[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13422-13425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3706]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submitted for Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of a new information collection (1010-NEW).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we 
are notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information 
collection request (ICR) for review and approval of the paperwork 
requirements in the regulations under ``30 CFR 256, Subparts J and K, 
and 30 CFR 250, Subpart J,'' and related documents. This notice also 
provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the paperwork 
burden of these regulatory requirements.

DATES: Submit written comments by April 14, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this information collection 
directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for 
the Department of the Interior via OMB e-mail: ([email protected]); or by fax (202) 395-6566; identify with (1010-
NEW).
    Submit a copy of your comments to the Department of the Interior, 
MMS, via:
     MMS's Public Connect on-line commenting system, https://ocsconnect.mms.gov. Follow the instructions on the Web site for 
submitting comments.
     E-mail MMS at [email protected]. Use Information 
Collection Number 1010-NEW in the subject line.
     Fax: 703-787-1093. Identify with Information Collection 
Number 1010-NEW.
     Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the 
Interior; Minerals Management Service; Attention: Rules Processing Team 
(RPT); 381 Elden Street, MS-4024; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. Please 
reference ``Information Collection 1010-NEW'' in your comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheryl Blundon, Rules Processing Team, 
(703) 787-1600. You may also contact Cheryl Blundon to obtain a copy, 
at no cost, of the regulations and forms that require the subject 
collection of information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: 30 CFR 256, Subparts J and K, and 30 CFR 250, Subpart J.
    Forms: MMS-149, MMS-150, MMS-151, and MMS-152.
    OMB Control Number: 1010-NEW.
    Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended 
(43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), authorizes the 
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to prescribe rules and 
regulations to administer leasing of the OCS. Such rules and 
regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease. 
Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and 
natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to 
make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as 
rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development 
with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure 
the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and 
to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. Also, the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) prohibits certain lease 
bidding arrangements (42 U.S.C. 6213(c)).
    These authorities and responsibilities are among those delegated to 
the Minerals Management Service (MMS) under which MMS issues 
regulations governing oil and gas and sulphur operations in the OCS. 
This information collection request (ICR) addresses the regulations at 
30 CFR part 250, Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer 
Continental Shelf, 30 CFR part 256, Leasing of Sulphur or Oil and Gas 
in the OCS, and the associated supplementary Notices to Lessees (NTLs) 
and operators intended to provide clarification, description, or 
explanation of these regulations. This ICR concerns the use of new 
forms to process the transfer of interest in lease and rights-of-way 
per 30 CFR part 250, subpart J, Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way, 
30 CFR 256, subpart J, Assignments, Transfers and Extensions, and the 
filing of relinquishments per 30 CFR 256, subpart K, Termination of 
Leases.
    We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary

[[Page 13423]]

