Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1, Approval of Operations, 12656-12660 [06-2371]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
12656
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Point 1: 47°15′43.548″ N,
122°25′54.498″ W;
Point 2: 47°15′42.288″ N,
122°25′53.354″ W;
Point 3: 47°15′43.245″ N,
122°25′55.476″ W;
Point 4: 47°15′42.040″ N,
122°25′54.653″ W.
[Datum: NAD 1983].
(4) All waters of the Middle Waterway
bounded by a line connecting the
following points:
Point 1: 47°15′42.288″ N,
122°25′55.130″ W;
Point 2: 47°15′39.162″ N,
122°25′53.835″ W;
Point 3: 47°15′39.035″ N,
122°25′54.458″ W;
Point 4: 47°15′41.738″ N,
122°25′55.599″ W;
Point 5: 47°15′41.259″ N,
122°25′57.162″ W;
Point 6: 47°15′41.559″ N,
122°25′57.362″ W.
[Datum: NAD 1983].
(5) All waters of the Middle Waterway
bounded by a line connecting the
following points:
Point 1: 47°15′32.879″ N,
122°25′49.223″ W;
Point 2: 47°15′28.149″ N,
122°25′46.088″ W;
Point 3: 47°15′28.067″ N,
122°25′46.351″ W;
Point 4: 47°15′32.129″ N,
122°25′49.155″ W.
[Datum: NAD 1983].
(b) Regulations. All vessels and
persons are prohibited from anchoring,
dredging, laying cable, dragging,
seining, bottom fishing, conducting
salvage operations, or any other activity
which could potentially disturb the
seabed in the designated regulated
navigation area. Vessels may otherwise
transit or navigate within this area
without reservation.
(c) Waiver. The Captain of the Port,
Puget Sound, upon advice from the U.S.
EPA Project Manager and the
Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, may, upon written request,
authorize a waiver from this section if
it is determined that the proposed
operation supports USEPA remedial
objectives, or can be performed in a
manner that ensures the integrity of the
sediment cap. A written request must
describe the intended operation, state
the need, and describe the proposed
precautionary measures. Requests
should be submitted in triplicate, to
facilitate review by U.S. EPA, Coast
Guard, and Washington State Agencies.
USEPA managed remedial design,
remedial action, habitat mitigation, or
monitoring activities associated with the
Middle Waterway Superfund Site are
excluded from the waiver requirement.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
USEPA is required, however, to alert the
Coast Guard in advance concerning any
of the above-mentioned activities that
may, or will, take place in the Regulated
Area.
Dated: February 28, 2006.
Richard R. Houck,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–3534 Filed 3–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 228
RIN 0596–AC20
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 3160
[W0–610–411H12–24 1A]
RIN 1004–AD59
Onshore Oil and Gas Operations;
Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases;
Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1,
Approval of Operations
AGENCIES: U.S. Forest Service,
Agriculture; Bureau of Land
Management, Interior.
ACTION: Further proposed rule;
Reopening of comment period.
SUMMARY: This further proposed rule
amends the proposed rule published in
the Federal Register on July 27, 2005
(70 FR 43349). The proposed rule would
revise existing Onshore Oil and Gas
Order Number 1 (see 48 FR 48916 as
amended at 48 FR 56226 (1983)). The
Order provides the requirements
necessary for the approval of all
proposed oil and gas exploratory,
development, or service wells on all
Federal and Indian (except Osage Tribe)
onshore oil and gas leases, including
leases where the surface is managed by
the U.S. Forest Service (FS). It also
covers approvals necessary for
subsequent well operations, including
abandonment. This further proposed
rule amends the proposed rule by
making the provisions on the
Application for Permits to Drill or
Deepen (APD) package processing
consistent with the Energy Policy Act of
2005. In addition, this further proposed
rule amends a provision in the proposed
rule having to do with proposed
operations on lands with Indian surface
and Federal minerals. This notice also
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reopens the comment period for the
proposed rule for 30 days.
DATES: Send your comments on this
further proposed rule and the proposed
rule to the BLM on or before April 12,
2006. The BLM and the FS will not
necessarily consider any comments
received after the above date during its
decision on the rule.
ADDRESSES: Mail: Director (630), Bureau
of Land Management, Eastern States
Office, 7450 Boston Boulevard,
Springfield, Virginia 22153.
Hand Delivery: 1620 L Street, NW.,
Suite 401, Washington, DC 20036.
E-mail:
comments_washington@blm.gov.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Burd at (202) 452–5017 or Ian
Senio at (202) 452–5049 at the BLM or
Barry Burkhardt at (801) 625–5157 at
the FS. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may contact these persons
through the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339, 24
hours a day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Comment Procedures
II. Background and Discussion of Further
Proposed Rule
III. Procedural Matters
I. Public Comment Procedures
You may submit your comments by
any one of several methods:
You may mail your comments to:
Director (630), Bureau of Land
Management, Eastern States Office, 7450
Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia
22153, Attention: RIN 1004–AD59.
You may deliver comments to: 1620 L
Street NW., Suite 401, Washington, DC
20036. You may e-mail your comment
to: comments_washington@blm.gov.
(Include ‘‘Attention: AD59’’ in the
subject line).
You may submit your comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Please make your comments on the
rule as specific as possible, confine
them to issues pertinent to the proposed
rule or the further proposed rule, and
explain the reason for any changes you
recommend. Where possible, your
comments should reference the specific
section or paragraph of the proposal that
you are addressing.
