Oil and Gas Leasing; National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, 28636-28649 [E7-9696]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• Bureau of Land Management
• Land Management Bureau

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28636-28649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9696]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 3130

[WO-310-1310-PP-241A]
RIN 1004-AD78


Oil and Gas Leasing; National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), proposes to amend its 
regulations at 43 CFR part 3130 pertaining to oil and gas resources in 
the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). The proposed rule would 
make oil and gas administrative procedures in NPR-A consistent with 
Section 347 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The proposed rule would 
amend the administrative procedures for the efficient transfer, 
consolidation, segregation, suspension, and unitization of Federal 
leases in the NPR-A. The rule would also make changes to the way the 
BLM processes lease renewals, lease extensions, lease expirations, 
lease agreements, exploration incentives, lease consolidations, and 
termination of administration for conveyed lands in the NPR-A. Finally, 
the rule would make the NPR-A regulation on additional bonding 
consistent with the regulations that apply outside of the NPR-A.

DATES: Send your comments on this proposed rule to the BLM on or before 
July 23, 2007. The BLM will not necessarily consider any comments 
received after the above date during its decision on the rule.

ADDRESSES: Commenters may mail written comments to the Bureau of Land 
Management, Administrative Record, Room 401LS, 1849 C Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20240; or hand-deliver written comments to the Bureau of 
Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20036. Comments will be available for public review at 
the L Street address from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    E-mail: comments_washington@blm.gov.
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Noble, Chief, Energy Branch, the 
BLM's Alaska State Office at (907) 267-1429 or Ian Senio at the BLM's 
Division of Regulatory Affairs at (202) 452-5049. 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
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
IV. 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, 1620 L Street, NW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20036, 
Attention: RIN 1004-AD78.
    You may deliver comments to: 1620 L Street, NW., Suite 401, 
Washington, DC 20036. You may e-mail your comments to: comments_
washington@blm.gov. (Include ``Attention: AD78'' in the subject line.) 
Please make your comments on the rule as specific as possible, confine 
them to issues pertinent to the 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.
    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that 
your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, 
may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in 
your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying 
information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    The Department of the Interior 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 delivered to an address other than those listed above (see 
ADDRESSES).

II. Background

    Part 3130 of 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) contains the 
regulations that apply to oil and gas leasing in the NPR-A authorized 
under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, as amended 
(NPRPA), (42 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.).
    On April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17865), the BLM published a final rule 
that applies to operations under Federal oil and gas leases in NPR-A 
and added a new

[[Page 28637]]

subpart allowing the formation of oil and gas units in the NPR-A.
    On August 8, 2005, the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 (EPAct of 2005) (Pub. L. 109-58). Section 347 of the EPAct of 2005 
amends the NPRPA. These amendments require that the BLM revise our 
existing regulations on:
    (A) Lease extensions and renewals;
    (B) Participation in oil and gas units;
    (C) Production allocation;
    (D) Termination of administration of conveyed mineral estate; and
    (E) Waiver, suspension, and reduction of rental, minimum royalty, 
or royalty.
    This proposed rule would make the part 3130 regulations on these 
subjects consistent with the EPAct of 2005. The rule would also make 
other changes to NPR-A regulations affecting administration of NPR-A 
leases and units.

III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

Section 3130.0-3 Authority

    This proposed rule would amend the authority section by adding a 
reference to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) in a new 
paragraph (d).

Section 3130.0-5 Definitions

    The EPAct of 2005 uses three terms that we also use in this 
proposed rule. All three terms are used in the provisions having to do 
with the proposed methodology for allocating production among committed 
tracts in a unit in the NPR-A (see proposed section 3137.23(g)). If the 
unit included non-Federal land, the methodology must take into account 
reservoir heterogeneity and area variation in reservoir producibility. 
This section of the rule would define the terms ``production allocation 
methodology,'' ``reservoir heterogeneity,'' and ``variation in 
reservoir producibility'' in a manner consistent with normal usage in 
the field.

Section 3133.3 Under what circumstances will BLM waive, suspend, or 
reduce the rental, royalty, or minimum royalty on my NPR-A lease?

    The EPAct of 2005 addresses the circumstances under which the BLM 
would consider waiving, suspending, or reducing the rental, royalty, or 
minimum royalty on an NPR-A lease. This section of existing regulations 
would be amended by this rule and under new paragraph (a)(2) the BLM 
could waive, suspend, or reduce the rental, royalty, or minimum royalty 
on an NPR-A lease if it was necessary to promote development or the BLM 
determined that the lease could not be successfully operated under the 
terms of the lease.
    Also, as a result of changes made to the NPRPA by the EPAct of 
2005, this proposed rule would change existing paragraph (b) by 
requiring the BLM to consult with the State of Alaska and the North 
Slope Borough within 10 days of receiving an application for waiver, 
suspension, or reduction of rental, royalty, or minimum royalty. Under 
new paragraph (b), the BLM would not approve an application for these 
benefits (under Sec.  3133.4) until at least 30 days after the 
consultation is completed.
    This proposed rule would add a new paragraph (c) to this section. 
Under this new paragraph, if a lease included land that was made 
available for acquisition by a Regional Corporation (as defined in 43 
U.S.C. 1602) under Section 1431(o) of the Alaska National Interest 
Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.), the BLM would only 
approve a waiver, suspension, or reduction of rental, royalty, or 
minimum royalty if the Regional Corporation concurred. This change is 
necessary because the statute requires concurrence from the Regional 
Corporation prior to approval of these actions.

Section 3133.4 How do I apply for a waiver, suspension or reduction of 
rental, royalty or minimum royalty for my NPR-A lease?

    Under this proposed rule, existing paragraph (a)(6) would have a 
new requirement that an applicant who is applying for a waiver, 
suspension, or reduction of rental, royalty, or minimum royalty 
demonstrate that the waiver, suspension, reduction of the rental, 
royalty, or minimum royalty encourages the greatest ultimate recovery 
of oil or gas or it is in the interest of conservation, and all the 
facts demonstrate that it cannot successfully operate the lease under 
its terms. The new requirement is as a result of changes that the EPAct 
of 2005 made to NPRPA.
    This rule would also make a minor editorial change to existing 
paragraph (a)(7) by replacing ``can't'' with ``cannot.''

