technologies get developed; and a cycle of new
processing begins. The proposed rule eliminates incentives for data
owners to invest in new geophysical information derived from existing
geophysical data.
Another commenter stated that very few oil and gas companies are
willing to pay the necessary fees for new seismic data to be acquired
in the GOM. Reprocessing will continue to be the key enhancement
related to seismic data.
Response: MMS recognizes that increased computer capacity and the
application of advanced algorithms to older raw data, or previously
processed information, have improved imaging of sub-bottom geology.
However, the use of modern computing techniques to process new seismic
data acquired with advanced recording methods and instrumentation
usually yields results that are superior to those obtained by
reprocessing older data or information. Modern seismic data are
acquired with more sensitive and reliable instruments; denser sampling
of the sub-bottom; and superior navigation, positioning, and on-board
data recording and processing techniques. MMS' experience is that
industry continues to acquire seismic data in areas of dense coverage
(e.g., GOM shallow shelf) with deeper seismic targets, and in areas of
relatively sparse or no data coverage (e.g., deep water).
Comment: One commenter stated that in some areas crowded production
facilities provide obstacles to new data being acquired, leaving holes
in the data which can be filled in by undershooting, but at a higher
cost, or by reprocessing legacy geophysical data to create value-added
derivative products.
Response: MMS acknowledges that undershooting production facilities
is usually more costly than shooting in unobstructed areas or
reprocessing legacy data. However, in practice, acquiring new data is
usually preferable to reprocessing older data in these areas.
Comment: One commenter noted that the seismic industry is
experiencing
[[Page 16036]]
increasing scrutiny from MMS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries over the impacts of acoustic pulses and
other emissions [from seismic surveys] on the health and well being of
marine mammals, particularly the sperm whale which is listed as an
endangered species. There are new restrictions on data acquisition
operations, and some are suggesting that prime producing areas of the
GOM should be designated as critical habitat which would make access
more difficult.
Response: MMS is funding a collaborative, international effort to
study sperm whales in the GOM and determine what, if any, potential
impacts there may be to sperm whales as a result of seismic survey
activity. MMS also prepared a programmatic environmental assessment on
geological and geophysical exploration activities in the GOM. The
assessment found no significant potentially adverse impacts to sperm
whales from seismic survey activities. MMS, as a precaution, developed
mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any potential incidental
(accidental) take of certain marine mammals in the GOM, and petitioned
NOAA Fisheries to promulgate incidental take regulations governing the
conduct of seismic surveys in the GOM. Any designation of critical
habitat for the sperm whale in the GOM would be the responsibility of
NOAA Fisheries under established Endangered Species Act procedures.
Comment: One commenter noted that under the proposed changes, a
company that reprocesses older data would enjoy a much shorter time
period during which MMS would keep the reprocessed information
confidential than under current regulations. Competitors could gain
access to the reprocessed information in as few as 2 years after
submittal of the information by the company.
Another commenter stated that, for the explorer who desires to
reprocess older data in order to make a decision as to whether to bid
on a lease or not, consideration must be given to the fact that such a
bid may precipitate a request from MMS for the reprocessed data set
with the probability that it will be available to others in the near
future. This will have a negative effect on whether or not to reprocess
data as the data ages.
Response: MMS acknowledges that it is possible that reprocessed
information derived from data or information that is more than 20 years
old could be made available in as few as 2 years after submittal.
However, this would be a relatively rare occurrence.
Processed seismic information that has been retained by MMS and is
more than 20 years old was acquired on widely spaced 2-D grids.
Reprocessing this older information would not result in quality or data
density comparable to more recently acquired 2-D or 3-D seismic data
and processed information.
Also, most seismic information submitted to MMS was processed near
or at the final stages of the processing sequence. Most reprocessing
for or by licensees is conducted on information at earlier stages of
processing, closer in the sequence to initial processing of edited
field tapes. Thus, for the purposes of reprocessing publicly available
seismic information, there would be little demand for the processed
seismic information that MMS releases, following expiration of the
proprietary term. Furthermore, very little seismic data would be
available from MMS for processing as MMS rarely acquires seismic data
which, if acquired, has a 50-year proprietary term.