The Department of the Interior and
the FS may not necessarily consider or
include in the Administrative Record
for the final rule comments that we
receive after the close of the comment
period (see DATES) or comments
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
delivered to an address other than those
listed above (see ADDRESSES).
Individual respondents may request
confidentiality. If you wish to request
that the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) consider withholding your name,
street address, and other contact
information (such as: Internet address,
fax or phone number) from public
review or disclosure under the Freedom
of Information Act, do not submit your
comment electronically. You should
prominently state at the beginning of
your comment that you wish to request
confidentiality.
You do not need to re-submit
comments you submitted on the first
proposal. Those comments are part of
the administrative record of this
rulemaking and will be considered in
the final rule.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
II. Background and Discussion of
Further Proposed Rule
On August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50262) the
BLM and the FS extended the comment
period on the proposed rule that was
published in the Federal Register on
July 27, 2005 (70 FR 43349). On August
8, 2005, the President signed the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (Act). Provisions in
the Act impact the timing of approval of
APD provisions addressed in the
original proposed rule. This further
proposed rule would make the
provisions in the Onshore Order
(specifically Sections III.C.2. and III.G.
of the Order) dealing with APD
processing consistent with the
provisions in the Act. This further
proposed rule also modifies a provision
in the proposed rule regarding proposed
operations on lands with Indian surface
and Federal minerals.
Definition of ‘‘Complete APD’’
This further proposed rule amends
the definition of ‘‘Complete APD’’ (see
Section II., Definitions, of the Order) by
requiring that an onsite inspection
conducted jointly by the BLM, the FS if
appropriate, and the operator be
completed prior to the BLM designating
the APD package as complete.
Currently, in all circumstances, the
BLM, and the FS if appropriate,
conducts on-site inspections to
determine if an APD package is
complete. The BLM and FS intend to
continue this practice under the
amended Order since examination of
existing on-the-ground circumstances is
the only way to ensure that the
information in the APD package is
consistent with conditions at the
proposed drill site and along the
proposed access route. The proposed
changes will make it clear that the BLM
and FS intend to continue requiring on-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
site inspections as part of the APD
approval process.
APD Processing
This further proposed rule amends
Section III.C.2. of the Order dealing with
APD processing because the APD
process described in the Order is
inconsistent with the process required
by the Act.
Section 366 of the Act amends the
Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C.
226(p)(1)) to add a requirement that the
Secretary notify an applicant within 10
days of receiving an APD either that the
APD is complete or what additional
information is required to make the
application complete. While a 10-day
notice provision was included in the
Order proposed on July 27, 2005, it is
now a statutory requirement.
Section 366 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 contains other deadlines for
processing APDs that were not
addressed in the July 27, 2005 proposed
Order. While the steps and requirements
in the Act are similar to the proposed
rule, the Act has two additional timing
requirements that the Order must
address.
First, the Act requires that the
Secretary approve an APD 30 days after
it is complete or notify the applicant of:
(1) Any actions that the operator can
take to get approval; (2) what steps, such
as National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) or other regulatory compliance,
remain to be completed; and (3) the
schedule for completion of these
requirements. The proposed Order
contained no specific time for making a
final decision on the application.
Second, in those situations where the
BLM delays the decision, the Act and
this further proposed rule give the
applicant two years to take whatever
actions are identified in the 30-day
notice. The Act amends 30 U.S.C. 226
by adding a new paragraph (p)(3)(B),
and this further proposed rule also adds
a new requirement, that the Secretary
must make a final decision on the
application within 10 days of the
applicant’s completion of these actions,
if all other regulatory requirements are
complete. The timeframes established in
this section apply to both individual
APDs and to the multiple APDs
included in Master Development Plans.
In addition, even though the time limits
established in Section 366 of the Act are
amendments to the Mineral Leasing Act
and, therefore, do not apply to Indian
leases, we are proposing to apply the
same time limit procedures for both
Federal and Indian leases.
The BLM does not approve Surface
Use Plans of Operations for National
Forest Service (NFS) lands. The FS
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12657
notifies the BLM of its Surface Use Plan
of Operations (SUPO) approval and the
BLM proceeds with its APD review. For
APDs on NFS lands, the decision to
approve a Surface Use Plan of
Operations or Master Development Plan
may be subject to FS appeal procedures
which may take up to 105 days from the
date of the decision. Pursuant to the
Mineral Leasing Act, as amended by the
Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing
Reform Act of 1987 (30 U.S.C. 226(g)),
proposed section III.C.2.b. provides that
BLM may not approve an APD until the
FS has approved the SUPO. This
condition is consistent with Section 366
of the Energy Policy Act which provides
that the Secretary shall issue a permit
within 30 days only if requirements of
other applicable law have been
completed within that timeframe (30
U.S.C. 226(p)(2)). Therefore, in
situations where the SUPO is not
approved, the BLM will provide notice
within the 30 day period that action on
the APD will be deferred until the FS
completes action on the SUPO.
Operating on Split Estate Lands With
Indian Surface Ownership
This further proposed rule would
modify Section VI. of the proposed rule
by replacing the last sentence of the first
paragraph of that section to make it
clear that the section applies to lands
with Indian surface and Federal
minerals. It also explains that the
operator is required to address surface
use issues with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
The proposed rule had addressed
conferring with surface owners in the
case of privately owned surface and
Federal/Indian leases, as well as Indian
oil and gas leases where the surface is
in different Indian ownership. This
further proposed rule proposes to apply
the policy applicable to privately owned
surface to all Indian surface and Federal
oil and gas lease situations. Section VI.
would require a good faith effort to
reach a surface use agreement, and
provide for the posting of a bond to
protect against damages to crops and
tangible improvements in the absence of
agreement. This change merely codifies
existing policy.