Section 3134.1-2 Additional Bonds

    Changes to the existing paragraph (a) on additional bonding would 
allow the BLM to require additional bonding for all NPR-A leases, not 
only special areas, using the criteria of section 3104.5(b) of the 
existing regulations. This rule would add a cross reference to existing 
section 3104.5(b), which would allow the BLM to require an increase in 
the amount of any NPR-A lease bond if the BLM determined that the 
operator posed a risk due to factors, including, but not limited to:
    (A) A history of previous violations;
    (B) A notice from the Minerals Management Service (MMS) that there 
are uncollected royalties due; or
    (C) The total cost of plugging existing wells and reclaiming lands 
exceeds the present bond amount based on the estimates determined by 
the BLM.
    The existing regulations only allow BLM to increase the bonding 
amount in the Special Areas as defined in the NPRPA. This rule would 
allow BLM to increase the bonding amount on all NPR-A leases and would 
make the NPR-A oil and gas regulations consistent with the regulations 
that currently apply to Federal oil and gas leases outside of the NPR-
A.

Section 3135.1-4 Effect of Transfer of a Tract

    This proposed rule would revise paragraph (a) of this section to 
make the existing provisions clearer. This proposal would not change 
the meaning or intent of this paragraph.
    This proposed rule would revise the provisions on segregation in 
paragraph (b) of this section by changing the standard that the BLM 
applies when determining if a segregated lease should continue in full 
force and effect. The existing standard is that a segregated lease 
remains in full force and effect if the BLM determines that oil and gas 
is being produced in paying quantities from that segregated portion of 
the lease area or so long as drilling or well reworking operations, 
either actual or constructive, are being conducted. The new standard 
would be that a lease would continue in full force and effect as long 
as the activities on the segregated lease support lease extension under 
the regulations in section 3135.1-5. That section would be revised by 
this rule as well and it is discussed further below.

Section 3135.1-5 Extension of Lease

    Existing regulations on lease extensions require that the BLM 
extend the term of a lease beyond its primary term so long as:
    (A) Oil or gas is produced from the lease in paying quantities; or
    (B) Drilling or reworking operations, actual or constructive, as 
approved by the BLM, are being conducted on the lease.
    This proposed rule would add a new condition to paragraph (a) of 
this section under which the BLM would grant a lease extension in cases 
where the BLM has determined in writing that oil or gas

[[Page 28638]]

is capable of being produced in paying quantities from the lease.
    The proposed rule would amend existing paragraph (a) by breaking it 
into subparagraphs so that it is easier to read. The last sentence of 
paragraph (a) would be rewritten to make it clear that the BLM approves 
drilling or reworking operations, actual or constructive, rather than 
the Secretary.
    This rule would also add a new paragraph (b) to this section that 
explains that NPR-A leases expire on the 30th anniversary date of the 
original issuance date of the lease unless oil or gas is being produced 
in paying quantities from the lease. The new paragraph further explains 
that if a lease contains a well that is capable of production, but the 
lease does not produce the oil or gas due to circumstances beyond the 
lessee's control, the lessee may apply for a suspension under section 
3135.2. If the BLM approved the suspension, the lease would not expire 
on the 30th anniversary of the original issuance date of the lease. 
These proposed changes are in response to changes to NPRPA made by the 
EPAct of 2005.
    This rule would amend paragraph (c) of the existing regulation by 
making it clear that the directional wells discussed in that paragraph 
are the BLM-approved directional wells. This is a clarification of 
existing practice.

Section 3135.1-6 Lease Renewal

    This proposed rule would add a new section on lease renewals to the 
existing NPR-A regulations that would be based on changes the EPAct of 
2005 made to the NPRPA. The EPAct of 2005 addresses, and this section 
would address, lease renewals in two parts: those leases that have a 
discovery of hydrocarbons and those leases that do not have a 
discovery.
    With a Discovery. Under this proposed section, at any time after 
the fifth year of the primary term of a lease, the BLM could approve a 
10-year lease renewal for a lease on which there has been a well 
drilled and a discovery of hydrocarbons, even if the BLM had determined 
that the well is not capable of producing oil or gas in paying 
quantities. Under this section the BLM must receive the lessee's 
application for lease renewal no later than 60 days prior to the 
expiration of the primary term of the lease.
    This section would require that the renewal application provide 
evidence, and a certification by the lessee, that the lessee has 
discovered oil or gas on the leased lands in such quantities that a 
prudent operator would hold the lease for potential future development.
    Under this proposed section, the BLM would approve the application 
if it determined that a discovery was made and that a prudent operator 
would hold the lease for future development.
    The lease renewal would be effective on the day following the end 
of the primary term of the lease. The BLM may approve the lease renewal 
on the condition that the lessee drills one or more additional wells or 
acquires and analyzes more well data, seismic data, or geochemical 
survey data prior to the end of the primary term of the lease.
    The BLM is interested in all comments that you may have on what 
constitutes a ``discovery'' for purposes of lease renewal. If today's 
proposal were adopted, the BLM would use professional judgment, on a 
case-by-case basis, to make a determination on whether there is a 
discovery. However, we are especially interested in comments regarding 
whether any specific criteria should be used to make this determination 
or, if by the very nature of the determination, each case should be 
judged individually.
    Without a Discovery. Under this proposed section, at any time after 
the fifth year of the primary term of a lease, the BLM could approve an 
application for a 10-year lease renewal for a lease on which there has 
not been a discovery of oil or gas. The BLM must receive the lessee's 
application no later than 60 days prior to the expiration of the 
primary term of the lease.
    Under this proposed rule, the renewal application must:
    (A) Provide sufficient evidence that the lessee has diligently 
pursued exploration that warrants continuation of the lease with the 
intent of continued exploration or future potential development of the 
leased land. The application must show the lessee has drilled one or 
more wells or acquired seismic or geochemical data indicating a 
probability of future success, and the application must include a plan 
for future exploration; or
    (B) Show that all or part of the lease is part of a unit agreement 
covering a lease that qualifies for renewal without a discovery and 
that the lease has not been previously contracted out of the unit.
    The BLM would approve the renewal application if it determined that 
the application satisfied the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(A) or 
(B) of this section. If the BLM approved the application for lease 
renewal, the applicant would be required to submit to the BLM a fee of 
$100 per acre within 5 business days of receiving notification of the 
renewal approval.
    The lease renewal would be effective on the day following the end 
of the primary term of the lease. The BLM may approve the lease renewal 
on the condition that the lessee drills one or more additional wells or 
acquires and analyzes more well data, seismic data, or geochemical 
survey data prior to the end of the primary term of the lease.
    The renewed lease would be subject to the terms and conditions 
applicable to new oil and gas leases issued under the Integrated 
Activity Plan in effect on the date that the BLM issues the decision to 
renew the lease.