Most of the geophysical information that MMS selects and retains
under Part 251 is information that was initially processed/reprocessed
within 3 years after the permit date. However, approximately 5 percent
of the information that MMS has retained was initially processed/
reprocessed more than 3 years after the permit date. For example, on
occasion in areas of sparse data coverage, MMS will acquire geophysical
information that was processed or reprocessed 15 years or more after
the date of the permit under which the source data were collected. More
commonly in these areas, MMS will acquire geophysical information that
was processed shortly after data acquisition by a permittee, but was
not selected and retained by MMS until 15 or more years after the data
were processed.
Comment: One commenter noted that E&P [exploration and production]
companies (third parties) which process geophysical data that they
obtain under license from permittees usually do not request, nor are
generally furnished, information relative to the permits associated
with acquisition of the data. The third parties will not have permit
information available without having to undertake a significant effort
to collect that needed information. Also, data libraries which have
been bought out and/or which merged with other libraries may not be
able to determine missing permit dates.
Response: The great majority of geophysical information that MMS
has acquired for retention under Part 251 is from permittees, which
makes it easier to obtain the applicable permit dates associated with
the information. MMS acquires a smaller, though increasing, amount of
geophysical information from third parties who obtain licenses for, or
acquire on an exclusive basis, data and information from permittees.
When MMS acquires geophysical information from third parties, MMS is
able to determine the associated permit date, albeit with more effort
than from the original permittee.
Comment: Three commenters noted that legacy seismic information
from contiguous surveys acquired under different permits over a period
of years are sometimes reprocessed together using new computing
technology to produce a seamless, single volume of seismic information
used to target a new exploration objective, and to better correlate
discoveries and improve images at the former edges of permit areas.
One of the commenters further noted that this single deliverable
volume of seismic information derived from multiple permits would have
to be separated into information sets, based on the original permit,
before release to the public.
Response: When MMS acquires geophysical information that cannot be
adequately separated by permit date from other information in the same
area (coincident or contiguous to each other), the most recent permit
date will be used to determine the start of the proprietary term for
the whole volume of information.
Comment: One commenter stated that geophysical companies keep
records of the dates non-exclusive geophysical information is available
for license to exploration companies. The date the geophysical
information first becomes available would be a logical change to the
start time of the proprietary period during which MMS retains the
information. Under this alternate solution, the geophysical data owners
would submit to MMS the dates that the projects were first made
available and certify that this information is accurate. Although under
this alternate proposal the proprietary period for geophysical
information would still be shortened for a great number of surveys that
MMS has retained, it would be less onerous than using the permit date.
This would also allow for each new investment in new geophysical
information to have its own 25-year proprietary period.
Another commenter proposed that the owner of geophysical data and
information should be given two alternatives for determining the
confidentiality period for geophysical information: (1) Use the permit
date, as in the proposed rule, or (2) start the 25-
[[Page 16037]]
year period on the date of completion of data processing or
reprocessing, on the condition that the owner of the information make
electronic application to MMS for a 25-year confidentiality period;
identify the area and product name of the information, permit date, and
date of completion of the processing or reprocessing of the
information; and certify the accuracy of information.
Various grace periods to phase in the suggested alternatives to the
proposed rule were offered by some commenters.
Response: MMS believes that these alternatives do not alleviate the
burden and impracticality of determining the release dates for
geophysical data and information submitted to, and retained by, MMS.
The date that a particular set of information is available to
exploration companies, or the date processing or reprocessing is
completed, is not adequate. The date that MMS acquires geophysical
information usually does not coincide with the date the geophysical
information is available for commercial purposes. MMS usually acquires
information at a separate time or stage of data processing and
development. Thus, the geophysical information acquired by MMS would
not coincide in time or content with the information offered to
exploration companies. Regarding dates on which data processing is
complete, there would be many instances when these dates may not be
available or accurate. For example, records are often not available
from permittees who have gone out of business or have merged with other
companies. Also, many companies, including permittees and third
parties, did/do not keep accurate records of the date processing was
completed or the dates that information was submitted to MMS.