We are aware that this further
proposed rule may affect other
provisions in the proposed Order. In the
final rule we will conform the rest of the
Order proposed on July 27, 2005, to be
consistent with the amendments
proposed in this notice as they pertain
to the definition of ‘‘Complete APD,’’
the timeline for processing APDs, and
the new provision on operating on split
estate lands with Indian surface
ownership. Furthermore, provisions in
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
12658
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
the final Order will supersede any
inconsistent provisions of existing
regulations, inasmuch as they will
constitute a later exercise of
Administrative Procedure Act
rulemaking. To the maximum extent
practical, we will identify such
inconsistencies and include conforming
amendments to titles 36 or 43, or both,
of the CFR in the final rule. For
example, the time line in Section III. C.
2. of the proposed rule would supersede
that portion of 43 CFR 3162.3–1 that
discusses processing times.
III. Procedural Matters
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
The provisions of the proposed rule
(see 70 FR 43349), including the further
proposed rule, are not a significant
regulatory action and are not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order
12866. The OMB makes the final
determination under the Executive
Order. The proposed rule and the
further proposed rule will not have an
effect of $100 million or more on the
economy. They 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. The proposed rule and
the further proposed rule will not create
serious inconsistencies or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency. The
proposed rule and further proposed rule
do not alter the budgetary effects of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the right or obligations of
their recipients; nor do they raise novel
legal or policy issues. The revision to
the definition of ‘‘Complete APD’’
requiring onsite inspections would have
no impact on operators since onsite
inspections are currently required as
part of the APD approval process. The
provision on operating on split estate
lands with Indian surface ownership is
consistent with existing policy and
practice and therefore would have no
economic impact. The other revisions
this rule would make to the Order
primarily involve changes to the BLM’s
and the FS’s administrative processes.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Congress enacted the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as
amended, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, to ensure
that Government regulations do not
unnecessarily or disproportionately
burden small entities. The RFA requires
a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule
would have a significant economic
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
impact, either detrimental or beneficial,
on a substantial number of small
entities. For the purposes of this
analysis, we will assume that all entities
(all lessees and operators) that may be
impacted by these regulations are small
entities.
The proposed rule and the further
proposed rule address the BLM’s and
the FS’s administrative processes
involved in processing APDs. These
changes are not significantly different
from the existing Order and would not
significantly impact operators or lessees.
As a result of more clear rules, operators
will have a better understanding of the
BLM processes, and the timelines will
lead to a reduction in processing time
and some administrative cost savings for
the BLM, the FS, and operators. The
provision on operating on split estate
lands with Indian surface ownership
merely codifies existing policy.
Therefore, the BLM and the FS have
determined that under the RFA the
proposed rule and the further proposed
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
The provisions of the proposed rule
and the further proposed rule are not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined at 5 U.S.C.
804(2). For the reasons stated in the
RFA discussion, the proposed rule and
the further proposed rule would not
have an annual effect on the economy
greater than $100 million; would not
result in major cost or price increases
for consumers, industries, government
agencies, or regions; and would 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. Please
see the discussion of ‘‘Executive Order
12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review’’ above.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The proposed and the further
proposed rule do not impose an
unfunded mandate on state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector
of more than $100 million per year; nor
do these proposed regulations have a
significant or unique effect on state,
local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. The further proposed rule
would codify decisions made by the
Congress in the Energy Policy Act and
the discretionary provisions would not
have any significant effect monetarily,
or otherwise, on the entities listed.
Therefore, the BLM and the FS are not
required to prepare a statement
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
containing the information required by
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights (Takings)
The proposed rule and the further
proposed rule do not represent a
government action capable of interfering
with constitutionally protected property
rights. The further proposed rule has no
potential to affect property rights as the
changes it would make reduce burdens
on regulated parties. Therefore, the
Department of the Interior has
determined that the rule would not
cause a taking of private property or
require further discussion of takings
implications under this Executive
Order.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The proposed rule and the further
proposed rule will not have a
substantial direct effect on the states, on
the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The proposed rule
and the further proposed rule will not
have any effect on any of the items
listed. As stated above, the proposed
rule and further proposed rule
principally deal with the requirements
necessary for the approval of all
proposed oil and gas exploratory,
development, or service wells on all
Federal and Indian (except Osage tribe)
onshore oil and gas leases. In other
words, the rules affect the relationship
between operators, lessees, and the BLM
and the FS but would not impact states.
Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 13132, the BLM has determined
that this proposed rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant preparation of a federalism
assessment.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
The BLM approves proposed
operations on all Indian (except Osage)
onshore oil and gas leases and
agreements. The BLM has begun
consultation on the proposed revisions
to the Order and will continue to
consult with tribes during the comment
period on this further proposed rule.
The provision on operating on split
estate lands with Indian surface
ownership merely codifies existing
policy.
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform
Under Executive Order 12988, the
Office of the Solicitor has determined
that the proposed rule and the further
proposed rule would not unduly burden
the judicial system and that they meet
the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. We have reviewed
these regulations to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity. They have been
written to minimize litigation, provide
clear legal standards for affected
conduct rather than general standards,
and promote simplification. Drafting the
regulations in clear language and
working closely with legal counsel
assisted in all of these areas.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This further proposed rule contains
no new information collection
requirements.