Section 3135.1-7 Consolidation of Leases

    This proposed rule would revise the consolidation provisions in 
existing regulations having to do with the term of a consolidated 
lease. Under the existing regulations, the term of a consolidated lease 
is extended beyond the primary term of the lease only as long as oil or 
gas is produced in paying quantities or approved constructive or actual 
drilling or reworking operations are conducted on the lease. Under 
paragraph (d) of this proposed rule, the term of a consolidated lease 
would be extended or renewed, as appropriate, under the extension or 
renewal provisions of the regulations. The change would recognize that 
the new standards in the extension and renewal provisions of this rule 
apply to consolidated leases.
    This rule would amend paragraph (e) of the existing regulation by 
making it clear that the highest of the royalty or rental rates of any 
original lease apply to the consolidated lease. This is consistent with 
existing policy and practice.

Section 3135.1-8 Termination of Administration for Conveyed Lands and 
Segregation

    This rule would add a new section concerning the waiver of 
administration for conveyed lands in a lease. This new section is 
necessary because of changes that the EPAct of 2005 made to the NPRPA. 
Under this new section, the BLM would be required to terminate 
administration of any oil and gas lease if all of the mineral estate is 
conveyed to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). The ASRC 
would then assume the lessor's obligation to administer any oil and gas 
lease.
    This section would explain that if a conveyance of the mineral 
estate does not include all of the land covered by an oil and gas 
lease, the lease would be segregated into two leases, one of which will 
cover only the mineral estate conveyed. The ASRC would assume

[[Page 28639]]

administration of the lease within the conveyed mineral estate.
    Under this proposed rule, if the ASRC assumed administration of a 
lease under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, all lease terms, the 
BLM regulations, and the BLM orders in effect on the date of assumption 
would continue to apply to the lessee's obligations under the lease. 
All such obligations would remain enforceable by the ASRC as the lessor 
until the lease terminated.
    In a case in which a conveyance of a mineral estate described in 
paragraph (b) of this section does not include all of the land covered 
by the oil and gas lease, a person who owns part of the mineral estate 
covered by the lease is entitled to the revenues associated with its 
mineral rights, including all royalties resulting from oil and gas 
produced from or allocated to that part of the mineral estate.

Section 3137.5 What terms do I need to know to understand this subpart?

    This rule would make one change to the definition of 
``participating area'' by replacing the word ``contain'' with the 
phrase ``are proven to be productive.'' Existing regulations imply that 
every committed tract within a participating area must contain a well 
that meets the productivity criteria specified in the unit agreement. 
The rule would clarify that the participating area consists of tracts 
that have been proven productive by a well meeting the productivity 
criteria, but that not every committed tract in the participating area 
would necessarily contain a well meeting the productivity criteria.

Section 3137.11 What consultation must BLM perform if lands in the unit 
area are owned by the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation or the State of 
Alaska?

    This rule would add a new section on consultation if lands in a 
unit are owned by the ASRC or the State of Alaska. This section is 
based on changes that the EPAct of 2005 made to the NPRPA. The new 
section requires that if the BLM administers a unit containing tracts 
where the mineral estate is owned by the ASRC or the State of Alaska, 
or if a proposed unit contains tracts where the mineral estate is owned 
by the ASRC or the State of Alaska, the BLM would consult with and 
provide opportunities for participation with respect to the creation or 
expansion of the unit by:
    (A) The ASRC, if the unit acreage contains the ASRC's mineral 
estate; or
    (B) The State of Alaska, if the unit acreage contains the state's 
mineral estate.
    The EPAct of 2005 requires that the BLM provide opportunity for 
participation by the State of Alaska and the ASRC in the creation and 
expansion of units if those units include acreage in which the State of 
Alaska or the ASRC has an interest in the mineral estate. If a proposed 
oil and gas unit included lands where one or both of these entities 
owned an interest in the mineral estate, the BLM would require the unit 
proponent to allow the State of Alaska and/or the ASRC to participate 
in the negotiations of the unit agreement terms and the unit agreement 
area. This would allow the State of Alaska and the ASRC to protect 
their interests in the unit agreement before they committed their 
tracts to the unit.
    Similarly, if a unit expansion is proposed, and the existing unit 
or the acreage included in the expansion included lands in which the 
State of Alaska or the ASRC owned a mineral interest, both parties 
would participate in the negotiation of the terms of the expanded unit 
and in the determination of the expanded unit area. ``Participation'' 
in this case does not mean sharing of revenues or production. Instead, 
the term means participation by the ASRC or the state, as applicable, 
in the process of government oversight, through consultation, of the 
unit's creation or expansion.

Section 3137.21 What must I include in an NPR-A unit agreement?

    The rule would make one minor change to section 3137.21(a)(3) by 
replacing the word ``proposed'' with the word ``anticipated.'' Existing 
regulations assume that in all cases the applicant would be in a 
position to propose the participating area size and well locations at 
the application stage. The wording change would recognize that at the 
early application stage in the process an applicant may not be able to 
propose the participating area size or well locations. Using the word 
``anticipated'' instead of ``proposed'' better reflects on-the-ground 
circumstances.
    This proposed rule would amend the existing paragraph (a)(5) of 
this section by requiring that unit agreements that contain the ASRC's 
mineral estate or the state's mineral estate must acknowledge that, 
with respect to those two entities, the BLM consulted with and provided 
opportunities for participation in the creation of the unit and that 
the BLM will consult with and provide opportunities for participation 
in the expansion of the unit, as appropriate. Existing regulations do 
not contain this consultation requirement, which is now necessary due 
to changes to NPRPA made by the EPAct of 2005. As in proposed section 
3137.21, ``participation'' by the ASRC or the state means participation 
in the oversight process through consultation with the BLM.
    This rule would also make a minor editorial change to existing 
paragraph (a)(5) (renumbered paragraph (a)(6)) by adding ``that'' 
between ``subpart'' and ``you.''