Comment: Two commenters suggested changing the proprietary term to
a uniform period of 40 years from the date the permit is issued for G&G
data and information acquired under Part 251 and submitted under Parts
203, 250, or 251.
Another commenter suggested eliminating the two-step proprietary
period for geophysical data (50 years) and geophysical information (25
years) by standardizing all geophysical data and information to a 50-
year period.
Another commenter suggested granting a new start date of a 25-year
term for new geophysical information generated when a geophysical
company creates a new and improved product by processing data acquired
5 years ago, or earlier.
Response: Extending the proprietary terms of G&G data and
information is not in the public interest. The final rulemaking
balances the need to properly protect data and information that MMS
acquires from industry with the need to increase competition for oil
and gas exploration and to provide academia and other parties with
information that may be used to better understand the geology of the
sub-bottom.
By comparison, G&G data and information acquired from lessees have
much shorter proprietary terms than G&G data and information acquired
from permitees. For example, most logs from wells drilled on GOM leases
are released to the public 2 years after submittal. Geophysical data
and information acquired from lessees are released 10 years after
submittal, or when the lease expires, whichever is sooner. Also,
proprietary terms for offshore geophysical exploration data and
information in other countries are usually shorter than in the United
States (U.S.). For example, for the continental shelves of Norway,
United Kingdom, and Australia, the proprietary terms generally range
from 2 to 10 years.
Comment: One commenter voiced concern over the amount of
geophysical information that will become public in the next 10 years,
and questioned how digital information would be handled when the rules
were written with the concept of paper information in mind. The
commenter noted that to date, the information that has become public
all consists of paper copies and is distributed on CDs in the form of
PDF files. Geophysical information that will become available in the
future will be digital. The commenter stated that this adds many
complications to the process, and asked who will distribute the
information.
Response: MMS releases geophysical information on analog hard copy
(paper and plastic transparencies) and on CDs. The information on CDs
includes PDF files of seismic line and map images, TIFF files of
seismic velocity panels, SEG-P1 navigation files for all seismic lines
released, and digital seismic information in SEG-Y format. In the
future, MMS may also release geophysical information on other digital
media such as DVDs, DLT and LTO tapes, and/or on-line.
Comment: Two commenters stated that a huge amount of information
will become available to the public in the coming 10 years and that
management of this information will be a very costly endeavor.
Meanwhile, data owners already have data storage distribution
facilities in place. The commenters suggested that MMS consider a
policy that when geophysical information becomes publicly available,
MMS list the availability on its Web site, and direct interested
parties to the owner(s) of the data and information for copying and
distribution.
Response: MMS does not agree to suggestions that industry
distribute publicly released data and information. MMS is responsible
for a full, consistent, and timely distribution of data and information
that are readily available to the public. Not all companies from which
MMS acquired geophysical data and information still exist or, after
mergers, have the proper records available and/or the means to
distribute the data and information when their proprietary terms
expire.
Comment: Two commenters also noted that in other parts of the world
the geophysical industry has experienced companies that access public
information and use it for more than their own information purposes.
Scanning and creating digital versions that can be altered and resold
have occurred and are expected to continue to occur. If this takes
place in the 50-year period of data exclusivity, then it would be very
detrimental to the original data owner.
The commenters further suggested that MMS publish a notice of
ownership and owner rights on all forms of information released to the
public; or that such notice of ownership or owner rights be stated in
an accompanying informational transmittal or cover letter. The notice
would state, notwithstanding the release of geophysical information,
that the geophysical information remains the intellectual property of
the party or parties who originally acquired the data or created the
information, and is subject to their copyright and ownership rights.
The notice would further state that the rights of individuals or other
entities to use this geophysical information for their own use upon its
public release was a condition of their securing the original right to
acquire the data, either through their lease or by permit, and that
everyone using publicly released data or information for any purpose
other than their own use contact its owner.
Response: In 2001, MMS started releasing to the public seismic
information for which the 25-year proprietary terms have expired. MMS
will continue to release, and will announce on its Web site the
availability to the public of G&G information without stating
restrictions on further use of the information. MMS is not in a
position to affirm or endorse the existence or validity of specific
intellectual property rights in any particular released information.