National Environmental Policy Act
The BLM and the FS have prepared
an environmental assessment (EA) and
have found that the proposed rule and
the further proposed rule would not
constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment under section
102(2)(C) of the NEPA, 42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C). A detailed statement under
NEPA is not required. The BLM has
placed the EA and the Finding of No
Significant Impact on file in the BLM
Administrative Record at the address
specified in the ADDRESSES section.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
In accordance with Executive Order
13211, the BLM has determined that the
proposed rule and the further proposed
rule will not have substantial direct
effects on the energy supply,
distribution or use, including a shortfall
in supply or price increase. The rules
would clarify the administrative
processes involved in approving an APD
and more clearly lay out the timeline for
processing applications. It is not clear to
what extent clarification of the rules
will save the BLM, the FS, or operators
administrative costs, but we anticipate
that the cost savings will be minimal, as
will any direct effects on the energy
supply, distribution or use.
Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of
Cooperative Conservation
In accordance with Executive Order
13352, BLM has determined that this
rule primarily involves changes to the
BLM and Forest Service administrative
processes. This rule does not impede
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
facilitating cooperative conservation;
takes appropriate account of and
considers the interests of persons with
ownership or other legally recognized
interests in land or other natural
resources; has no effect on local
participation in the Federal decisionmaking process; and provides that the
programs, projects, and activities are
consistent with protecting public health
and safety.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write regulations that are
simple and easy to understand. We
invite your comments on how to make
these proposed regulations easier to
understand, including answers to
questions such as the following:
1. Are the requirements in the
proposed regulations clearly stated?
2. Do the proposed regulations
contain technical language or jargon that
interferes with their clarity?
3. Does the format of the proposed
regulations (grouping and order of
sections, use of headings, paragraphing,
etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
4. Would the regulations be easier to
understand if they were divided into
more (but shorter) sections?
5. Is the description of the proposed
regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this preamble
helpful in understanding the proposed
regulations? How could this description
be more helpful in making the proposed
regulations easier to understand?
Please send any comments you have
on the clarity of the regulations to the
address specified in the ADDRESSES
section.
Authors
The principal author of this further
proposed rule is James Burd of the BLM,
Washington Office Fluids Group
assisted by the staff of the BLM’s
Regulatory Affairs Group and the
Department of the Interior’s Office of the
Solicitor.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 228
Environmental protection; Mines;
National forests; Oil and gas
exploration; Public lands-mineral
resources; Public lands-rights-of-way;
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements; Surety bonds; Wilderness
areas.
43 CFR Part 3160
Administrative practice and
procedure; Government contracts;
Indians-lands; Mineral royalties; Oil and
gas exploration; Penalties; Public lands-
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12659
mineral resources; Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Bureau of Land
Management proposes to amend the
Appendix following the regulatory text
of the proposed rule published in the
Federal Register at 70 FR 43349 as
follows:
1. In the Appendix following the
regulatory text of the proposed rule,
further amend the definition of
‘‘Complete APD’’ in section II, on page
43357, by revising the first paragraph of
the definition as follows:
Complete APD means that the
information in the APD package is
accurate and addresses all of the
requirements identified in this Order.
The onsite inspection verifies important
information that is part of the APD
package and is a critical step in
determining if the package is complete.
Therefore, the onsite inspection must be
conducted before the APD package can
be considered to be complete. The APD
package must contain:
2. Further amend section III.C.2. of
the Appendix following the regulatory
text of proposed rule by revising
paragraph III.C.2, on page 43357, to read
as follows:
2. Processing.
The timeframes established in this
subsection apply to both individual
APDs and to the multiple APDs
included in Master Development Plans
and to leases of Indian minerals as well
as leases of Federal minerals.
(a) Within 10 days of receiving an
application, BLM (in consultation with
the FS if the application concerns NFS
lands) will notify the operator whether
or not the application is complete. The
BLM will request additional information
and correction if necessary. If an onsite
inspection has not been performed, the
applicant will be notified that the
application is not complete. Within 10
days of receiving the application, BLM
or the FS if appropriate, in coordination
with the operator and Surface Managing
Entity, including the non-Federal
surface owner in the case of split estate
minerals, will schedule a date for the
onsite inspection (unless the onsite
inspection has already been conducted
as part of a Notice of Staking). The
onsite inspection will be held as soon as
practicable based on schedules and
weather conditions. If there is enough
information to begin processing the
application, BLM (and the FS if
applicable) will process it up to the
point that missing information or
uncorrected deficiencies render further
processing impractical or impossible.
The operator has 45 days after receiving
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
12660
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
notice from BLM to provide any
additional information necessary to
complete the APD, or the APD may be
returned to the operator.
(b) Within 30 days after the operator
has submitted a complete application,
including incorporating any changes
that resulted from the onsite inspection,
the BLM will:
(1) Approve the application, subject to
reasonable conditions of approval, if the
requirements of the NEPA, NHPA, ESA,
and other applicable law have been met
and, if on FS lands, FS has approved the
SUPO; or
(2) Notify the operator that it is
deferring action on the permit.
(c) The notice of deferral in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section must specify:
(1) Any action the operator could take
that would enable BLM (in consultation
with the FS if applicable) to issue a final
decision on the application. The FS will
notify the applicant of any action the
applicant could take that would enable
the FS to issue a final decision on the
SUPO on NFS lands. Actions may
include, but are not limited to,
assistance with:
(A) Data gathering; and
(B) Preparing analyses and
documents.
