Onshore Order No. 1 (Approval of Operations)

2906

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

§ 180.557 Tetraconazole; tolerances for
residues.

who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339 to
contact the above individuals during
Parts per
normal business hours. The Service is
million
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
to leave a message or question with the
above individuals. You will receive a
*
reply during normal business hours.
0.20 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

(a) * * *
Commodity

*

*

*

*

Beet, sugar, dried pulp .............
Beet, sugar, molasses ..............
Beet, sugar, root .......................
*

*

*

0.25
0.15

*

*

Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 ....
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10

*

*

*

*

0.15
0.30

*

[FR Doc. 2016–31824 Filed 1–9–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 3160
[WO–300–L13100000.PP0000]
RIN 1004–AE37

Onshore Oil and Gas Operations;
Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases;
Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1,
Approval of Operations
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Final order.
AGENCY:

The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) hereby amends its
existing Onshore Oil and Gas Order
Number 1 (Onshore Order 1) to require
the electronic filing (or e-filing) of all
Applications for Permit to Drill (APD)
and Notices of Staking (NOS).
Previously, Onshore Order 1 stated that
an ‘‘operator must file an APD or any
other required documents in the BLM
Field Office having jurisdiction over the
lands described in the application,’’ but
allowed for e-filing of such documents
as an alternative. This change makes efiling the required method of
submission, subject to limited
exceptions. The BLM is making this
change to improve the efficiency and
transparency of the APD and NOS
processes.

pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

SUMMARY:

The final Order is effective on
February 9, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Wells, Division Chief, Fluid
Minerals Division, 202–912–7143 for
information regarding the substance of
the final Order or information about the
BLM’s Fluid Minerals Program. Persons
DATES:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:51 Jan 09, 2017

Jkt 241001

I. Background
II. Discussion of Final Order, Section-bySection Analysis, and Response to
Comments
III. Procedural Matters

I. Background
The BLM regulations governing
onshore oil and gas operations are found
at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
part 3160, Onshore Oil and Gas
Operations. Section 3164.1 provides for
the issuance of Onshore Oil and Gas
Orders to implement and supplement
the regulations found in part 3160.
Onshore Order 1 has been in effect since
October 21, 1983, and was most recently
revised in 2007 (see 72 FR 10308 (March
7, 2007)) as part of a joint effort with the
Department of Agriculture and the
Forest Service (FS), in response to new
requirements imposed under Section
366 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
On July 29, 2016, the BLM published
in the Federal Register a proposed
Order that would revise sections III.A.,
III.C., III.E., and III.I. in Onshore Order
1. The Order proposed to require e-filing
of all APDs and NOSs. The comment
period for the proposed Order closed on
August 28, 2016. This final Order
adopts all of the revisions identified in
the proposed Order.
Through this change, the BLM
modifies Onshore Order 1 to require
operators to submit NOSs and APDs
through the e-filing system, Automated
Fluid Mineral’s Support System
(AFMSS II), as opposed to the previous
system, which allowed either hardcopy
or electronic submission. Under the
final Order, the BLM will consider
granting waivers to the e-filing
requirement for individuals who request
a waiver because they would experience
hardship if required to e-file (e.g., if an
operator is prevented from e-filing or is
in a situation that would make e-filing
so difficult to perform that it would
significantly delay an operator’s APD
submission).
The change to Onshore Order 1 that
the BLM is implementing in this final
Order will not affect other provisions of
Onshore Order 1 that are not discussed
in this preamble or this final
rulemaking, including the Onshore
Order 1 provisions relating to the roles
and responsibilities of the FS that are

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

outlined in the 2007 rule. As a matter
of practice, the FS will have the same
access to the BLM’s e-filing system and
the same user privileges as BLM
employees to process APDs and NOSs
electronically for wells proposed on
National Forest Service (NFS) lands.
An APD is a request to drill an oil or
gas well on Federal or Indian lands. An
operator must have an approved APD
prior to drilling. Prior to submitting an
APD, an applicant may file an NOS
requesting the BLM to conduct an onsite
review of an operator’s proposed oil and
gas drilling project. The purpose of an
NOS is to provide the operator with an
opportunity to gather information and
better address site-specific resource
concerns associated with a project while
preparing its APD package. Operators
are not required to submit an NOS prior
to filing an APD.
The BLM has recently experienced a
decrease in the number of APDs
received due to changes in market
conditions. Since 2009, the BLM
received an average of about 5,000 APDs
per year for wells on Federal and Indian
lands, of which Indian lands account for
about 16%. In FY 2015, the BLM
received approximately 4,500 APDs.
From October 1, 2015, through the end
of September 2016 (FY 2016), the BLM
estimates that it received only
approximately 1,600 APDs. In coming
years, due to the recent drop in oil
prices and persistently low natural gas
prices, the BLM conservatively
estimates that an average of 3,000 APDs
will be submitted per year. The BLM
anticipates these market conditions to
continue for the near term.
The available data show that use of
the BLM’s e-filing system for APDs and
NOSs is common and broad-based
among operators, and therefore is not a
novel concept. Specifically, over the last
few years, roughly half of the APDs
submitted to the BLM were submitted
using the e-filing system (Well
Information System, or WIS). The other
half of the APDs were submitted in hard
copy. More importantly, the data show
that the use of e-filing has increased
over time, with the rate nearly doubling
from 26 percent in FY 2010 to 51
percent in FY 2014. As of 2014,
approximately 411 operators had used
the BLM’s WIS to e-file NOSs, APDs,
well completion reports, sundry notices,
and other application materials. Those
operators represent an estimated 85
percent of the operators that conduct
drilling and completion operations on
Federal and Indian leases nationwide.
The BLM’s WIS system is a web-based
application that operators could use to
submit permit applications and other
types of information electronically over

E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM

10JAR1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
the Internet. This includes APDs and
NOSs, but also well completion reports
and sundry notices. The WIS system is
an extension of the BLM’s current
Automated Fluid Minerals Support
System (AFMSS), which the BLM uses
to track various types of oil and gas
information on Federal and Indian
lands, including the processing of NOSs
and APDs.

pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

Automated Fluid Minerals Support
System II
Since 2013, the BLM has been
developing and deploying updates to its
Automated Fluid Minerals Support
System in order to gain efficiencies for
both government and industry users of
the system. The updated system, known
as AFMSS II, is being implemented
based on modules that will manage
different types of data for the BLM’s oil
and gas program, such as NOSs and
APDs, well completion reports, sundry
notices, and inspection and
enforcement-related operations. The
NOS/APD module is the first module
developed as part of the update, which
phased in beginning in December 2015.
As part of the phase in, the BLM
conducted training for its staff and
operators in order to understand how to
use the new module. The NOS/APD
module within AFMSS II replaces that
portion of the WIS system that allowed
operators to submit NOSs and APDs
electronically over the internet. Once all
the modules that will manage data from
the existing system have been deployed
for AFMSS II, the old version of AFMSS
will be decommissioned. As of the date
of this final Order, the NOS/APD
module is fully operational with the
NOS/APD component of WIS now
phased out. The NOS/APD module is
ready to meet the demand of an increase
in APD e-filing that is likely to result
from this final Order.
Efficiency and Transparency
The goal of the AFMSS II system and
the amendments to Onshore Order 1 is
to improve operational efficiency and
transparency in the processing of APDs
and NOSs by requiring operators to use
BLM’s updated e-filing system as the
default approach to APD and NOS
filing. Although data show that
voluntary use of the e-filing system has
increased over time, this Order is
necessary to move towards 100 percent
electronic APD and NOS submission.
This shift to e-filing presents potential
advantages to operators, including
operators owned by individual Indian
tribes,1 because the new AFMSS II
1 In

some cases, operators are companies owned
by individual Indian tribes. Such companies are

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:51 Jan 09, 2017

Jkt 241001

system is expected to streamline the
APD and NOS application process. The
system will expedite processing and
enhance transparency, resulting in
savings to both operators and the U.S.
Government by:
• Reducing the number of
applications with deficiencies by
providing users the ability to identify
and correct errors through automatic
error notifications generated prior to the
submission process;
• Automatically populating data
fields based on users’ previously
submitted information;
• Allowing operators to electronically
track the progress of their application
throughout the BLM review process;
and
• Facilitating the use of pre-approved
plans, such as Master Development
Plans and Master Leasing Plans that
have already been input into the system.
The AFMSS II system was developed
in response to the Government
Accountability Office’s (GAO) and the
Department of the Interior Office of the
Inspector General’s (OIG)
recommendations in GAO report 13–572
(GAO–13–572) and OIG report CR–EV–
MOA–0003–2013 (Report No. CR–EV–
MOA–0003–2013). Both reports
recommended that the BLM ensure that
all key dates associated with the
processing of APDs are completely and
accurately entered and retained in
AFMSS, and in any new system that
replaces AFMSS, to help assess whether
the BLM is meeting applicable
processing deadlines and identify ways
to improve the efficiency of the APD
review process. Additionally, the OIG
report recommends that the BLM: (1)
Develop, implement, enforce, and report
performance timelines for APD
processing; (2) Develop outcome-based
performance measures for the APD
process that help enable management to
improve productivity; and (3) Ensure
that the modifications to AFMSS enable
accurate and consistent data entry,
effective workflow management,
efficient APD processing, and APD
tracking at the BLM Field Office level.
The NOS/APD module developed for
AFMSS II addresses these
recommendations from the GAO and
OIG.
II. Discussion of Final Order, Sectionby-Section Analysis, and Response to
Comments
This final order revises existing
Onshore Order 1, which primarily
supplements 43 CFR 3162.3 and 3162.5.
usually established to produce the minerals owned
by the tribe and, thus, are operated for the benefit
of the tribe.

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

2907

Section 3162.3 covers conduct of
operations, section 3162.3–1 covers
applications to drill on a lease, section
3162.3–2 covers subsequent well
operations, section 3162.3–3 covers
other lease operations, and section
3162.3–4 covers well abandonment.
Section 3162.5 covers environment and
safety obligations.
The BLM received 5 comments on the
proposed Order, from trade
organizations, members of industry, and
non-governmental organizations.
This section of the preamble describes
the changes that the BLM is making to
three existing provisions of Order 1. The
BLM is making only slight
modifications to these sections.
However, to provide context for the
changes, we have included the three
complete sections, which are entitled,
Where to File an APD, Where to File an
NOS, and APD Posting. This Order does
not make any changes to these
subsections beyond those detailed
below.
Where to File an APD
The final order modifies subsection
III.A. to require operators to file APDs
using the BLM’s electronic commerce
application, AFMSS II, for oil and gas
permitting and reporting. Through this
revision, the BLM will move toward an
electronic submission rate of 100
percent. In the past, the BLM has
received a portion of the APDs
electronically and a portion in hard
copy, which introduced a number of
inefficiencies and necessitated multiple
records management systems. This
process change will help to eliminate
those problems. In addition, the BLM
believes that requiring submission
through the e-filing system will improve
processing times, public participation,
and transparency. The BLM did not
make any changes to this section
between the proposed and final Order
because it did not receive any comments
on section III.A., and the agency did not
have any independent reason to make a
change as part of the final Order.
Where to File an NOS
Likewise, if an operator chooses to file
an NOS, final Section III.C. requires
operators to file NOSs using the BLM’s
e-filing system, the APD module of
AFMSS II, for oil and gas permitting and
reporting. As with APDs, receiving a
portion of the NOSs electronically and
a portion in hard copy introduced a
number of inefficiencies that
necessitated multiple records
management systems. The BLM hopes
that moving towards a 100-percent
electronic submission rate for NOSs will
eliminate those inefficiencies.

E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM

10JAR1

2908

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

The BLM received one comment on
section III.C. that suggested that the
BLM increase the time allowed for
operators to submit an APD after
completing an on-site inspection for an
associated NOS. Under the existing
requirements of section III.C. of Order 1,
if an operator elects to submit an NOS
prior to submitting an APD and
conducts an on-site inspection based on
the NOS, the operator must submit the
APD associated with that NOS within
60 days after conducting the onsite
inspection. Failure to submit the APD
within 60 days of the onsite inspection
will result in the NOS being returned to
the operator. The commenter
recommended extending this timeframe
from 60 days to 90 days, because
previous analyses conducted by the
commenter indicated that 60 days did
not afford enough time to complete the
APD submission process. This comment
is outside the scope of the revisions to
Order 1, which pertain only to the efiling of APDs and NOSs.
APD Posting
Section III.E.1. of the pre-existing
Onshore Order 1 already required the
BLM to post information about the APD
or NOS in an area of the local BLM
Field Office that is readily accessible to
the public. The pre-existing section
III.E.1 also called for that information to
be posted on the Internet when possible,
though it was not required. Some offices
were already posting information about
APDs and NOSs on their local BLM
Field Office Web sites. Final section
III.E.1. of the final Order continues to
require the BLM to post information
about the APD or NOS in a publicly
accessible area of the local BLM Field
Office having jurisdiction. Final section
III.E.1., also provides that the BLM will
post information about the APD or NOS
for Federal oil and gas leases on the
Internet. This change will increase
consistency, transparency, and
efficiency for both operators who file
APD submissions and the public. The
information that the BLM posts online
about APDs and NOSs will be consistent
with what is already identified in 43
CFR 3162.3–1(g) and will not conflict
with the BLM’s statutory obligations to
protect confidential business
information.
In accordance with 43 CFR 3162.3–
1(g), information that will be posted
online about APDs and NOSs includes:
The company/operator name; the well
name/number; and the well location
described to the nearest quarter-quarter
section (40 acres), or similar land
description in the case of lands
described by metes and bounds, or maps
showing the affected lands and the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:51 Jan 09, 2017