However, there may be some type of
[[Page 16038]]
intellectual property right that attaches to some types of G&G
information. Users should be aware that some of the information may be
copyright protected, and that it is up to the user to determine what
rights, if any, may apply to particular information. This is not an
agreement, explicit or otherwise, that MMS is policing the use of
released information. It is the intellectual property right owner's
responsibility to diligently protect its rights.
Procedural Matters
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order (E.O.) 12866)
This document is not a significant rule and is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.
(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on
the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or
communities. MMS takes all actions that result from the change in the
start dates of the proprietary terms, with no costs to outside parties.
Similarly, there would be no costs associated to industry concerning
our disclosing permitted geophysical information for ensuring proper
development of fields or reservoirs.
(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. There are
no other Federal agencies involved in this process, because it relates
to release or disclosure of geophysical data and information.
(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects or entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or rights or obligations of their
recipients. This rule has no effect on these programs or such rights.
(4) This rule changes the basis for the start of proprietary terms
for geophysical data and geophysical information acquired under a
permit, retroactive to June 11, 1976. This rule does not raise novel
legal or policy issues, although we recognize that this change in the
start date may be controversial. Some geophysical companies have
concerns that their data and information may be released by MMS earlier
than under current regulations.
However, any data to be released will be at least 50 years old, and
any information to be released will be at least 25 years old. As
previously stated, the intent of this rule is to alleviate
administrative recordkeeping burdens and to ensure proper development
of fields or reservoirs.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The Department certifies that this document will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities
under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This revised rule would modify
the start of the proprietary terms for geophysical data and information
and add language to ensure proper development of fields or reservoirs
under 30 CFR 251.14 and 250.196. The only entities affected by this
rule change are certain geophysical companies, if still in existence,
whose data and information being held by MMS may be released earlier
than under current regulations. The Small Business Administration
classifies geophysical surveying and mapping services companies under
the North American Industry Classification System Code 541360. These
changes will have no economic impact on these constituents, as MMS
takes all of the actions with no cost to our customers.
Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were
established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal
agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the
enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on the enforcement actions of MMS,
call toll-free 1-888-734-3247. You may comment to the Small Business
Administration without fear of retaliation. Disciplinary action for
retaliation by an MMS employee may include suspension or termination
from employment with the Department of the Interior.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA, 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
This rule:
(1) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more. This rule would modify the proprietary terms for geophysical
data and information for consistency with those for geological data and
information, and allow for possible limited disclosure of certain
permitted information for assuring proper development of a field or
competitive reservoir. This rule will not impose any costs on industry.
(2) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government
agencies, or geographic areas. The modification to the proprietary term
and change in language regarding disclosure of information for proper
development of fields or reservoirs will not cause a burden in terms of
finance or time for any outside parties.
(3) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises as the
information to be released will be 25 years old, and any data to be
released will be 50 years old.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
The proposed revisions to 30 CFR parts 250 and 251 refer to, but do
not change, information collection requirements in current regulations.
The rule proposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements, and
an OMB form 83-I submission to OMB under the PRA, section 3507(d) is
not required. The PRA 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 and assigns a control number, you are not required to
respond. OMB approved the referenced information collection
requirements for 30 CFR 250 under OMB control number 1010-0114 (22,288
burden hours, expiration October 31, 2007; and for 30 CFR 251 under OMB
control number 1010-0048 (8,272 burden hours), expiration July 31,
2006.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
According to E. O. 13132, this rule does not have Federalism
implications. This rule does not substantially and directly affect the
relationship between the Federal and State Governments. The
modification to the proprietary terms affects only our own methods of
doing business, and the added language regarding data disclosure would
only be of interest to industry. There will be no financial costs to
states.
Takings Implications Assessment (Executive Order 12630)
According to Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have
significant Takings implications. A Takings Implication Assessment is
not required because the rule would not take away or restrict an
operator's right to collect data and information and would have us
maintain that data and information as proprietary under the terms of
the permit.