(2) If applicable, a list of actions that
BLM or the FS need to take before
making a final decision on the
application, including analysis required
by NEPA or other applicable law and a
schedule for completing these actions.
(d) The operator has two years from
the date of the notice under paragraph
(c)(1) of this section to take the action
specified in the notice. If all analyses
required by NEPA, NHPA, ESA, and
other applicable laws have been
completed, BLM (and the FS if
applicable), will make a decision on the
permit and the SUPO within 10 days of
receiving a report from the operator
addressing all of the issues or actions
specified in the notice under paragraph
(c)(1) of this section and certifying that
all required actions have been taken. If
the operator has not completed the
actions specified in the notice within
two years from the operator’s receipt of
the paragraph (c)(1) notice, BLM will
deny the permit.
(e) For APDs on NFS lands, the
decision to approve a SUPO or Master
Development Plan may be subject to FS
appeal procedures. Under current FS
appeal procedures, resolution of the
appeal may take up to 105 days before
that decision can be implemented. BLM
cannot approve an APD until the appeal
of the SUPO is resolved.
3. Further amend section VI. of the
Appendix following the regulatory text
of proposed rule by revising the last
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
sentence of the first paragraph on page
43362 to read as follows:
This section also applies to lands with
Indian surface and Federal minerals.
The operator must address surface use
issues with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Dated: March 2, 2006.
Dale N. Bosworth,
Chief, USDA—Forest Service.
Dated: February 24, 2006.
Johnnie Burton,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and
Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 06–2371 Filed 3–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–84–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
48 CFR Parts 1532 and 1552
[FRL–8044–3]
EPAAR Prescription and Clause—
Simplified Acquisition Procedures
Financing
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise the
EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR)
Subparts 1532 and 1552 to implement a
procedure for simplified acquisition
procedures financing. This proposed
EPAAR revision will add a prescription
and clause for contracting officers to use
when approving advance or interim
payments on simplified acquisitions.
The proposed prescription and clause
apply to commercial item orders at or
below the simplified acquisition
threshold. This action revises the
EPAAR, but does not impose any new
requirements on Agency contractors.
The procedure will allow contractors to
invoice for advance and interim
payments in accordance with standard
commercial practices when authorized
by the contracting officer and identified
in the clause payment schedule.
DATES: Interested parties should submit
comments in writing on or before May
12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. OARM–
2006–0126, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s
electronic public docket and comment
system, is EPA’s preferred method for
receiving comments. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• E-mail: oei.docket@epa.gov.
• Surface Mail: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Attention Docket ID No. OARM–2006–
0126.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
https://www.epa.gov/edocket, including
any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through
EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail.
The EPA EDOCKET and the federal
regulations.gov Web sites are
‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your
e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit
EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal
Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102).
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the EDOCKET index at
https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12656-12660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2371]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 228
RIN 0596-AC20
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 3160
[W0-610-411H12-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AD59
Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas
Leases; Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1, Approval of Operations
AGENCIES: U.S. Forest Service, Agriculture; Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Further proposed rule; Reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This further proposed rule amends the proposed rule published
in the Federal Register on July 27, 2005 (70 FR 43349). The proposed
rule would revise existing Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1 (see 48
FR 48916 as amended at 48 FR 56226 (1983)). The Order provides the
requirements necessary for the approval of all proposed oil and gas
exploratory, development, or service wells on all Federal and Indian
(except Osage Tribe) onshore oil and gas leases, including leases where
the surface is managed by the U.S. Forest Service (FS). It also covers
approvals necessary for subsequent well operations, including
abandonment. This further proposed rule amends the proposed rule by
making the provisions on the Application for Permits to Drill or Deepen
(APD) package processing consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
In addition, this further proposed rule amends a provision in the
proposed rule having to do with proposed operations on lands with
Indian surface and Federal minerals. This notice also reopens the
comment period for the proposed rule for 30 days.
DATES: Send your comments on this further proposed rule and the
proposed rule to the BLM on or before April 12, 2006. The BLM and the
FS will not necessarily consider any comments received after the above
date during its decision on the rule.
ADDRESSES: Mail: Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, Eastern
States Office, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153.
Hand Delivery: 1620 L Street, NW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20036.
E-mail: comments_washington@blm.gov.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Burd at (202) 452-5017 or Ian
Senio at (202) 452-5049 at the BLM or Barry Burkhardt at (801) 625-5157
at the FS. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may contact these persons through the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Comment Procedures
II. Background and Discussion of Further Proposed Rule
III. Procedural Matters
I. Public Comment Procedures
You may submit your comments by any one of several methods:
You may mail your comments to: Director (630), Bureau of Land
Management, Eastern States Office, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield,
Virginia 22153, Attention: RIN 1004-AD59.
You may deliver comments to: 1620 L Street NW., Suite 401,
Washington, DC 20036. You may e-mail your comment to: comments_
washington@blm.gov. (Include ``Attention: AD59'' in the subject line).
You may submit your comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Please make your comments on the rule as specific as possible,
confine them to issues pertinent to the proposed rule or the further
proposed rule, and explain the reason for any changes you recommend.
Where possible, your comments should reference the specific section or
paragraph of the proposal that you are addressing.