Section 3137.23 What must I include in my NPR-A unitization 
application?

    This proposed rule would add to the existing regulation a provision 
requiring in the unit application a discussion of the proposed 
methodology for allocating production among the committed tracts. If 
the unit included non-Federal oil and gas mineral estate, new paragraph 
(g) would require that the application explain how the methodology 
would take into account reservoir heterogeneity and area variation in 
reservoir producibility. These changes are necessary because of changes 
that the EPAct of 2005 made to the NPRPA. Also, as discussed earlier, 
the terms ``reservoir heterogeneity'' and ``reservoir producibility'' 
would be defined in section 3130.0-5 of this rule.

Section 3137.41 What continuing development obligations must I define 
in a unit agreement?

    This proposed rule would amend the section on continuing 
development obligations by requiring that a unit agreement provide for 
the submission of supplemental or additional plans of development which 
obligate the operator to a program of exploration and development. The 
existing regulations require that the unit agreement actually obligate 
the operator to a program of exploration and development. The change 
recognizes that at the early stages of a unit agreement, an operator 
may not be able to identify the program of exploration and development 
and therefore it might not be possible for an operator to commit to one 
at that time. The proposal would allow an operator to submit plans of 
development later in the process, allowing the operator to collect 
additional data prior to requiring the operator to obligate itself to a 
program of exploration and development.

Section 3137.80 What are participating areas and how do they relate to 
the unit agreement?

    This proposed rule would make two changes to this section. The 
first change would revise paragraph (a) of the section by replacing 
``that contain'' with ``that are proven to be productive.'' The

[[Page 28640]]

existing regulations imply that every committed tract within a 
participating area must contain a well that meets the productivity 
criteria specified in the unit agreement. The revision would make it 
clear that a participating area contains committed tracts in a unit 
area that are proven to be productive by a well meeting the 
productivity criteria specified in the unit agreement, but that not 
every committed tract in the participating area would necessarily 
contain a well meeting the productivity criteria.
    The second change this rule would make is to paragraph (b) of this 
section. Under the new rule, an applicant would be required to include 
``a description of the anticipated participating area(s) size in the 
unit agreement'' rather than merely stating that the unit area 
``contain'' a well meeting the productivity criteria. This change makes 
it clear that the application must contain a description of the 
anticipated participating area size.

Section 3137.81 What is the function of a participating area?

    The rule would revise paragraph (a) of this section by changing how 
the BLM allocates production, for royalty purposes, to each committed 
tract within the participating area. Under existing regulations, the 
BLM allocates to each committed tract within the participating area in 
the same proportion as that tract's surface in the participating area 
to the total acreage in the participating area. Under this proposed 
rule, the BLM would allocate production for royalty purposes to each 
committed tract within the participating area using the allocation 
methodology agreed to in the unit agreement (see section 3137.23(g)). 
This change would allow for variations in the reservoir geology and 
producibility when calculating allocations for royalty purposes.

Section 3137.85 What is the effective date of a participating area?

    This proposed rule would revise paragraph (b) of this section by 
changing how the BLM determines the effective date of a modified 
participating area or modified allocation schedule. Under existing 
regulations, the effective date of a modified participating area or 
modified allocation schedule is the earlier of the first day of the 
month in which you: (1) Complete a new well meeting the productivity 
criteria; or (2) Should have known you need to revise the allocation 
schedule. Under this proposed rule, the effective date of a modified 
participating area or allocation schedule would be the earlier of the 
first day of the month in which you file a proposal for modification or 
such other date as may be provided in the unit agreement. It has been 
common practice with oil and gas units administered by the State of 
Alaska to allow for an earlier effective date when participating areas 
or allocation schedules are modified.
    The proposed rule would allow the BLM to approve an earlier 
effective date of the participating area, if it is warranted, 
consistent with the approach that the State of Alaska takes. Under this 
proposed rule, rather than just determining a fair, current allocation 
of a revised participating area, the BLM would be able to approve an 
effective date back in time. This would allow corrections of past, 
errant allocations rather than just moving forward with a fair 
allocation from the time new information is acquired. This method of 
``backward'' looking reallocation creates a greater administrative 
workload for the BLM and the MMS, but it is the superior approach 
because it would allow for corrections of allocations that were 
incorrect and helps to ensure that parties to the unit are treated 
equitably.

Section 3137.111 When will BLM extend the primary term of all leases 
committed to a unit agreement or renew all leases committed to the 
unit?

    This proposed rule would revise this section by adding lease 
renewals to this section and referencing the proposed rule governing 
extensions (43 CFR 3135.1-5). The EPAct of 2005 addresses lease 
renewals and provides for a renewal fee of $100 per acre for each lease 
in the unit that is renewed without a discovery under 43 CFR 3135.1-6 
of this proposed rule. Renewals are addressed under 43 CFR 3135.1-6 of 
this proposed rule. This section incorporates those changes to this 
section of the NPR-A unit regulations. As a result of these changes and 
because the EPAct of 2005 addresses extensions and lease renewals, 
existing section 3137.111 is superseded by the statutory provisions 
that this rule would implement.

Section 3137.131 What happens if the unit terminated before the unit 
operator met the initial development obligations? and

Section 3137.134 What happens to committed leases if the unit 
terminates?

    These two sections address what happens to leases in a unit in the 
event a unit terminates. This proposed rule would revise these sections 
by adding the option of a lessee applying for a renewal upon unit 
termination and by adding a cross-reference to the proposed lease 
renewal provisions in these proposed regulations.