under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its 
implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and under regulations at 30 
CFR 250.196, ``Data and information to be made available to the 
public,'' and 30 CFR part 252, ``OCS Oil and Gas Information Program.'' 
No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory.
    The MMS uses the information required by 30 CFR part 250, subpart 
J, ``Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way,'' and 30 CFR part 256, 
subpart J, ``Assignments, Transfers and Extensions,'' to track the 
ownership of leases as to record title, operating rights, and pipeline 
right-of-ways. MMS will use this information to update the corporate 
database which is used to determine what leases are available for a 
Lease Sale and the ownership of all OCS leases. Non-proprietary 
information is also publicly available from the MMS corporate database 
via the internet.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 200 
Federal oil and gas or sulphur OCS lessees.
    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping ``Hour'' Burden: The 
estimated annual ``hour'' burden for this information collection is a 
total of 1,512 hours. The following chart details the individual 
components and estimated hour burdens. In calculating the burdens, we 
assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal 
course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary 
and took that into account in estimating the burden.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Annual
 30 CFR 256 Subparts J and K; 30 CFR   Reporting or recordkeeping      Hour      Average  number of      burden
  250, Subpart J and  related NTLs             requirement            burden      annual responses       hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart J: 256.62, 256.64, 256.65,    File application and              \1/2\  2,500 applications....      1,250
 256.67.                               required information for
                                       assignment or transfer for
                                       approval/comment on filing
                                       fee (forms MMS-150 and MMS-
                                       151).
Subpart K: 256.76...................  File written request for          \1/2\  323 relinquish- ments.       1162
                                       relinquishment (form MMS-
                                       152).
Subpart J: 250.1018.................  File application and              \1/2\  200 applications......        100
                                       required information for
                                       assignment or transfer for
                                       approval/comment on filing
                                       fee (form MMS-149).
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
    Total Burden....................  ............................  .........  3,023.................     1,512
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rounded.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping ``Non-Hour Cost'' Burden: We 
have identified no paperwork ``non-hour cost'' burdens associated with 
the collection of information. The fees associated with the 
applications have been covered and approved under OMB Control Number 
1010-0006, expiration 3/31/07.
    Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) 
provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated 
to respond.
    Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et 
seq.) requires each agency ``* * * to provide notice * * * and 
otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies 
concerning each proposed collection of information * * *'' Agencies 
must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to 
perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) 
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, 
usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 
minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The regulations also inform the public that they may comment at any 
time on the collections of information and provides the address to 
which they should send comments. We received 14 different sets of 
comments from trade associations, as well as, oil and gas companies in 
response to the Federal Register notice from respondents covered under 
these regulations or who will be submitting these forms. Their names 
were: American Petroleum Institute, National Ocean Industries 
Association, Domestic Petroleum Council, Independent Petroleum 
Association of America (IPAA), U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Offshore 
Operators Committee, NCX Company, L.L.C., El Paso Production Company.
    MMS's response to industry comments on the Assignment Forms were 
the following:
    IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents suggested that MMS develop a 
transmittal sheet to be attached to the assignment instrument. The 
transmittal sheet would include the information needed by MMS to 
monitor ownership in leases, but would not alter the rights and 
obligations being conveyed in the assignment documents prepared by 
industry.
    MMS disagrees with this suggestion. The purpose of the proposed 
forms is to streamline and reduce the time necessary to adjudicate 
assignments, which are requested by industry on a frequent basis. MMS's 
past experience indicates oversights in careful review and preparation 
by industry, thereby slowing the approval process and the return of 
documents unapproved for correction. All aspects of the approval letter 
have been incorporated into the assignment forms. When the forms are 
approved by MMS, they are signed by an authorized MMS representative 
and will be returned with a computer generated print-out of the 
ownership as it exists after the assignment has been approved.
    MMS recognizes that industry assignments are unique. In order to 
accommodate this need, MMS has identified Exhibit A for this purpose 
(Exhibit A is later deleted based on another comment). The reason for 
this is to allow the companies to subject their assignments to other 
legal contracts for which MMS is not a participating party while 
providing pertinent information on the approved form in a format that 
can accommodate an electronic filing in the future, and provides 
information in the exact same format each time.
    IPAA, et al. Letter: If MMS continues to use the proposed forms, 
Part A should define the term ``record title'' and ``operating rights'' 
interests, and the conveyance language should be revised to clearly 
state the conveyed right, title and interest.

[[Page 13424]]