Jkt 241001

location of all tracts to be leased, and of
all leases already issued in the general
area. Where the inclusion of maps in
such posting is not practicable, the BLM
provides maps of the affected lands
available to the public for review. This
posting requirement only applies to
APDs or NOSs proposing to drill into
and produce Federal minerals. The
posting requirement derives from the
Mineral Leasing Act, and does not apply
to APDs or NOSs for Indian minerals,
which are not made publicly available.
The BLM received one comment on
section III.E.1. The commenter provided
a list of information that it believes the
BLM should make publicly available on
the Internet: Waiver applications and
approvals for the e-filing requirement;
APD and Master Development Plan
packages (in their entirety);
Geographical Information Systems data
for each APD; well completion or
recompletion reports; sundry notices;
and a variety of other information
related to the BLM’s oil and gas
program. Furthermore, the commenter
recommended that a public portal be set
up in AFMSS II to facilitate posting of
this information.
The BLM did not make a change in
response to this comment because it is
beyond the scope of the proposed
amendments to the Order.
Waiver From Electronic Submissions
Section III.E.1. of the pre-existing
Onshore Order 1 already required the
BLM to post information about the APD
or NOS in an area of the local BLM
Field Office that was readily accessible
to the public. The pre-existing section
III.E.1 also called for that information to
be posted on the Internet when possible,
though it was not required.
Consequently, some BLM Field Offices
were already posting information about
APDs and NOSs on their local BLM
Field Office Web sites. Section III.I. is a
new section that allows operators to
request a waiver from the requirements
in sections III.A. and III.C. of this Order.
This section is different from section X.,
which addresses the requirements for
requesting a variance from this Order.
Unlike a variance from the other
provisions or standards of Order 1, a
waiver under this section is limited to
the means of submission of an APD
(electronic or hardcopy). A waiver
under section III.I. is also different from
a waiver under section XI., which
addresses lease stipulations. Unlike a
waiver from the requirement(s) of a
lease stipulation, a waiver under this
Order is not a permanent exemption
from the BLM’s requirement to file
applications electronically.

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

When submitting a waiver request
under section III.I, the applicant must
explain what prevents them from using
the e-filing system, plans for complying
with the Order’s electronic submission
requirement in the future, and a
timeframe for compliance, all of which
is subject to BLM approval. If the
applicant would like the waiver to
apply to a particular set of APDs or
NOSs, then the request must identify
the APDs or NOSs to which the waiver
request applies. Otherwise, the waiver
would apply to all submissions made
during the compliance timeframe
identified as part of the BLM’s approval.
The BLM will not consider an APD or
NOS that the operator did not submit
through the e-filing system, unless the
BLM approves a waiver from the e-filing
requirement under section III.I.
Changes to Section III.I—Waiver From
Electronic Submissions
As part of the final Order, the BLM
made four changes to this section in
response to comments and additional
internal reviews, all of which are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Two changes are worth noting at the
outset. First, in addition to the proposed
Order’s requirement to explain what
prevents an operator from using the efiling system, the final Order now also
requires operators to identify what their
plans are for complying with the
electronic submission requirement in
the future, and a timeframe for
achieving compliance. Second,
recognizing that it would be helpful to
provide operators time after the effective
date of the Order to determine whether
or not they need to submit a waiver
request, the BLM has delayed the
compliance date for the electronic
submission requirement in this Order by
30 days. During the interim period,
APDs and NOSs may be submitted using
existing procedures.
The BLM received a few substantive
comments on the waiver section of the
proposed Order. One commenter
disagreed with the need for operators to
make a waiver request for every APD or
NOS they file, particularly if the
operator was granted a waiver from a
prior request. The commenter said
chances are that the same circumstances
will exist with subsequent APD and
NOS waiver requests. The commenter
recommended that after the BLM grants
a waiver, then that waiver needs to
remain in force until no longer needed.
The BLM did not entirely accept the
commenter’s recommendation because
it would inject needless uncertainty as
to when the applicant will start to use
the electronic system. Such a provision
would run counter to the BLM’s efforts

E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM

10JAR1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
to bring efficiency and modernization to
its permitting process. The BLM
recognizes that an applicant may need
to request a waiver for multiple APDs or
NOSs, which is why a waiver request
applies to all applications identified in
the waiver request. However, the BLM
also recognizes that there could be
instances when not all APDs and NOSs
could be identified at the time an
applicant submits a waiver request.
Therefore, the BLM modified this
section of the final Order. Unlike the
proposed Order, which required that the
waiver request identify all covered
applications, the final Order makes this
an option for the applicant. If an
applicant does not identify any specific
APDs or NOSs in their waiver request,
then the waiver request will apply to all
submissions made by the applicant until
such time as the applicant is able to
come into compliance with the
electronic submission requirement. The
timeframe required to come into
compliance is subject to BLM review as
part of the waiver approval process,
which addresses the BLM’s concerns
about open-ended waiver approvals.
The options provided through this
modification are expected to help
eliminate delays associated with
submitting multiple waiver
applications.
Another commenter stated that the
Order should define the term
‘‘hardship’’ in order to promote
consistency in the application of the
waiver provision across BLM Field
Offices and limit the amount of
unwarranted waiver approvals. The
commenter suggested that the BLM
adopt language from the proposed
Waste Prevention, Production Subject to
Royalties, and Resource Conservation
rule (Waste Prevention rule) (81 FR
6616) that states that an exemption will

be approved if ‘‘compliance with this
requirement would impose such costs as
to cause the operator to cease
production and abandon significant
recoverable oil reserves under the
lease.’’
The BLM did not make a change in
response to the commenter’s
recommendation. The language cited
from the proposed Waste Prevention
rule, which also appears in the final
Waste Prevention rule, (see 81 FR 83008
(November 18, 2016)), is meant to
address circumstances in which new
BLM requirements are being applied to
existing well operations. In the case of
these revisions to Order 1, the electronic
submission requirement pertains to
applications of wells not yet drilled.
Moreover, we do not believe an
electronic submission requirement
under this rulemaking will deter an
operator from deciding to drill a well or
group of wells.
However, we do believe there are
conditions or circumstances that may
prevent an operator from e-filing or
would make e-filing so difficult to
perform that it would significantly delay
an operator’s APD submission. For
example, an operator could encounter
technical problems, such as network or
operating system failures, that are
delaying or preventing use of the e-filing
system. The BLM would evaluate such
a case, and the circumstances associated
with it, and determine whether it
qualifies as a hardship. As previously
stated in the proposed Order, however,
the BLM cannot conceive of every
scenario that may qualify as a hardship,
which is why the Order’s criteria are
broad.
Miscellaneous Comments
The BLM received several comments
expressing concern with AFMSS II’s