IV. Procedural Matters

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule 
is not a significant regulatory action. The Office of Management and 
Budget makes the final determination under Executive Order 12866.
    a. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 
million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 
environment, or other units of government (see below). A cost-benefit 
and economic analysis is not required.
    b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions. These rule changes are administrative in nature and will not 
effect other agencies' actions. There are provisions in the rule that 
require the BLM to consult with or request concurrence from the state, 
North Slope Borough, or the ASRC before approving certain actions. 
These provisions are to the benefit of these other agencies because 
they help ensure that their rights are protected. These provisions 
would more than likely help ensure that the actions taken under this 
rule would not create inconsistencies with those agencies' actions.
    c. This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user 
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. 
The one fee this rule would implement (lease renewals without a 
discovery) is a per-acre fee mandated by Congress. As stated below, 
when compared to the scope and cost of operations in NPR-A, this fee is 
not significant.
    d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. All of 
the NPR-A oil and gas regulations changes that this rule would 
implement are currently addressed similarly in other existing BLM 
regulations or policies.
    The following discusses the potential impacts of the proposed rule 
changes:

Waiver, Suspension, or Reduction of the Rental, Royalty, or Minimum 
Royalty

    The rule would add a provision that would allow the BLM to waive, 
suspend, or reduce the rental, royalty, or minimum royalty on an NPR-A 
lease if it was necessary to promote development or the BLM determined 
that the lease could not be successfully operated under the terms of 
the lease. The BLM would not allow for any of these to take place 
unless it were

[[Page 28641]]

necessary to promote development or if we determined that the lease 
could not be successfully operated under the terms of the lease.
    Operators would benefit from this provision since they would be 
able to continue to operate their leases. The Federal Government would 
benefit since producible wells would not be shut in and the Federal 
Government would continue to receive revenue from wells that might 
otherwise be shut in, which may result in waste of Federal oil and gas. 
Furthermore, since this provision may reduce the risk of investment to 
lessees, it may result in higher bonus bids for new leases. State, 
local and tribal governments and communities would be positively 
affected since wells that would under other circumstances be shut in, 
would continue to produce, providing jobs and revenues to local areas. 
Any impacts on the economy, productivity, competition or jobs would be 
positive, but would be too speculative to predict.
    Also, as a result of changes made to the NPRPA by the EPAct of 
2005, the proposed rule would change existing regulations by requiring 
the BLM to consult with the State of Alaska and the North Slope Borough 
within 10 days of receiving an application for waiver, suspension, or 
reduction of rental, royalty, or minimum royalty. This provision could 
increase costs slightly for the BLM, the State of Alaska, and the North 
Slope Borough because under this proposed rule these parties would be 
involved in consultation that is currently not required. However, 
consultation would help ensure that the rights of the state and the 
North Slope Borough are protected.
    The proposed rule would add a new provision to the regulations 
stating that if a lease included land that was made available for 
acquisition by a Regional Corporation under the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act, the BLM would only approve a waiver, 
suspension, or reduction of rental, royalty, or minimum royalty if the 
Regional Corporation concurred. This change is necessary because the 
statute requires concurrence from the Regional Corporation prior to 
approval of these actions. Concurrence by the Regional Corporation is 
not currently required. Therefore, this provision could minimally 
increase administrative costs for the Federal Government and for the 
Regional Corporation; however, requiring concurrence would help ensure 
that the rights of the Regional Corporation are protected.

Additional Bonding

    Changes to the bonding regulations would allow the BLM to require 
additional bonding under certain circumstances. The existing 
regulations only allow BLM to increase the bonding amount in the 
Special Areas as defined in the NPRPA. The rule would allow the BLM to 
require an increase in the amount of an NPR-A lease bond for any NPR-A 
lease if the BLM determined that the operator posed a risk due to 
factors, including, but not limited to:
    (A) A history of previous violations;
    (B) A notice from the MMS that there are uncollected royalties due; 
or
    (C) The total cost of plugging existing wells and reclaiming lands 
exceeds the present bond amount based on the estimates determined by 
the BLM.
    The rule change would make the existing regulations on bonding of 
NPR-A leases consistent with the Mineral Leasing Act regulations that 
currently apply to Federal oil and gas leases outside of the NPR-A. The 
BLM has used this authority on lands leased under the Mineral Leasing 
Act. The increases have most often been based on the significant 
liabilities that an operator has under a single bond. Under these 
circumstances, the average bond increase has been about 200 percent. 
While it is not possible, at this time, to predict how much any 
specific bond amount might be increased were this provision to become 
effective, increasing an area-wide NPR-A bond ($300,000) by 200 percent 
would make the increased bond amount $900,000. This is more consistent 
with bonding of other agencies on the North Slope than is the existing 
area-wide bond amount under existing regulations. For example, the 
State of Alaska requires bonding of $700,000 for multiple oil wells and 
the MMS requires bonding of $3,000,000 for offshore development.
    This provision would economically impact only those operators who 
have a history of previous violations, those that have uncollected 
royalties that are due, and those who have leases where the total cost 
of plugging existing wells and reclaiming lands exceeds the present 
bond amount based on the estimates determined by the BLM. The economic 
impact to these operators would be minimal when compared to the value 
of an oil and gas lease in the NPR-A, and when compared to the 
additional protection the Federal Government and Federal lands would 
receive.
    A typical development in NPR-A would produce approximately 20,000 
barrels per day or 7,300,000 barrels per year. With a market price of 
$60 per barrel \1\ in the lower 48 states and approximately $8 in 
transportation costs per barrel to get the oil from NPR-A to the lower 
48 states, the wellhead price would be approximately $52 per barrel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to the Alaska Department of Revenue, Tax Division, 
the per-barrel price for oil between January 2005 and April 2006 
fluctuated between $41.12 and $67.74 per barrel. We cannot predict 
price fluctuations in the future; however, the $60 represents an 
estimate of average prices expected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A typical bond amount for a lease in the NPR-A is approximately 
$300,000. If we raised the bonding requirement from $300,000 to 
$900,000, the annual bonding fee the operator would pay would go from 
approximately $3,000 per year to $9,000 per year (the cost of a surety 
bond is approximately 1% per year), an increase of $6,000 per year.
    How does that compare to other costs the operator faces? The 
transportation cost to get the production to the lower 48 states would 
be about $58,400,000 per year. Receipts at the wellhead would be 
approximately $379,600,000 per year. The lifting cost would be about 
$33,000,000. Royalties would be approximately $47,450,000 per year. A 
$6,000, or even $60,000, increase in costs per year would have minimal 
impact on the operator.