    The term ``operating rights'' is defined in 30 CFR 250.105. The 
term ``record title'' is well understood in the oil and gas industry to 
include all property interests in a lease that the lessee has not 
transferred to others. It is not the intent of the form to change these 
meanings and there is no reference in the forms to indicate otherwise. 
MMS agrees that the conveyance language in the proposed forms was not 
clear and did not follow standard legal protocol in its current form. 
Therefore, the language has been changed in the form.
    IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents conclude that the interest columns 
on the proposed forms are confusing and they have concern for the 
``Final Ownership'' percentage when there are multiple transactions 
between the parties affecting the same properties that would cause a 
different ownership based on the time of the receipt of the assignment.
    MMS processes assignments in the order of date received. Therefore, 
multiple transactions can be accepted and processed in order without 
affecting the final ownership of the assignment. MMS has reconsidered 
the necessity of the interest columns and has concluded that the 
columns can be confusing and has predicted that assignments would be 
rejected due to common errors and misunderstandings. Therefore, MMS has 
eliminated the columns and has provided a ``blank'' after the words 
``Assignor(s) does hereby sell, assign, transfer, and convey unto 
Assignee(s) the following undivided right, title, and interest.'' This 
blank will contain the decimal interest that is being conveyed and will 
always be a full 8/8ths number and will eliminate the guess work on 
fractions. MMS will continue to require that decimals be carried out to 
the fifth decimal place. Exhibit ``A'' has also been deleted. We have 
provided for two Assignors and two Assignees. If more than two are 
needed, industry may duplicate the signature block and attach to the 
assignment form.
    IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents argue that the assignment forms 
not provide that the assignees shall fully comply with all future 
regulations, but only those ``for the prevention of waste and 
conservation of the natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, 
and the protection of correlative rights.'' Respondents argue that 
anything more exceeds MMS's statutory authority and constitutes an 
alteration of lease terms. But the same respondents suggest that only 
the first sentence of the acceptance of lease terms be required because 
``the Act and regulations apply without including reference to either 
in the assignment''.
    We agree that the regulations apply without recital in the 
assignment, but choose to retain the statement to avoid the type of 
confusion reflected in the former comment. All MMS regulations are 
binding on all lessees and operators, unless they are expressly 
inconsistent with the terms of the lease contract or the regulation 
itself limits its application.
    IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents argue that Part B of the proposed 
forms (all the forms) contain unnecessary certification, that further 
certifications constitute warranties and risk misapplication of the 
regulations and lease terms. In particular, the certification of 
ownership is a warranty that frequently is limited between the parties 
to a transaction. As a result the certification would often be 
inconsistent with Exhibit ``B-1'' which includes the additional 
assignment terms of the parties.
    MSS does not agree. This statement is not a warranty, but a 
statement that you own the interest. The language used in the proposed 
forms does not say ``Assignor hereby warrants its interest in the 
lease''; it simply states that the Assignor certifies that they own the 
interest conveyed by the assignment. MMS does not agree that this would 
be inconsistent with the provisions of Exhibit B-1.
    IPAA, et al. Letter: The debarment language in the proposed forms 
is unnecessary, would require excessive due diligence, and is already 
maintained in MMS lease sale files. It was further recited that the 
recently published government-wide debarment regulations (68 FR 66534) 
suggesting that additional certifications are inappropriate. Reference 
is made to the preamble in those regulations calling for the 
elimination of assurances that are found to be unnecessary or where 
technology has eliminated the need by Federal agencies to obtain 
debarment certifications. Respondents further interpret this ruling to 
mean that further use of debarment certifications after an initial 
filing, are disfavored.
    MMS has reviewed the recent debarment regulations and concludes 
that the proposed form language is burdensome. However, MMS feels the 
language is necessary and should be included in the approved forms. MMS 
has recently corresponded with industry in this regard for Sale Notice 
issues and has redrafted the language for use in the proposed forms. 
MMS feels that this reduced language is appropriate and eliminates the 
administrative burden on the parties.
    IPAA, et al. Letter: The Equal Opportunity Clause is redundant 
inasmuch as there are Equal Opportunity provisions in the lease.
    MMS disagrees. Under Labor Department regulations at 41 CFR 60-1.4, 
a party who contracts with the Unites States, such as a lessee, must 
incorporate the Equal Opportunity Clause of section 202 of Executive 
Order 12146 in every subcontract. Accordingly, the clause is required 
in subleases of operating rights and MMS is including it in these 
forms. It is not required for assignments in which the assignor retains 
no interest in the lease, but MMS does not believe that the fact 
warrants creating separate forms for two types of transfers.
    IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents suggest that only the first 
sentence of paragraph four (page two), Part B--Certification and 
Acceptance of the forms, be required. Respondents claim that additional 
language is a restatement of lease terms, to which the assignee is 
bound by the first sentence; and the Act and regulations apply without 
including reference to either assignment. Respondents state that 
restating lease terms and regulations in an assignment inherently 
includes a risk of contractually modifying lease terms and regulations. 
Respondents state that reference to compliance with all applicable 
regulations now or in the future under the Act clearly exceeds the 
statutory authority granted to MMS, and this language should be removed 
from the proposed assignment forms.
    The draft language restates without alteration the terms of the 
underlying lease. As noted above, all lessees and operators are subject 
to all MMS regulations, regardless of when the lease was issued, unless 
they are expressly inconsistent with the terms of the lease contract or 
the regulation itself limits its application. That section 5(a) of the 
Act makes some regulations expressly applicable to existing leases 
doesn't constitute a prohibition of other regulations which, as duly 
promulgated regulations under the Administrative Procedures Act, have 
the force and effect of law. For the very reason that some question MMS 
authority to enforce some regulations as to preexisting leases, it is 
important that the application for approval of the assignment of such 
leases includes the new lessee's agreement to comply with duly 
promulgated regulations to protect public safety and insure 
accountability for royalties. Based on this reasoning, the language 
remains in the forms.
    IPAA, et al. Letter: The requirement that assignors and assignees 
comply with the qualification requirements of 30 CFR part 256 is 
covered by the regulations, independent of the

[[Page 13425]]