The Department of the Interior and the FS may not necessarily
consider or include in the Administrative Record for the final rule
comments that we receive after the close of the comment period (see
DATES) or comments
[[Page 12657]]
delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES).
Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to
request that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) consider withholding
your name, street address, and other contact information (such as:
Internet address, fax or phone number) from public review or disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act, do not submit your comment
electronically. You should prominently state at the beginning of your
comment that you wish to request confidentiality.
You do not need to re-submit comments you submitted on the first
proposal. Those comments are part of the administrative record of this
rulemaking and will be considered in the final rule.
II. Background and Discussion of Further Proposed Rule
On August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50262) the BLM and the FS extended the
comment period on the proposed rule that was published in the Federal
Register on July 27, 2005 (70 FR 43349). On August 8, 2005, the
President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Act). Provisions in the
Act impact the timing of approval of APD provisions addressed in the
original proposed rule. This further proposed rule would make the
provisions in the Onshore Order (specifically Sections III.C.2. and
III.G. of the Order) dealing with APD processing consistent with the
provisions in the Act. This further proposed rule also modifies a
provision in the proposed rule regarding proposed operations on lands
with Indian surface and Federal minerals.
Definition of ``Complete APD''
This further proposed rule amends the definition of ``Complete
APD'' (see Section II., Definitions, of the Order) by requiring that an
onsite inspection conducted jointly by the BLM, the FS if appropriate,
and the operator be completed prior to the BLM designating the APD
package as complete. Currently, in all circumstances, the BLM, and the
FS if appropriate, conducts on-site inspections to determine if an APD
package is complete. The BLM and FS intend to continue this practice
under the amended Order since examination of existing on-the-ground
circumstances is the only way to ensure that the information in the APD
package is consistent with conditions at the proposed drill site and
along the proposed access route. The proposed changes will make it
clear that the BLM and FS intend to continue requiring on-site
inspections as part of the APD approval process.
APD Processing
This further proposed rule amends Section III.C.2. of the Order
dealing with APD processing because the APD process described in the
Order is inconsistent with the process required by the Act.
Section 366 of the Act amends the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C.
226(p)(1)) to add a requirement that the Secretary notify an applicant
within 10 days of receiving an APD either that the APD is complete or
what additional information is required to make the application
complete. While a 10-day notice provision was included in the Order
proposed on July 27, 2005, it is now a statutory requirement.
Section 366 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains other
deadlines for processing APDs that were not addressed in the July 27,
2005 proposed Order. While the steps and requirements in the Act are
similar to the proposed rule, the Act has two additional timing
requirements that the Order must address.
First, the Act requires that the Secretary approve an APD 30 days
after it is complete or notify the applicant of: (1) Any actions that
the operator can take to get approval; (2) what steps, such as National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other regulatory compliance, remain
to be completed; and (3) the schedule for completion of these
requirements. The proposed Order contained no specific time for making
a final decision on the application.
Second, in those situations where the BLM delays the decision, the
Act and this further proposed rule give the applicant two years to take
whatever actions are identified in the 30-day notice. The Act amends 30
U.S.C. 226 by adding a new paragraph (p)(3)(B), and this further
proposed rule also adds a new requirement, that the Secretary must make
a final decision on the application within 10 days of the applicant's
completion of these actions, if all other regulatory requirements are
complete. The timeframes established in this section apply to both
individual APDs and to the multiple APDs included in Master Development
Plans. In addition, even though the time limits established in Section
366 of the Act are amendments to the Mineral Leasing Act and,
therefore, do not apply to Indian leases, we are proposing to apply the
same time limit procedures for both Federal and Indian leases.
The BLM does not approve Surface Use Plans of Operations for
National Forest Service (NFS) lands. The FS notifies the BLM of its
Surface Use Plan of Operations (SUPO) approval and the BLM proceeds
with its APD review. For APDs on NFS lands, the decision to approve a
Surface Use Plan of Operations or Master Development Plan may be
subject to FS appeal procedures which may take up to 105 days from the
date of the decision. Pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act, as amended
by the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (30
U.S.C. 226(g)), proposed section III.C.2.b. provides that BLM may not
approve an APD until the FS has approved the SUPO. This condition is
consistent with Section 366 of the Energy Policy Act which provides
that the Secretary shall issue a permit within 30 days only if
requirements of other applicable law have been completed within that
timeframe (30 U.S.C. 226(p)(2)). Therefore, in situations where the
SUPO is not approved, the BLM will provide notice within the 30 day
period that action on the APD will be deferred until the FS completes
action on the SUPO.
Operating on Split Estate Lands With Indian Surface Ownership
This further proposed rule would modify Section VI. of the proposed
rule by replacing the last sentence of the first paragraph of that
section to make it clear that the section applies to lands with Indian
surface and Federal minerals. It also explains that the operator is
required to address surface use issues with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
The proposed rule had addressed conferring with surface owners in
the case of privately owned surface and Federal/Indian leases, as well
as Indian oil and gas leases where the surface is in different Indian
ownership. This further proposed rule proposes to apply the policy
applicable to privately owned surface to all Indian surface and Federal
oil and gas lease situations. Section VI. would require a good faith
effort to reach a surface use agreement, and provide for the posting of
a bond to protect against damages to crops and tangible improvements in
the absence of agreement. This change merely codifies existing policy.