2909

current state of implementation, noting
the need for more industry training and
correction of issues experienced by
some users. The commenters stated that
the technical problems being
experienced are not necessarily
significant, but are an indication that
the system is not yet fully operational.
While these commenters are supportive
of AFMSS II and do not object to 100
percent e-filing of APDs and NOSs, they
believe there is too much at stake
(additional delays in approval of
drilling permits) to make the use of
AFMSS II a requirement right now. The
commenters recommended that the
BLM should transition the
implementation of the APD and NOS efiling requirement through AFMSS II for
at least one year to allow for more
agency staff and end-user training and
until all technical flaws have been
resolved.
The BLM assessed whether the
technical problems identified by the
commenters related to the functionality
of the system, and determined that the
cases were instead related to user error
rather than system error. After receiving
this comment, the BLM contacted its
field offices and none reported having
this issue with operators under their
jurisdiction. A revision to the final
Order was not made in response to this
comment.
With regard to the commenter’s
recommendation to phase in the
requirement to use the e-filing system,
the BLM has in fact phased in AMFSS
II over the past year and conducted
numerous training for operators and
BLM staff. The following table
illustrates the steps taken to phase out
the operation of the previous electronic
permitting system, WIS, and phase in
AFMSS II.

WIS PHASE-OUT SCHEDULE
BLM Office transitioned out of WIS

Dates

Farmington, Vernal, Dickinson, Meeker, Grand Junction, Pinedale, Miles City, Great Falls ..........................................................
Durango, Canon City, Roswell, Buffalo, Newcastle, Moab, Price, Kemmerer, Salt Lake, Rawlins, Lander, Rock Springs, Anchorage, Milwaukee, Jackson, Casper, Worland, Tulsa, Bakersfield, Reno.
Carlsbad/Hobbs ................................................................................................................................................................................

pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

As noted in the proposed Order, the
BLM has already provided training
opportunities to its staff and to

operators on how to use the APD
module for AFMSS II. The following

Dates

Operator WebEx: BLM National Training Center .......................
BLM Offices ................................................................................
Operator WebEx: BLM National Operations Center ..................

Dec 2015 ........
Jan–May 2016
Mar–May 2016

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:51 Jan 09, 2017

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

May–Jun 2016.

table outlines when that training was
provided:

COMPLETED TRAINING SESSIONS
Location

Jan–Feb 2016.
Apr–May 2016.

Operator/Agent Participation
Over 110 operators trained/47 companies.
Over 230 BLM employees trained.
Over 150 operators trained.

E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM

10JAR1

2910

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Because this training captured only a
specific group of individuals, the BLM
also provides permanent training
materials for external users that are
available at all times. Operators may
access materials at: http://
www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/
viewresource.php?courseID=869. In
addition, the BLM will provide one-onone training (delivered through Webex,
demonstrations, or classroom training)
whenever requested. The BLM has
provided ample opportunities for
AFMSS II training and will continue to
do so. Therefore, the BLM did not make
changes to the Order in response to this
comment.
One commenter expressed frustration
with a limitation in the BLM’s
electronic system for paying APD fees.
If an operator prefers to make payments
electronically and not by check to the
BLM, then operators must make their
payments through pay.gov. After
making a payment, the operator receives
a receipt number that is generated and
must be entered into AFMSS II when an
APD is submitted. AFMSS II will not
accept an APD unless the receipt
number is entered into the system. The
problem encountered when making
electronic payments is that pay.gov is
currently able to accept credit card
payments only. A $24,999 daily limit is
placed on payments made to the Federal
Government using a credit card. At a
cost of $9,500 per APD, operators are
able to pay the fee for only two APDs
per day. This could present a delay for
operators that typically submit APDs in
bulk—20 to 50 APDs in some cases. The
commenter recommended that the BLM
provide a means to accept other forms
of payment commonly used by industry,
in particular Automated Clearing House
(ACH) payments.
The BLM recognizes this as a valid
concern, but it cannot address this issue
in this rulemaking. However, we are in
the process of evaluating how our
current billing systems can be modified
to accept ACH payments through
pay.gov.

pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

III. Procedural Matters
Considerations
The final Order requires that all
operators e-file NOSs and APDs. As a
practical matter, however, it will have a
greater impact on operators that do not
currently use the BLM’s e-filing system,
as these changes do not alter the
requirements related to the content of an
APD or NOS. Thus, operators that
already use the e-filing system will
likely continue to use the system,
regardless of the Order, and therefore
will not be impacted by the changes.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:51 Jan 09, 2017

Jkt 241001

The requirements are estimated to
pose relatively small compliance costs
(see discussion in the Affected Entities
section) associated with administrative
compliance and access to the BLM’s efiling system. In particular, operators
that have not purchased access to the
Internet or cannot access the Internet
due to the remoteness of their location
are likely to have to hire a permit agent
to e-file their APDs, acquire Internet
access depending on the coverage and
the availability of service providers, or
find another work-around solution. The
requirements may also result in cost
savings to impacted operators by
reducing the amount of time spent
correcting deficiencies in APDs. The
filing of APDs through the modernized
AFMSS II is expected to reduce the
number of APD submissions that have
deficiencies, and reduce the time it
takes operators to correct any
deficiencies that occur. Reduced APD
processing times will benefit impacted
operators in that they will be able to
commence drilling and develop the
mineral resources sooner. On Indian
lands, this will benefit tribes and Indian
allottees since they are the direct
recipients of the royalties generated
from the minerals they own.
There will also be improved
transparency during the application and
review process for APDs that are e-filed.
With the transition to AFMSS II, the
operator is able to check the status of
the APD, and the public is able to find
and access information, all in one
online location. Until all operators are
able to e-file, the BLM will continue to
maintain hard copy records for APDs
submitted in hard copy, consistent with
records management and retention
requirements.
Affected Entities
All entities involved in the
exploration and production of crude oil
and natural gas resources on Federal
and Indian leases and that submit APDs
or NOSs after the effective date of the
final Order will be subject to its
requirements.
We estimate that the amendments will
impact about 484 operators,2 and that
these operators might experience a
small increase in administrative costs
associated with submitting an APD and
NOS to the BLM through the new APD
module, due to the newness of the
system. Operators that comply by
2 We examined AFMSS data over a 5-year period
(from 2008 to 2012) and found that there were 484
operators that completed wells on Federal and
Indian leases. We believe that this pool of operators
is a good basis for an estimate about the entities that
are likely to file APDs in the future and are,
therefore, subject to the requirements.