assignment. Respondents state that MMS monitors both compliance with 
the regulations and corporate authority to sign documents by requiring 
listings of corporate officers and filing powers of attorneys. 
Respondents claim that paragraph five, Part B--Certification and 
Acceptance of the forms, is unnecessary and should be removed.
    MMS recognizes that the qualification requirements are covered in 
the regulations. However, MMS is considering the issue of self-
certification to eliminate the need for updating of qualification 
files. If MMS were to approve such an action, then this statement will 
need to be incorporated on every existing and future form that MMS uses 
in administration of its programs. Therefore, the language will remain 
in the assignment forms as preparation for future utility.
    IPAA, et al. Letter: Respondents claim, as a general comment, that 
standardization would help but not eliminate the need for some MMS 
analysis because of the necessary inclusion of Exhibit ``B-1'', which 
includes the parties' unique terms negotiated for each transaction.
    MMS is not privy to the special terms and conditions between the 
parties and rarely reviews such language. MMS records are most impacted 
by the information on the forms. The format is structured to save time 
in reading the document seeking information that is transposed to the 
approval letter. Again, the form is designed to include all information 
that is on the approval letters as well as conveyance language to serve 
two purposes--streamlining of review and approval and the accommodation 
of electronic filing in the future. Exhibit B-1 has been changed to 
Exhibit ``A'' because we have eliminated multiple Assignors and 
Assignees, as stated above, which were identified on the original 
Exhibit ``A''.
    El Paso and NCX Letter: The relinquishment form is only executed by 
the record title interest owners, which could cause issues with any 
operating rights owners. The relinquishment form contains language to 
disallow relinquishments of record title where there are producing 
operating rights so as to preclude termination of producing operating 
rights. MMS's policies of encouraging exploration and development and 
of increasing revenues, and the principle of respecting the integrity 
of property interests require refusal of relinquishment of record title 
where there are producing operating rights. Just as the assignment 
forms bind the assignee of operating rights to the lease terms and 
conditions, the integrity of those rights conveyed should be respected 
by MMS.
    While MMS recognizes the issue, MMS does not have a contract with 
the operating rights owners. This contractual right exists with the 
record title owners as they are the signatory parties to the lease 
instrument. Therefore, the proposed relinquishment form will remain as 
proposed and only need execution from the record title owners of the 
lease.
    NCX Letter: The assignment forms do not contain conveyance language 
and are not in a form that is recordable in adjacent county/parish 
record; that there is not enough space at the top of the forms to be 
accepted for recordation; that so many elements would be required to be 
added in Exhibit ``B-1'' that the common practice will become to 
prepare a standard assignment and then attach the entire assignment as 
Exhibit B-1. This will lead to a duplication effort requiring Exhibit 
B-1 to be executed whether it is an exhibit or full assignment, along 
with the MMS form assignment, that ``B-1'' would be recorded in the 
adjacent county/parish records and the MMS form would not.
    As stated above, MMS has reworded the language to make the 
instrument a formal conveyance. The comment on space for recordation on 
the front of the document is not valid. Most county/parish Clerk of 
Court offices stamp recording information on the back page of the 
document. However, in lieu of that, MMS feels there is ample space on 
the signature page for the recordation information of the county/
parish.
    Specific instructions are given for the completion of the 
assignment forms. Attaching the entire assignment as Exhibit ``A'' will 
be unacceptable to MMS and will be returned unapproved. Such an 
exercise will defeat the purpose of this streamlining effort for 
industry and Exhibit B-1 has been changed to Exhibit ``A'' as set forth 
above.
    NCX Letter: The columns for interest decimals are confusing and 
should be clarified.
    MMS concurs and, as mentioned above, deleted the columns and 
replaced same with standard conveyance language. Please see the above 
comments.
    NCX Letter: Commenter was confused over the effective date of the 
assignment versus the effective date of the lease and the location of 
this information. Further, it was commented that the proposed forms do 
not take the place of the transmittal letter required by the MMS 
Adjudication Unit, which the commenter claims, contains much of the 
same information as the proposed forms.
    The forms are clear in this regard and MMS feels the commenter did 
not thoroughly review the form before making this statement; therefore, 
the comment is invalid.
    As to the transmittal letter issue, MMS disagrees. The transmittal 
letter does not contain the same information as the assignment form. 
Upon preparation of transmittal letters, industry should be careful not 
to repeat information contained in the assignment forms. Such 
transmittal letters should notify MMS of such issues as the submittal 
of Designation of Operator forms, Bonds, Oil Spill Financial 
Responsibility Forms, or any other information the submitter desires in 
assisting with the review process; and whether such information is 
included with the assignment or the reasons it is not included, which 
would facilitate the initial review process by MMS staff. Should this 
become a major issue, MMS will consider recommending to industry a 
standard format letter to utilize with the transmittal of the 
assignment.
    If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send 
your comments to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this 
notice. OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information 
collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum 
consideration, OMB should receive public comments by April 14, 2006.
    Public Comment Procedures: MMS's practice is to make comments, 
including names and addresses of respondents, available for public 
review. If you wish your name and/or address to be withheld, you must 
state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. MMS will honor 
the request to the extent allowable by the law; however, anonymous 
comments will not be considered. All submissions from organizations or 
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as 
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be 
made available for public inspection in their entirety.
    MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) 
208-7744.

    Dated: December 9, 2005.
E.P. Danenberger,
Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-3706 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P