We are aware that this further proposed rule may affect other
provisions in the proposed Order. In the final rule we will conform the
rest of the Order proposed on July 27, 2005, to be consistent with the
amendments proposed in this notice as they pertain to the definition of
``Complete APD,'' the timeline for processing APDs, and the new
provision on operating on split estate lands with Indian surface
ownership. Furthermore, provisions in
[[Page 12658]]
the final Order will supersede any inconsistent provisions of existing
regulations, inasmuch as they will constitute a later exercise of
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking. To the maximum extent
practical, we will identify such inconsistencies and include conforming
amendments to titles 36 or 43, or both, of the CFR in the final rule.
For example, the time line in Section III. C. 2. of the proposed rule
would supersede that portion of 43 CFR 3162.3-1 that discusses
processing times.
III. Procedural Matters
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The provisions of the proposed rule (see 70 FR 43349), including
the further proposed rule, are not a significant regulatory action and
are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under Executive Order 12866. The OMB makes the final determination
under the Executive Order. The proposed rule and the further proposed
rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy.
They 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. The
proposed rule and the further proposed rule will not create serious
inconsistencies or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned
by another agency. The proposed rule and further proposed rule do not
alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the right or obligations of their recipients; nor do they
raise novel legal or policy issues. The revision to the definition of
``Complete APD'' requiring onsite inspections would have no impact on
operators since onsite inspections are currently required as part of
the APD approval process. The provision on operating on split estate
lands with Indian surface ownership is consistent with existing policy
and practice and therefore would have no economic impact. The other
revisions this rule would make to the Order primarily involve changes
to the BLM's and the FS's administrative processes.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as
amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not
unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA
requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a
significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a
substantial number of small entities. For the purposes of this
analysis, we will assume that all entities (all lessees and operators)
that may be impacted by these regulations are small entities.
The proposed rule and the further proposed rule address the BLM's
and the FS's administrative processes involved in processing APDs.
These changes are not significantly different from the existing Order
and would not significantly impact operators or lessees. As a result of
more clear rules, operators will have a better understanding of the BLM
processes, and the timelines will lead to a reduction in processing
time and some administrative cost savings for the BLM, the FS, and
operators. The provision on operating on split estate lands with Indian
surface ownership merely codifies existing policy. Therefore, the BLM
and the FS have determined that under the RFA the proposed rule and the
further proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The provisions of the proposed rule and the further proposed rule
are not a ``major rule'' as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). For the reasons
stated in the RFA discussion, the proposed rule and the further
proposed rule would not have an annual effect on the economy greater
than $100 million; would not result in major cost or price increases
for consumers, industries, government agencies, or regions; and would
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. Please see the
discussion of ``Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review''
above.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The proposed and the further proposed rule do not impose an
unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector of more than $100 million per year; nor do these proposed
regulations have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. The further proposed rule
would codify decisions made by the Congress in the Energy Policy Act
and the discretionary provisions would not have any significant effect
monetarily, or otherwise, on the entities listed. Therefore, the BLM
and the FS are not required to prepare a statement containing the
information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.).
Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings)
The proposed rule and the further proposed rule do not represent a
government action capable of interfering with constitutionally
protected property rights. The further proposed rule has no potential
to affect property rights as the changes it would make reduce burdens
on regulated parties. Therefore, the Department of the Interior has
determined that the rule would not cause a taking of private property
or require further discussion of takings implications under this
Executive Order.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The proposed rule and the further proposed rule will not have a
substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The
proposed rule and the further proposed rule will not have any effect on
any of the items listed. As stated above, the proposed rule and further
proposed rule principally deal with the requirements necessary for the
approval of all proposed oil and gas exploratory, development, or
service wells on all Federal and Indian (except Osage tribe) onshore
oil and gas leases. In other words, the rules affect the relationship
between operators, lessees, and the BLM and the FS but would not impact
states. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM
has determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant preparation of a federalism
assessment.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
The BLM approves proposed operations on all Indian (except Osage)
onshore oil and gas leases and agreements. The BLM has begun
consultation on the proposed revisions to the Order and will continue
to consult with tribes during the comment period on this further
proposed rule. The provision on operating on split estate lands with
Indian surface ownership merely codifies existing policy.
[[Page 12659]]
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that the proposed rule and the further proposed rule would
not unduly burden the judicial system and that they meet the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have
reviewed these regulations to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity.
They have been written to minimize litigation, provide clear legal
standards for affected conduct rather than general standards, and
promote simplification. Drafting the regulations in clear language and
working closely with legal counsel assisted in all of these areas.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This further proposed rule contains no new information collection
requirements.
National Environmental Policy Act
The BLM and the FS have prepared an environmental assessment (EA)
and have found that the proposed rule and the further proposed rule
would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment under section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA,
42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). A detailed statement under NEPA is not required.
The BLM has placed the EA and the Finding of No Significant Impact on
file in the BLM Administrative Record at the address specified in the
ADDRESSES section.
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
In accordance with Executive Order 13211, the BLM has determined
that the proposed rule and the further proposed rule will not have
substantial direct effects on the energy supply, distribution or use,
including a shortfall in supply or price increase. The rules would
clarify the administrative processes involved in approving an APD and
more clearly lay out the timeline for processing applications. It is
not clear to what extent clarification of the rules will save the BLM,
the FS, or operators administrative costs, but we anticipate that the
cost savings will be minimal, as will any direct effects on the energy
supply, distribution or use.
Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation
In accordance with Executive Order 13352, BLM has determined that
this rule primarily involves changes to the BLM and Forest Service
administrative processes. This rule does not impede facilitating
cooperative conservation; takes appropriate account of and considers
the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized
interests in land or other natural resources; has no effect on local
participation in the Federal decision-making process; and provides that
the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting
public health and safety.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are simple and easy to understand. We invite your comments on how
to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including
answers to questions such as the following:
1. Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated?
2. Do the proposed regulations contain technical language or jargon
that interferes with their clarity?
3. Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order
of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their
clarity?
4. Would the regulations be easier to understand if they were
divided into more (but shorter) sections?
5. Is the description of the proposed regulations in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble helpful in
understanding the proposed regulations? How could this description be
more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand?
Please send any comments you have on the clarity of the regulations
to the address specified in the ADDRESSES section.
Authors
The principal author of this further proposed rule is James Burd of
the BLM, Washington Office Fluids Group assisted by the staff of the
BLM's Regulatory Affairs Group and the Department of the Interior's
Office of the Solicitor.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 228
Environmental protection; Mines; National forests; Oil and gas
exploration; Public lands-mineral resources; Public lands-rights-of-
way; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Surety bonds; Wilderness
areas.
43 CFR Part 3160
Administrative practice and procedure; Government contracts;
Indians-lands; Mineral royalties; Oil and gas exploration; Penalties;
Public lands-mineral resources; Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Bureau of Land
Management proposes to amend the Appendix following the regulatory text
of the proposed rule published in the Federal Register at 70 FR 43349
as follows:
1. In the Appendix following the regulatory text of the proposed
rule, further amend the definition of ``Complete APD'' in section II,
on page 43357, by revising the first paragraph of the definition as
follows:
Complete APD means that the information in the APD package is
accurate and addresses all of the requirements identified in this
Order. The onsite inspection verifies important information that is
part of the APD package and is a critical step in determining if the
package is complete. Therefore, the onsite inspection must be conducted
before the APD package can be considered to be complete. The APD
package must contain:
2. Further amend section III.C.2. of the Appendix following the
regulatory text of proposed rule by revising paragraph III.C.2, on page
43357, to read as follows:
2. Processing.
The timeframes established in this subsection apply to both
individual APDs and to the multiple APDs included in Master Development
Plans and to leases of Indian minerals as well as leases of Federal
minerals.
(a) Within 10 days of receiving an application, BLM (in
consultation with the FS if the application concerns NFS lands) will
notify the operator whether or not the application is complete. The BLM
will request additional information and correction if necessary. If an
onsite inspection has not been performed, the applicant will be
notified that the application is not complete. Within 10 days of
receiving the application, BLM or the FS if appropriate, in
coordination with the operator and Surface Managing Entity, including
the non-Federal surface owner in the case of split estate minerals,
will schedule a date for the onsite inspection (unless the onsite
inspection has already been conducted as part of a Notice of Staking).
The onsite inspection will be held as soon as practicable based on
schedules and weather conditions. If there is enough information to
begin processing the application, BLM (and the FS if applicable) will
process it up to the point that missing information or uncorrected
deficiencies render further processing impractical or impossible. The
operator has 45 days after receiving
[[Page 12660]]
notice from BLM to provide any additional information necessary to
complete the APD, or the APD may be returned to the operator.
(b) Within 30 days after the operator has submitted a complete
application, including incorporating any changes that resulted from the
onsite inspection, the BLM will:
(1) Approve the application, subject to reasonable conditions of
approval, if the requirements of the NEPA, NHPA, ESA, and other
applicable law have been met and, if on FS lands, FS has approved the
SUPO; or
(2) Notify the operator that it is deferring action on the permit.
(c) The notice of deferral in paragraph (b)(2) of this section must
specify:
(1) Any action the operator could take that would enable BLM (in
consultation with the FS if applicable) to issue a final decision on
the application. The FS will notify the applicant of any action the
applicant could take that would enable the FS to issue a final decision
on the SUPO on NFS lands. Actions may include, but are not limited to,
assistance with:
(A) Data gathering; and
(B) Preparing analyses and documents.
(2) If applicable, a list of actions that BLM or the FS need to
take before making a final decision on the application, including
analysis required by NEPA or other applicable law and a schedule for
completing these actions.
(d) The operator has two years from the date of the notice under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section to take the action specified in the
notice. If all analyses required by NEPA, NHPA, ESA, and other
applicable laws have been completed, BLM (and the FS if applicable),
will make a decision on the permit and the SUPO within 10 days of
receiving a report from the operator addressing all of the issues or
actions specified in the notice under paragraph (c)(1) of this section
and certifying that all required actions have been taken. If the
operator has not completed the actions specified in the notice within
two years from the operator's receipt of the paragraph (c)(1) notice,
BLM will deny the permit.
(e) For APDs on NFS lands, the decision to approve a SUPO or Master
Development Plan may be subject to FS appeal procedures. Under current
FS appeal procedures, resolution of the appeal may take up to 105 days
before that decision can be implemented. BLM cannot approve an APD
until the appeal of the SUPO is resolved.
3. Further amend section VI. of the Appendix following the
regulatory text of proposed rule by revising the last sentence of the
first paragraph on page 43362 to read as follows:
This section also applies to lands with Indian surface and Federal
minerals. The operator must address surface use issues with the Bureau
of Indian Affairs.
Dated: March 2, 2006.
Dale N. Bosworth,
Chief, USDA--Forest Service.
Dated: February 24, 2006.
Johnnie Burton,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 06-2371 Filed 3-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