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

submitting a waiver request that is
accepted by the BLM might also
experience a small increase in costs
associated with preparing the waiver
request. We estimate the annual average
costs per operator to be approximately
$3,920 per operator during the Order’s
initial implementation period; however,
we expect those costs to decrease
quickly over time as operators become
familiar with the new AFMSS II. In
total, we estimate that the amendments
might pose annual administrative costs
of $2.2 million (about $1.9 million per
year to the industry and $315,000 per
year to the BLM) during the initial
phases. We believe this is a generous
estimate of costs given the relatively
high proportion of APDs already
submitted using BLM’s existing e-filing
systems.
In addition, we estimate that the
amendments will pose additional costs
for those operators that currently do not
use the BLM’s e-filing system.
Specifically, those 73 entities 3 might
face additional compliance costs of
$1,200 per operator per year for Internet
access, using the conservative
assumption that they do not already
have such access. In total, these
compliance costs could be about
$90,000 per year for all 73 affected
operators. The increased e-filing rates
that the BLM has observed during the
rollout of the AFMSS II APD module
suggest, however, that some of these
operators would choose to e-file even
without the Order.
We estimate that the amendments will
also benefit operators, since operators
are expected to receive cost savings
from more expedited APD processing.
We estimate that submitting an APD via
the e-filing system rather than in hardcopy will reduce processing time by 27
percent or 60 days. Furthermore, we
estimate the cost savings to the operator
of that increased efficiency to be $6,195
per APD. Given that the Order will
impact about 1,500 APDs per year, we
estimate that the total cost savings could
be about $9.3 million per year.
Together, the total benefits are
expected to exceed the total costs, and
the Order is expected to result in total
cost savings of about $7 million per year
on aggregate. We expect these aggregate
benefits to translate to individual
operators. To illustrate, even if we
3 According to BLM records, as of 2014, there
were approximately 411 WIS users, representing 85
percent of the operators that would be subject to the
requirements. By extension, we estimate that there
are 73 entities that did not use WIS, representing
15 percent of the operators that would be subject
to the requirements. These 73 entities were not
users of the e-filing system and will be most
impacted by the Order.

E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM

10JAR1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

assume an individual operator incurs
costs as a result of the amendments
because they do not currently use BLM’s
existing e-filing system and have to
learn the new system, such an operator
would still be expected to receive a net
cost savings on a per-APD basis, given
that the cost savings will exceed the
combined administrative and other
compliance costs. On a per APD basis,
we expect increased costs of $1,716 per
year—$516 in administrative burden/
compliance costs, plus $1,200 in other
compliance costs. Those costs are
expected to be offset, however, by cost
savings of $6,195 per APD. Therefore,
on net, an operator submitting one APD
per year would be expected to realize a
net reduction in costs of $4,479 ($6,195
minus $1,716). That expected net
benefit would increase as an operator’s
familiarity with the new e-filing system
increases, as administrative costs would
be reduced by such familiarity.
As noted elsewhere in the preamble,
some operators are owned by individual
Indian tribes. Those operators typically
develop the minerals owned by and for
the benefit of the tribe. We expect the
impacts and benefits of these Order
revisions to apply to these operators to
the same extent and in the same manner
as to other entities operating on Federal
or Indian lands. On net, we anticipate
that the benefits of permitting-time
efficiencies associated with 100% efiling, will significantly outweigh any
costs, especially as operators become
more familiar with AFMSS II.
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs in the Office of Management and
Budget will review all significant rules.
The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that
this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 while calling
for improvements in the nation’s
regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:51 Jan 09, 2017

Jkt 241001

this rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA), generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements
under the Administrative Procedure
Act, unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities (see 5 U.S.C.
601–612). Congress enacted the RFA to
ensure that government regulations do
not unnecessarily or disproportionately
burden small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
governmental jurisdictions, and small
not-for-profit enterprises.
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) has developed size standards to
carry out the purposes of the Small
Business Act and those size standards
can be found in 13 CFR 121.201. The
BLM reviewed the SBA classifications
and found that the SBA specifies
different size standards for potentially
affected industries. The SBA defines a
small business in the crude petroleum
and natural gas extraction industry
(North American Industry Classification
System or NAICS code 211111) as one
with 1,250 or fewer employees.
However, for the natural gas liquid
extraction industry (NAICS code
211112), it defines a small business as
one with 750 or fewer employees.
The BLM reviewed the SBA size
standards for small businesses and the
number of entities fitting those size
standards as reported by the U.S.
Census Bureau in the 2012 Economic
Census. The data show the number of
firms with fewer than 100 employees
and those with 100 employees or more
(well below the SBA size standards for
the respective industries). According to
the available data, over 95% and 91%
of firms in the crude petroleum and
natural gas extraction industry and the
natural gas liquid extraction industry,
respectively, have fewer than 100
employees. Therefore, we would expect
that an even higher percentage of firms
will be considered small according to
the SBA size standards. Thus, based on
the available information, the BLM
believes that the vast majority of
potentially affected entities will meet
the SBA small business definition.
We examined the potential impacts of
the final Order and determined that up
to 484 small entities will be subject to

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

2911

the Order’s requirements and could face
administrative burdens of about $3,920
per entity per year. In addition, up to 73
small entities could face other
compliance costs of $1,200 per entity
per year. However, we estimate that the
administrative and other compliance
costs will be offset as a result of
improved APD processing times. We
estimate that cost savings from faster
APD processing could be $6,195 per
APD. Moreover, we expect that the
administrative burdens of the final
Order will lessen over time as operators
become more familiar with the BLM’s
new e-filing system.
Based on this review, we have
determined that, although the revisions
to the Order will impact a substantial
number of small entities, it will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
This Order is also not a major rule
under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the RFA, as
amended by the SBREFA. This Order
will not have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more. In
fact, the BLM estimates that the benefits
will exceed the costs, and that the
rulemaking could result in net savings
of $7 million per year. Similarly, the
revisions to the Order will not cause a
major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, tribal, or local
government agencies, or geographic
regions, nor do the revisions have
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises. The
revisions to the Order are administrative
in nature and only affect the method for
submitting APDs and NOSs. The BLM
prepared an economic threshold
analysis as part of the record, which is
available for review.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA), agencies must
prepare a written statement about
benefits and costs before issuing a
proposed or final rule that may result in
aggregate expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any one year.
The revisions to the Order do not
contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or for the
private sector, in any one year. Thus,
the revisions to the Order are also not
subject to the requirements of sections

E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM

10JAR1

2912

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

202 or 205 of UMRA. This Order is also
not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because the
revisions contain no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
because the revisions contain no
requirements that apply to such
governments, nor do they impose
obligations on them.
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights (Takings)
In accordance with Executive Order
12630, the BLM has determined that the
revisions to the Order will not have
significant takings implications. The
revisions to the Order are not a
governmental action capable of
interfering with constitutionally
protected property rights. Therefore, the
revisions to the Order will not cause a
taking of private property or require a
takings implication assessment under
the Executive Order.

pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The revisions to the Order will not
have federalism implications. The
revisions will not have substantial
direct effects 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 13132,
a Federalism Assessment is not
required.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
The BLM evaluated possible effects of
the revisions to the Order on federally
recognized Indian tribes. Since the BLM
approves proposed operations on all
Indian onshore oil and gas leases (other
than those of the Osage Tribe), the Order
has the potential to affect Indian tribes,
particularly those tribes with triballyowned and -operated oil and gas drilling
or exploration companies, which
currently submit APDs and/or NOSs.
In conformance with the Secretary’s
policy on tribal consultation, the BLM
extended an invitation to consult on the
proposed Order to affected tribes,
including tribes that either: (i) Own an
oil and gas company; or (ii) Own
minerals for which the BLM has
recently received an APD. Over the
years, oil and gas development on
Indian and allotted lands has been
focused in Colorado, Montana, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Texas, and Utah. Based on BLM records,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:51 Jan 09, 2017

Jkt 241001

the BLM anticipates that there are
nearly 40 tribes for which the BLM has
received or will foreseeably receive
APDs or NOSs in connection with the
development of tribal or allotted
mineral resources. In advance of issuing
the proposed Order, the BLM sent
letters to these 40 tribes extending an
invitation to consult on this rulemaking.
When the BLM published the proposed
Order, BLM also sent letters of
invitation to consult to the larger group
of tribes who own minerals, but do not
play a direct role in the development of
those resources. The BLM received one
comment from a tribe recommending
that the BLM consider creating a similar
e-filing system for the tribes for the
development of tribal or allotted
mineral resources. The current e-filing
system is not restricted to the filing of
APDs on Federal lands. The system also
allows for the submission of APDs on
Tribal or allotted lands. Therefore, there
already is a system in place to do what
the tribe requested. Multiple attempts
were made to contact the Tribal
representative, but were unsuccessful.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform
This Order complies with the
requirements of Executive Order 12988.
Specifically, the revisions to the Order
do not unduly burden the Federal court
system and meet the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive
Order. The BLM has reviewed the Order
to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity and the Order has been
written to minimize litigation and
provide clear legal standards.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Overview
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 4
provides that an agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information, unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
Collections of information include
requests and requirements that an
individual, partnership, or corporation
obtain information, and report it to a
Federal agency. See 44 U.S.C. 3502(3);
5 CFR 1320.3(c) and (k).
This Order contains information
collection activities that require
approval by the OMB under the PRA.
The BLM included an information
collection request in the proposed
Order. OMB has approved the
information collection for the final
Order under control number 1004–0213.
The BLM plans to seek OMB approval
to incorporate the burdens of this Order
4 44

PO 00000

U.S.C. 3501–3521.

Frm 00064

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

into control number 1004–0137 after
this Order becomes effective. For
reference, the current burdens for
control number 1004–0137 (920,464
hours and $32.5 million in non-hour
costs) can be viewed at http://
www.reginfo.gov/public/. After the
Order goes into effect, the BLM intends
to ask OMB to combine the
requirements and burdens of the Order
with control number 1004–0137.
Summary of Information Collection
Requirements
• Title: Approval of Operations (43
CFR part 3160).
• Forms: Form 3160–3, Application
for Permit to Drill or Reenter; and
Sample Format for Notice of Staking
(Attachment 1 to 2007 Onshore Order 1,
72 FR at 10338).
• OMB Control Number: 1004–0213.
• Description of Respondents:
Holders of Federal and Indian (except
Osage Tribe) oil and gas leases.
• Respondents’ Obligation: Required
to obtain or retain a benefit.
• Frequency of Collection: On
occasion.
• Abstract: The Order will improve
the efficiency and transparency of the
APD and NOS processes via e-filing,
and provide for waivers from e-filing
when appropriate.
• Estimated Number of Responses:
3,450 responses.
• Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 29,400 hours.
Compliance with the new collection
of information is required to obtain or
retain a benefit for the operators of
Federal and Indian onshore oil and gas
leases, or units or communitization
agreements that include Federal and
Indian leases (except on the Osage
Reservation or the Crow Reservation, or
in certain other areas). The frequency of
the collection is ‘‘on occasion.’’
Discussion of the Collection Activities
APDs: As revised here, section III.A.
of Onshore Order 1 requires an operator
to file an APD and associated
documents using the BLM’s electronic
commerce application for oil and gas
permitting and reporting.
NOSs: Section III.C. of Onshore Order
1 continues to provide that an NOS may
be submitted voluntarily. Section III.C.
also requires an operator who chooses to
file an NOS to use the BLM’s electronic
commerce application for oil and gas
permitting and reporting. Except for the
new e-filing requirement, this is an
existing collection in use without a
control number. The purpose of
submitting an NOS is to provide an
operator an opportunity to gather
information and better address site-

E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM

10JAR1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
specific resource concerns associated
with a project while preparing an APD
package.
Waiver Requests: Section III.I. is a
new provision that allows operators to
request a waiver from the requirements
in final sections III.A. and III.C. The
request must be supported by an
explanation of why the operator is not
able to use the e-filing system, the
operator’s plans for complying with the
electronic submission requirement, and
a timeframe for achieving compliance. If
the operator would like the waiver to
apply to a particular set of APDs or
NOSs, then the request must identify
the APDs or NOSs to which the waiver
applies. If the request does not specify
a particular set of APDs or NOSs, the
waiver will apply to all submissions
made by the operator during the
compliance timeframe included as part
of the BLM’s waiver approval. In those
exceptional cases, the BLM will review
the operator’s request and determine
whether a waiver allowing the operator
to submit hard copies is warranted.
Between the proposed and the final
Order, the BLM added requirements for
operators to submit their plans for
complying with the electronic
submission requirement and a
timeframe for achieving compliance,
both of which are in addition to the
requirement from the proposed Order
for operators to explain why they are
unable to use the e-filing system. In the
final Order, the BLM is also providing
an option for operators to request that
its waiver approval apply to a specific
set of APDs or NOSs. The operator’s
waiver request would need to identify
which APDs or NOSs that the BLM’s
approval would apply.
As previously discussed, the BLM
made these changes in response to a

commenter’s recommendation that after
the Bureau grants a waiver, that waiver
needs to remain in force until no longer
needed. The BLM did not accept the
commenter’s recommended change
because it would inject needless
uncertainty as to when the applicant
will start to use the electronic system
and would run counter to the Bureau’s
efforts to bring efficiency and
modernization to its permitting process.
However, the BLM also recognizes that
there could be instances when not all
APDs and NOSs could be identified at
the time an applicant submits a waiver
request, which could lead to the
operator submitting another waiver
request at a later time if they are still
prevented from using the e-filing
system. The BLM believes this change
will help eliminate the commenter’s
concerns about delays associated with
submitting multiple waiver applications
and, at the same time, addresses the
Bureau’s concerns about open-ended
waiver approvals.
Although the BLM is requiring the
submission of this additional
information, we do not believe this will
result in additional burden hours. If an
operator is prevented from using the efiling system and requests a waiver, the
operator likely understands and has a
reasonable idea as to what steps it needs
to take and the length of time necessary
to overcome the challenges that prevent
its use of the system. Therefore,
assessing those steps will not impose
any additional burden hours.
Although the final Order directs the
method by which operators must submit
an APD or NOS, it does not direct
operators to obtain, maintain, retain, or
report any more information than what
is already required by the existing
Onshore Order 1. The BLM recognizes