Effect of Transfer of a Tract-Segregation

    The proposed rule would change the standard that the BLM applies 
when determining if a segregated lease should continue in full force 
and effect. The existing standard is that a segregated lease remains in 
full force and effect if the BLM determines that oil and gas is being 
produced in paying quantities from that segregated portion of the lease 
area or so long as drilling or well reworking operations, either actual 
or constructive, are being conducted. The new standard would be that a 
lease would continue in full force and effect as long as oil or gas is 
produced or is capable of being produced from the lease in paying 
quantities or drilling or reworking operations, actual or constructive, 
as approved by the Secretary, are being conducted on the lease. This 
would have the same economic impact as discussed under the ``Lease 
Extension'' and ``Lease Renewal'' sections since the segregated lease 
would be able to be extended or renewed based on the same criteria used 
for all NPR-A leases.

Lease Extension

    Existing regulations on lease extensions require that the BLM 
extend the term of a lease beyond its primary term so long as:
    (A) Oil or gas is produced from the lease in paying quantities; or

[[Page 28642]]

    (B) Drilling or reworking operations, actual or constructive, as 
approved by the Secretary, are being conducted on the lease.
    The proposed rule would add a new condition under which the BLM 
would grant a lease extension in cases where the BLM has determined 
that oil or gas is capable of being produced in paying quantities from 
the lease.
    This rule would also add a new provision that explains that NPR-A 
leases expire on the 30th anniversary date of the original issuance 
date of the lease unless oil or gas is being produced from the lease. 
This provision is required by the EPAct of 2005.
    Prior to the EPAct of 2005, NPR-A lease terms were fixed at 10 
years. Longer lease terms for NPR-A leases are preferable since there 
are harsh climatic conditions and a short ``winter only'' exploration 
window in the NPR-A that make it difficult to operate in that region. 
Longer lease terms allow operators additional time to deal with these 
conditions. Under the existing regulations, the long lead time between 
exploration and production on the North Slope (6-8 years) reduces 
incentive for operators to explore on leases with less than 6-8 years 
left in their primary term. The new rule would provide incentive for 
operators to continue exploration in the later years of the primary 
term of the lease. The timeframe for bringing a gas discovery to 
production is even longer. Without a gas pipeline to the North Slope, 
operators currently have little incentive to explore in gas-prone areas 
or to further delineate gas discoveries. The new rule may have the 
effect of increasing the value of the NPR-A leases, increasing the 
level of exploration activity, and increasing the likelihood of 
eventual production from NPR-A leases. The value of these benefits, if 
any, is too speculative to predict. These changes would also have minor 
administrative savings and economic benefit to operators and to the 
Federal Government since lessees would not be required to file for 
lease extensions as frequently and since the Federal Government would 
not be required to process those lease extensions.

Lease Renewal

    The proposed rule would add a new section on lease renewals based 
on changes the EPAct of 2005 made to the NPRPA. The rule would address 
lease renewals in two parts: Those leases that have a discovery of 
hydrocarbons and those leases that do not have a discovery.
    With a Discovery. Under this proposed section, the BLM would 
approve a 10-year lease renewal for a lease on which there has been a 
well drilled and a discovery of hydrocarbons, even if the BLM had 
determined that the well is not capable of producing oil or gas in 
paying quantities. This section would require that the applicant 
provide evidence that oil or gas has been discovered on the leased 
lands in such quantities that a prudent operator would hold the lease 
for potential future development. This regulatory change is required by 
the EPAct of 2005.
    The economic impact of this provision would be positive. Existing 
regulations do not provide for lease renewals but do provide for lease 
extensions if there is actual production or as long as drilling and 
reworking operations are being conducted. This provision would allow 
for lease renewal for a 10-year term if a discovery was made and a 
prudent operator would hold the lease for future development. This 
provision provides an incentive for an operator to explore, even if 
there is not enough time to meet the current conditions for lease 
extensions. This change would allow the lessee another 10 years to 
explore and develop the lease without having to compete for the lease 
again in a subsequent lease sale. Leases in the NPR-A typically are 
either 5,760 or 11,520 acres and the average high bid is approximately 
$70 per acre. The Federal Government may be foregoing between $400,000 
and $800,000 for each of these lease renewals, since lessees who were 
granted a lease renewal would not be required to compete for a new 
lease for the same lands. In exchange for this ``opportunity cost'' the 
lease has a much greater likelihood of being developed and developed 
sooner.
    It is also possible that without the option of renewal, the lease 
which has been explored without a paying well discovery would have less 
value and not receive bids in the next sale. In this case, the United 
States would lose the value of lease rental ($60,000-$150,000 per 
year). Lease bonuses and lease rentals are both lesser considerations 
in the United States realizing the value of leased lands, however. The 
value of potential production from an NPR-A lease far exceeds either of 
these revenue streams. A typical North Slope development produces about 
20,000 barrels of oil per day. At a $60 per barrel oil price, the 
United States would collect between $45 and $60 million dollars per 
year in royalties. If the renewals make the likelihood of development 
greater, the identified ``opportunity costs'' are viewed as beneficial 
to the United States.
    Furthermore, this could reduce risk of investment to the lessee, 
which may increase bonus bids on future leases.
    Without a Discovery. Under this proposed section, the BLM could 
approve an application for a 10-year lease renewal for a lease on which 
there has not been a discovery of oil or gas.
    Under this proposed rule, the renewal application must:
    (A) Provide sufficient evidence that the lessee has diligently 
pursued exploration that warrants continuation of the lease with the 
intent of continued exploration or future potential development of the 
leased land; or
    (B) Show that all or part of the lease is part of a unit agreement 
covering a lease that qualifies for renewal without a discovery and 
that the lease has not been previously contracted out of the unit.
    If the BLM approved the application for lease renewal, the 
applicant would be required to submit to the BLM a fee of $100 per acre 
within 5 working days of receiving notification of the renewal 
approval. This fee is mandated by the EPAct of 2005.
    As discussed above, existing regulations do not allow for lease 
renewals, only lease extensions if there is actual production or as 
long as drilling and reworking operations are being conducted. This new 
provision would allow for lease renewal without a discovery under 
certain circumstances and would require that lessees pay a fee of $100 
per acre for the renewal. The economic impact of this provision would 
be minimal. As with lease renewal with a discovery, this provision 
provides the lessee with incentive to explore, even if there is not 
sufficient time to take actions to qualify for a lease extension. As 
discussed above, the cost to obtain the lease in a subsequent sale 
would likely be around $70 per acre. The new rule would allow the 
lessee to retain the lease without competition, or the risk of loss of 
the lease, for a cost above what it might cost in a competitive lease 
sale, but it would allow the operator to seamlessly pursue exploration. 
This is likely to have the effect of accelerating the eventuality of 
bringing the lease into production. It is also possible, as discussed 
above, that without the option of renewal the lease which has been 
explored without a discovery would have less value and not receive bids 
in the next sale. In this case the United States would lose the value 
of lease rental ($60,000--$150,000 per year). Furthermore, nothing 
compels a lessee to apply for a lease renewal and pay the per acre fee. 
If the lessee