[[Page 16039]]
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
According to E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined
that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the
requirements of Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The rule would
have little effect on the judicial system because it is an
administrative action to modify the proprietary terms and support the
MMS decision making process for proper development of fields or
reservoirs.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
MMS has analyzed this rule according to the criteria of the NEPA
and 516 DM. This rule does not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. An
environmental assessment is not required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per
year. This rule does not create any kind of a mandate for state, local,
or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the
information required by the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. is not
required.
List of Subjects
30 CFR Part 250
Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf,
Government contracts, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands--mineral
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
30 CFR Part 251
Continental shelf, Freedom of information, Geological and
geophysical data, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands--mineral
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 14, 2006.
R.M. ``Johnnie'' Burton,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Minerals Management Service
(MMS) amends 30 CFR parts 250 and 251 as follows:
PART 250--OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF
0
1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq., 31 U.S.C. 9701.
0
2. In Sec. 250.196 the following changes are made:
0
A. Revise the section heading as set forth below.
0
B. Revise the introductory text as set forth below.
0
C. Revise paragraph (b) introductory text as set forth below.
0
D. Remove paragraph (b)(1); redesignate paragraphs (b)(2) through (10)
as paragraphs (b)(1) through (9) respectively; and revise redesignated
paragraph (b)(9) to read as set forth below.
0
E. Add new paragraph (c) to read as set forth below.
Sec. 250.196 Data and information to be made available to the public
or for limited inspection.
MMS will protect data and information that you submit under this
part, and part 203 of this chapter, as described in this section.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section describe what data and
information will be made available to the public without the consent of
the lessee, under what circumstances, and in what time period.
Paragraph (c) of this section describes what data and information will
be made available for limited inspection without the consent of the
lessee, and under what circumstances.
* * * * *
(b) MMS will release lease and permit data and information that you
submit and MMS retains, but that are not normally submitted on MMS
forms, according to the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If MMS will release At this time Special provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(9) Except for high-resolution data G&G data, analyzed Geological data and None.
and information released under geological information: 10 years
paragraph (b)(2) of this section information, processed after MMS issues the
data and information acquired by a and interpreted G&G permit; Geophysical
permit under part 251 are submitted information. data: 50 years after
by a lessee under 30 CFR part 203 MMS issues the permit;
or part 250. Geophysical
information: 25 years
after MMS issues the
permit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) MMS may allow limited inspection, but only by persons with a
direct interest in related MMS decisions and issues in specific
geographic areas, and who agree in writing to its confidentiality, of
G&G data and information submitted under this part or part 203 of this
chapter that MMS uses to:
(1) Make unitization determinations on two or more leases;
(2) Make competitive reservoir determinations;
(3) Ensure proper plans of development for competitive reservoirs;
(4) Promote operational safety;
(5) Protect the environment;
(6) Make field determinations; or
(7) Determine eligibility for royalty relief.
PART 251--GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL (G&G) EXPLORATIONS OF THE
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
0
3. The authority citation for part 251 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.
0
4. In Sec. 251.14 paragraph (b) introductory text is revised, the
table in paragraph (b)(1) is revised, and paragraph (b)(3) is added to
read as follows:
Sec. 251.14 Protecting and disclosing data and information submitted
to MMS under a permit.
* * * * *
(b) Timetable for release of G&G data and information that MMS
acquires. Except for high-resolution data and information released
under 30 CFR 250.196(b)(2), MMS will release or disclose data and
information that you or a third party submit and MMS retains in
accordance with paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this section.
(1) * * *
[[Page 16040]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Regional Director will
If you or a third party submit and MMS release them to the public *
retains * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Geological data and information....... 10 years after MMS issues
the permit.
Geophysical data.......................... 50 years after MMS issues
the permit.
Geophysical information................... 25 years after MMS issues
the permit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(3) MMS may allow limited inspection, but only by persons with a
direct interest in related MMS decisions and issues in specific
geographic areas, and who agree in writing to its confidentiality, of
G&G data and information submitted under this part that MMS uses to:
(i) Make unitization determinations on two or more leases;
(ii) Make competitive reservoir determinations;
(iii) Ensure proper plans of development for competitive
reservoirs;
(iv) Promote operational safety;
(v) Protect the environment;
(vi) Make field determinations; or
(vii) Determine eligibility for royalty relief.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-3009 Filed 3-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P