2913

operators may encounter a learning
curve as they familiarize themselves
with the database system, like any new
software system to which users must
adapt. For that reason, the BLM intends
to adjust the existing 80 hours per
response for APDs upwards to 88 hours
per response. However, any costs or
delays in adapting to the e-filing system
will be temporary, and may be subject
to a downward adjustment sometime in
the future.
The BLM has sponsored multiple
outreach strategies and training forums
for its AFMSS clients, which should
further mitigate the extent of industry’s
learning curve. These outreach efforts
include:
• Easily accessible Internet-based
resources, including user-guides,
audiovisual modules, user toolkits, and
FAQs that are available to operators or
their agents, and
• Live trainings provided to users to
allow for a more robust discussion with
the BLM on how to use the system.
The previously discussed table
entitled, ‘‘Completed Training Sessions’’
outlines the locations where the BLM
has sponsored these trainings.
The following table itemizes the
estimated burdens of APDs, NOSs, and
waivers as a result of this Order. In the
case of APDs, these burdens are in
addition to the 80 burden-hours per
response estimated under OMB control
number 1004–0137, and the number of
responses (3,000 per year) is less than
the 5,000 responses currently
authorized under OMB control number
1004–0137. Both the number of
responses and the burden hours will be
adjustments to that control number.
For NOSs and waiver requests, these
burdens are new, and will be program
changes for control number 1004–0137.

Type of
response

Number of
responses

Hours per
response

Total hours

A.

B.

C.

D.

Application to Drill or Re-Enter 43 CFR 3162.3–1 and Section III.A. of Onshore Order 1 Form
3160–3 .....................................................................................................................................
Notice of Staking Section III.C. of Onshore Order 1 ...................................................................
Waiver Request Section III.I. of Onshore Order 1 ......................................................................

5 3,000
7 150

8
16
4

24,000
4,800
600

3,450

28

29,400

6 300

Totals ....................................................................................................................................

pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

5 This

will be an adjustment in the number of responses for APDs in control number 1004–0137. At present, control number 1004–0137 authorizes the BLM to collect 5,000 APDs annually.
6 Estimated as 10 percent of the roughly 3,000 APDs filed annually.
7 Estimated as 10 percent of the 1,500 APDs likely to be impacted by the final Order. BLM data show that half of APDs were already e-filed
through the WIS.

National Environmental Policy Act
The revisions to the Order do not
constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. The BLM has

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:51 Jan 09, 2017

Jkt 241001

analyzed the revisions to the Order and
determined it meets the criteria set forth
in 43 CFR 46.210(i) for a Departmental
Categorical Exclusion in that the
revisions to the Order are ‘‘. . . of an

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

administrative, financial, legal,
technical or procedural nature . . ..’’
Therefore, it is categorically excluded
from environmental review under the
National Environmental Policy Act,

E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM

10JAR1

2914

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

pursuant to 43 CFR 46.205 and
46.210(c) and (i). The BLM also has
analyzed this Order to determine if it
involves any of the extraordinary
circumstances that would require an
environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement, as set
forth in 43 CFR 46.215, and concluded
that this Federal action does not involve
any extraordinary circumstances.
Data Quality Act
In developing this Order, we did not
conduct or use a study, experiment, or
survey requiring peer review under the
Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554, app.
C 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–153 to
154).

pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Under Executive Order 13211,
agencies are required to prepare and
submit to OMB a Statement of Energy
Effects for significant energy actions.
This Statement is to include a detailed
statement of ‘‘any adverse effects of
energy supply, distribution, or use
(including a shortfall in supply, price
increases, and increase use of foreign
supplies)’’ for the action and reasonable
alternatives and their effects.
Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211
defines a ‘‘significant energy action’’ as
‘‘any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that
promulgates or is expected to lead to the
promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including notices of inquiry,
advance notices of proposed
rulemaking, and notices of proposed
rulemaking: (1) (i) That is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866 or any successor Order, and (ii)
is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) as a significant energy action.’’
The revisions to the Order will not be
a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866 as they will not
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The revisions to the Order have also not
been designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action.
Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of
Cooperative Conservation
The BLM determined that this Order
involves changes to BLM processes. In
accordance with Executive Order 13352,
this Order will not impede facilitating
cooperative conservation. The Order
takes appropriate account of and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:51 Jan 09, 2017

Jkt 241001

respects the interests of persons with
ownership or other legally recognized
interests in land or other natural
resources; properly accommodates local
participation in the Federal decisionmaking process; and provides that the
programs, projects, and activities are
consistent with protecting public health
and safety.
Authors
The principal authors of this final
Order are Cathy Cook and Michael
Riches, Division of Fluid Minerals, and
Bryce Barlan and James Tichenor,
Division of Business Management,
assisted by Mark Purdy and Jean
Sonneman, Division of Regulatory
Affairs, Dylan Fuge, Counselor to the
Director, and the Department of the
Interior’s Office of the Solicitor.
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3160
Administrative practice and
procedure, Government contracts,
Indian-lands, Mineral royalties, Oil and
gas exploration, Penalties, Public
lands—mineral resources, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 21, 2016.
Amanda Leiter,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and
Minerals Management.

For reasons set out in the preamble,
the Bureau of Land Management
amends the appendix following the
regulatory text of the final rule
published in the Federal Register at 72
FR 10308 at 10328 (March 7, 2007),
corrected on March 9, 2007 (72 FR
10608), effective March 7, 2007, as
follows:

■

Note: This appendix does not appear in the
BLM regulations in 43 CFR part 3160.

Appendix—Text of Oil and Gas
Onshore Order
Amend the Onshore Oil and Gas Order
Number 1 by revising sections III.A, III.C, and
III.E, and adding section III.I to read as
follows:
Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1

*

*

*

*

*

III. Application for Permit to Drill

*

*

*

*

*

A. Where to File
On or after March 13, 2017, the operator
must file an APD and associated documents
using the BLM’s electronic commerce
application for oil and gas permitting and
reporting. The operator may contact the local
BLM Field Office for information on how to
gain access to the electronic commerce
application. Prior to March 13, 2017, an
operator may file an APD and associated

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

documents in the BLM Field Office having
jurisdiction over the application.