[[Page 28643]]

believes the lease may be valuable, but not worth $100 per acre, he can 
relinquish the lease and try to obtain it at a lower price in a 
subsequent competitive lease sale. Operators may still apply for lease 
extensions under the revised provisions of this rule. Operators may 
also apply for a renewal under other provisions of this rule and avoid 
paying the fee by a discovery and a showing that a prudent operator 
would hold the lease for future development.
    The new rule has the effect of allowing the government to be 
compensated for the lease without having the administrative costs of 
conducting a new lease sale. The new rule also increases the likelihood 
of production and royalty payments at an earlier date. The value of 
potential production from an NPR-A lease far exceeds the value of lease 
bonuses. A typical North Slope development produces about 20,000 
barrels of oil per day. At a $60 per barrel oil price, the United 
States would collect between $45 and $60 million dollars per year in 
royalties.
    This provision could lower the risk of investment to the lessee and 
possibly result in higher bonus bids at future lease sales. Like other 
changes this rule would make, any benefits of this provision are too 
speculative to predict.

Lease Consolidation

    The proposed rule would revise the consolidation provisions in 
existing regulations having to do with the term of a consolidated 
lease. Under existing regulations, the term of a consolidated lease is 
extended beyond the primary term of the lease only as long as oil or 
gas is produced in paying quantities or approved constructive or actual 
drilling or reworking operations are conducted on the lease. Under this 
proposed rule, the term of a consolidated lease would be extended or 
renewed, as appropriate, under the extension or renewal provisions of 
the regulations. The change would recognize that the new standards in 
the extension and renewal provisions of this rule apply to consolidated 
leases. This would have the same economic impacts discussed under 
``Lease Extension'' and ``Lease Renewal'' sections above, i.e., it 
could have the effect of increasing the value of the NPR-A leases, 
increasing the level of exploration activity, increasing the likelihood 
of production from NPR-A leases, and increasing future bonus bids.

Termination of Administration for Conveyed Lands and Segregation

    This rule would add a new section concerning the waiver of 
administration for conveyed lands in a lease. This new section is 
necessary because of changes that the EPAct of 2005 made to the NPRPA. 
Under this new section, the BLM would be required to terminate 
administration of any oil and gas lease if all of the mineral estate is 
conveyed to the ASRC. The ASRC would then assume the lessor's 
obligation to administer any oil and gas lease. This provision does not 
provide the authority to convey the mineral estate to the Regional 
Corporation, only that once a conveyance is made, the BLM would no 
longer administer any oil and gas lease. This change would have a minor 
positive economic impact on the Federal Government because costs for 
administration of these types of leases would no longer be borne by the 
BLM. The Regional Corporation would be responsible for administration 
and likewise be responsible for administrative costs.
    This section would explain that if a conveyance of the mineral 
estate does not include all of the land covered by an oil and gas 
lease, the lease would be segregated into two leases, one of which will 
cover only the mineral estate conveyed. The ASRC would assume 
administration of the lease within the conveyed mineral estate. The 
segregation of a lease would not impair the mineral estate owners' 
rights to royalties for oil and gas produced from, or allocated to, 
their portions of land covered by the lease. This provision is purely 
administrative in nature and would have a minimal economic impact. It 
would decrease administrative costs for the Federal Government and 
increase the administrative costs to the ASRC for leases that have been 
conveyed.

Change to the Definition of Participating Area

    This rule would make one change to the definition of 
``participating area'' by replacing the word ``contain'' with the 
phrase ``are proven to be productive.'' Existing regulations are not 
clear that a committed tract does not need to contain a well that meets 
the productivity criteria specified in the unit agreement. Instead, a 
unit well meeting the productivity criteria proves that the committed 
tract is productive. This change would have no economic impact since 
this change merely clarifies existing policy.

Consultation if Lands in the Unit Area Are Owned by the Arctic Slope 
Regional Corporation or the State of Alaska

    This rule would add a new section on consultation if lands in a 
unit are owned by the ASRC or the State of Alaska. This section is 
based on changes that the EPAct of 2005 made to the NPRPA. The new 
section requires that if the BLM administers a unit containing tracts 
where the mineral estate is owned by the ASRC or the State of Alaska, 
or if a proposed unit contains tracts where the mineral estate is owned 
by the ASRC or the State of Alaska, the BLM would consult with and 
provide opportunities for participation with respect to the creation or 
expansion of the unit by:
    (A) The ASRC, if the unit acreage contains the ASRC's mineral 
estate; or
    (B) The State of Alaska, if the unit acreage contains the state's 
mineral estate.
    The rule would have minor economic impacts on the BLM, the State of 
Alaska, and the ASRC. All parties involved in the consultation could 
incur minor additional costs; however, consultation would help ensure 
that the rights of all parties to the unit are protected.

NPR-A Unitization Application

    The proposed rule would require the unit application to explain the 
proposed methodology for allocating production among the committed 
tracts. If the unit included non-Federal mineral estate, the applicant 
would be required to explain how the methodology would take into 
account reservoir heterogeneity and area variation in reservoir 
producibility. These changes are necessary because of changes that the 
EPAct of 2005 made to the NPRPA. The economic impacts of this provision 
are expected to be minor, but not measurable, since the change would 
impact different unit agreements differently. However, the rule would 
help ensure fair allocation of production among unit participants and 
ensure that the Federal Government receives the correct royalty 
payment.

Continuing Development Obligations in a Unit Agreement

    The proposed rule would amend the provisions on continuing 
development obligations in existing regulations by requiring that a 
unit agreement provide for the submission of supplemental or additional 
plans of development which obligate the operator to a program of 
exploration and development. The existing regulations require that the 
unit agreement actually obligate the operator to a program of 
exploration and development.
    The change recognizes that at the early stages of a unit agreement, 
an operator may not be able to identify the program of exploration and 
development and therefore it might not be possible for an operator to 
commit to one at that time. The proposal would allow an operator to 
submit plans of

[[Page 28644]]

development later in the process, allowing for the operator to collect 
additional data prior to requiring the operator to obligate itself to a 
program of exploration and development. Under the existing process, 
because the data may be incomplete, the operator may be required to 
submit information several times as the data becomes available. The new 
provision would have minor positive economic benefits for applicants 
and the BLM since it would allow commitment to a program of exploration 
and development at a more appropriate time when sufficient data is 
available.

Participating Areas

    This proposed rule would make two changes to the provisions on 
participating areas. The first change would make it clear that a 
participating area contains committed tracts in a unit area that are 
proven to be productive by a well meeting the productivity criteria 
specified in the unit agreement. The second change is that this rule 
would make it clear that the application must contain a description of 
the anticipated participating area size. Neither of these changes would 
have an economic impact because they merely clarify existing policy.

Function of a Participating Area

    The rule would revise the participating area provisions of existing 
rules by changing how the BLM allocates production, for royalty 
purposes, to each committed tract within the participating area. Under 
existing regulations, the BLM allocates to each committed tract within 
the participating area in the same proportion as that tract's surface 
in the participating area to the total acreage in the participating 
area. Under this proposed rule, the BLM would allocate production for 
royalty purposes to each committed tract within the participating area 
using the allocation methodology agreed to in the unit agreement. This 
change would allow for variations in the reservoir geology and 
producibility when calculating allocations for royalty purposes. This 
change would implement changes mandated by Congress in the EPAct of 
2005. This rule change would have little economic impact to industry or 
the Federal Government, but would help ensure proper production 
allocations on a case-by-case basis.

Effective Date of a Participating Area

    This proposed rule would revise how the BLM determines the 
effective date of a modified participating area or modified allocation 
schedule. Under existing regulations, the effective date of a modified 
participating area or modified allocation schedule is the earlier of 
the first day of the month in which you: (1) Complete a new well 
meeting the productivity criteria; or (2) Should have known you need to 
revise the allocation schedule. Under this rule, the effective date of 
a modified participating area or allocation schedule would be the 
earlier of the first day of the month in which you file a proposal for 
modification or such other date as may be provided in the unit 
agreement. This change allows the BLM to approve an earlier effective 
date, if warranted. Rather than just determining a fair current 
allocation of a revised participating area, the BLM would be able to 
approve an effective date back in time. This would allow corrections of 
past, erroneous, allocations rather than just moving forward with a 
fair allocation from the time new information is acquired. This 
provides greater flexibility and certainty that allocations will be 
equitably determined for all parties and overall would have no economic 
impact except that it could affect individual allocations.

Extension of the Primary Term of Leases Committed to a Unit Agreement 
or Renewal of Leases Committed to a Unit

    This proposed rule would revise the provisions on the term of 
leases committed to a unit by adding lease renewals as an option. The 
EPAct of 2005 addresses lease renewals and provides for a renewal fee 
of $100 per acre for each lease in the unit that is renewed without a 
discovery. This section incorporates those changes to this section of 
the NPR-A unit regulations. As a result of these changes and because 
the EPAct of 2005 addresses extensions and lease renewals, existing 
provisions on lease extensions for leases in a unit are superseded by 
the statutory provisions that this rule would implement. We anticipate 
that the economic impacts of this rule would be the same as described 
under the ``Lease Extension'' section above.

Leases in Terminated Units and Lease Renewal

    The rule change addresses what happens to leases in a unit in the 
event a unit terminates. The proposed rule would allow a lessee to 
apply for a lease renewal upon unit termination and would conform the 
provisions addressing termination with Congress' mandates regarding 
extension in the EPAct of 2005. Existing regulations allow lease 
extensions upon unit termination, but do not provide for lease renewals 
in these circumstances. These changes would have a minor positive 
economic impact by allowing lessees the option of applying for lease 
renewal upon unit termination.

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? (A ``section'' appears in 
bold type and is preceded by the symbol ``Sec.  '' and a numbered 
heading, for example: Sec.  3135.1-4 Effect of transfer of a tract.).
    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.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The BLM has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) and has found 
that the proposed rule would not constitute a major Federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under 
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (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.
    The action of modifying the existing regulations would have very 
little impact on the environment. The new regulations would create more 
favorable lease terms for oil and gas companies (e.g., allowing lease 
extensions and renewals, potential for relief from royalty, rental and 
minimum royalty) and this may increase the likelihood of exploration 
and development in the NPR-A. The revised regulations would also allow 
the BLM greater flexibility in

[[Page 28645]]

granting relief from rentals and royalty which may also have the effect 
of encouraging development. But while the likelihood of exploration and 
development may be greater, the character or intensity of exploration 
and development remains unchanged. The potential impacts from 
exploration and development have been addressed in three environmental 
impact statements (EIS) written for the Integrated Activity Plans for 
the Northeast and Northwest NPR-A, seven EAs written for individual 
exploration proposals, and the Alpine Satellites Development EIS.
    To the extent that recent Court decisions may require further NEPA 
analysis with respect to the environmental impacts of proposed leasing 
in the NPR-A, the BLM would address such analysis within the context of 
its consideration of land use planning and any proposed leasing. 
However, these proposed regulations do not invoke any significant 
environmental impact requiring additional NEPA analysis beyond the 
environmental assess