*

*

*

*

*

C. Notice of Staking Option
Before filing an APD or Master
Development Plan, the operator may file a
Notice of Staking with the BLM. The purpose
of the Notice of Staking is to provide the
operator with an opportunity to gather
information to better address site-specific
resource concerns while preparing the APD
package. This may expedite approval of the
APD. On or after March 13, 2017, if an
operator chooses to file an NOS, the operator
must file the Notice of Staking using the
BLM’s electronic commerce application for
oil and gas permitting and reporting.
Attachment I, Sample Format for Notice of
Staking, provides the information required
for the Notice of Staking option. Prior to
March 13, 2017, an operator may file a Notice
of Staking in the BLM Field Office having
jurisdiction.
For Federal lands managed by other
Surface Managing Agencies, the BLM will
provide a copy of the Notice of Staking to the
appropriate Surface Managing Agency office.
In Alaska, when a subsistence stipulation is
part of the lease, the operator must also send
a copy of the Notice of Staking to the
appropriate Borough and/or Native Regional
or Village Corporation.
Within 10 days of receiving the Notice of
Staking, the BLM or the FS will review it for
required information and schedule a date for
the onsite inspection. The onsite inspection
will be conducted as soon as weather and
other conditions permit. The operator must
stake the proposed drill pad and ancillary
facilities, and flag new or reconstructed
access routes, before the onsite inspection.
The staking must include a center stake for
the proposed well, two reference stakes, and
a flagged access road centerline. Staking
activities are considered casual use unless
the particular activity is likely to cause more
than negligible disturbance or damage. Offroad vehicular use for the purposes of staking
is casual use unless, in a particular case, it
is likely to cause more than negligible
disturbance or damage, or otherwise
prohibited.
On non-NFS lands, the BLM will invite the
Surface Managing Agency and private surface
owner, if applicable, to participate in the
onsite inspection. If the surface is privately
owned, the operator must furnish to the BLM
the name, address, and telephone number of
the surface owner if known. All parties who
attend the onsite inspection will jointly
develop a list of resource concerns that the
operator must address in the APD. The
operator will be provided a list of these
concerns either during the onsite inspection
or within 7 days of the onsite inspection.
Surface owner concerns will be considered to
the extent practical within the law. Failure to
submit an APD within 60 days of the onsite
inspection will result in the Notice of Staking
being returned to the operator.

*

E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM

*

*

10JAR1

*

*

pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
E. APD Posting and Processing
1. Posting
The BLM and the Federal Surface
Managing Agency, if other than the BLM,
must provide at least 30 days public notice
before the BLM may approve an APD or
Master Development Plan on a Federal oil
and gas lease. Posting is not required for an
APD for an Indian oil and gas lease or
agreement. The BLM will post information
about the APD or Notice of Staking for
Federal oil and gas leases to the Internet and
in an area of the BLM Field Office having
jurisdiction that is readily accessible to the
public. Posting to the Internet under this
provision will not be required until after
March 13, 2017. If the surface is managed by
a Federal agency other than the BLM, that
agency also is required to post the notice for
at least 30 days. This would include the BIA
where the surface is held in trust but the
mineral estate is federally owned. The
posting is for informational purposes only
and is not an appealable decision. The
purpose of the posting is to give any
interested party notification that a Federal
approval of mineral operations has been
requested. The BLM or the FS will not post
confidential information.
Reposting of the proposal may be necessary
if the posted location of the proposed well is:
a. Moved to a different quarter-quarter
section;
b. Moved more than 660 feet for lands that
are not covered by a Public Land Survey; or
c. If the BLM or the FS determine that the
move is substantial.
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.
If there is enough information to begin
processing the application, the 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.
a. Within 10 days of receiving an
application, the BLM (in consultation with
the FS if the application concerns NFS lands)
will notify the operator as to whether or not
the application is complete. The BLM will
request additional information and correction
of any material submitted, if necessary, in the
10-day notification. 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,
the BLM, in coordination with the operator
and Surface Managing Agency, including the
private 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 participants’ schedules and weather
conditions. The operator will be notified at
the onsite inspection of any additional
deficiencies that are discovered during the
inspection. The operator has 45 days after
receiving notice from the BLM to provide any

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:51 Jan 09, 2017

Jkt 241001

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
appropriate requirements of the NEPA,
National Historic Preservation Act,
Endangered Species Act, and other
applicable law have been met and, if on NFS
lands, the FS has approved the Surface Use
Plan of Operations;
2. Notify the operator that it is deferring
action on the permit; or
3. Deny the permit if it cannot be approved
and the BLM cannot identify any actions that
the operator could take that would enable the
BLM to issue the permit or the FS to approve
the Surface Use Plan of Operations, if
applicable.
c. The notice of deferral in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section must specify:
1. Any action the operator could take that
would enable the 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 Surface Use Plan of
Operations 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 the
BLM or the FS need to take before making
a final decision on the application, including
appropriate analysis under NEPA or other
applicable law and a schedule for completing
these actions.
d. The operator has 2 years from the date
of the notice under paragraph (c)(1) of this
section to take the action specified in the
notice. If the appropriate analyses required
by NEPA, National Historic Preservation Act,
Endangered Species Act, and other
applicable laws have been completed, the
BLM (and the FS if applicable), will make a
decision on the permit and the Surface Use
Plan of Operations 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 2 years from the operator’s
receipt of the paragraph (c)(1) notice, the
BLM will deny the permit.
e. 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. The BLM cannot
approve an APD until the appeal of the
Surface Use Plan of Operations is resolved.

*

*

*

*

*

I. Waiver From Electronic Submission
Requirements
The operator may request a waiver from
the electronic submission requirement for an
APD or Notice of Staking if compliance
would cause hardship or the operator is

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

2915

unable to file these documents electronically.
In the request, the operator must explain the
reason(s) that prevent its use of the electronic
system, plans for complying with the
electronic submission requirement, and a
timeframe for compliance. If the request
applies to a particular set of APDs or Notices
of Staking, then the request must identify the
APDs or Notices of Staking to which the
waiver applies. The waiver request is subject
to BLM approval. If the request does not
specify a particular set of APDs or Notices of
Staking, then the waiver will apply to all
submissions made by the operator during the
compliance timeframe included as part of the
BLM’s waiver approval. The BLM will not
consider an APD or Notice of Staking that the
operator did not submit through the
electronic system, unless the BLM approves
a waiver.
[FR Doc. 2016–31752 Filed 1–9–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–84–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 383 and 384
[FMCSA–2007–27748]
RIN 2126–AB66

Minimum Training Requirements for
Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:

FMCSA is correcting a final
rule that appeared in the Federal
Register of December 8, 2016 (81 FR
88732), regarding the establishment of
new minimum training standards for
certain individuals applying for their
commercial driver’s license (CDL) for
the first time; an upgrade of their CDL
(e.g., a Class B CDL holder seeking a
Class A CDL); or a hazardous materials
(H), passenger (P), or school bus (S)
endorsement for the first time.
DATES: The effective date of this
correction is February 6, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Richard Clemente, Driver and Carrier
Operations (MC–PSD) Division,
FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE.,
Washington, DC 20590–0001, by
telephone at 202–366–4325, or by email
at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
FMCSA makes minor corrections to fix
errors in the final rule published on
December 8, 2016. In instruction 10,
amending § 383.73, the Agency corrects
‘‘(b)(10)’’ to read ‘‘(b)(11)’’ in both the
instruction and associated regulatory
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\10JAR1.SGM

10JAR1