NPR-A Final Rule

38712

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
following acronyms and abbreviations
are used in the preamble:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 2360
[BLM_HQ_FRN_MO4500177994]
RIN 1004–AE95

Management and Protection of the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

This rule governs the
management of surface resources and
Special Areas in the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska (Reserve or NPR–A).
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
manages the NPR–A consistent with its
duties under the Naval Petroleum
Reserves Production Act, as amended
(NPRPA), Federal Land Policy and
Management Act, as amended,
(FLPMA), and other authorities. The
rule revises the framework for
designating and assuring maximum
protection of Special Areas’ significant
resource values and protects and
enhances access for subsistence
activities throughout the NPR–A. It also
incorporates aspects of the NPR–A
Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) approved
in April 2022.
DATES: This rule is effective on June 6,
2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Tichenor, Advisor—Office of the
Director, at 202–573–0536 or jtichenor@
blm.gov with a subject line of ‘‘RIN
1004–AE95.’’ For questions relating to
regulatory process issues, contact Faith
Bremner at [email protected].
Individuals in the United States who
are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or
have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. For a
summary of the rule, please see the rule
summary document in docket BLM–
2023–0006 on www.regulations.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

SUMMARY:

I. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
II. Executive Summary
III. Background
IV. Section-by-Section Discussion
V. Procedural Matters

I. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
To ease the reading of this preamble
and for reference purposes, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1980)
BLM (Bureau of Land Management)
ASRC (Arctic Slope Regional Corporation)
FLPMA (Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976)
IAP (Integrated Activity Plan)
ICAS (In˜upiat Community of the Arctic
Slope)
NPR–A or Reserve (National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska)
NPRPA or the Act (Naval Petroleum Reserves
Production Act of 1976)
UIC (Ukpeag˙vik In˜upiat Corporation)

II. Executive Summary
The Naval Petroleum Reserves
Production Act of 1976 (NPRPA) gives
the BLM three overarching mandates for
managing the Reserve: (1) conduct an oil
and gas exploration, leasing, and
production program; (2) protect
environmental, fish and wildlife,
historical, and scenic surface resources
from the impacts of that program
through mitigation of reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects; and (3) assure maximum
protection for significant surface values
from the impacts of the oil and gas
program, including subsistence use,
within Special Areas. Through this
rulemaking process, the BLM is
developing a more cohesive framework
for these three mandates by establishing
requirements and procedures for
protecting the surface values of the
Reserve while conducting the oil and
gas program.
The final rule implements the critical
components of the statutory framework
described above, establishing
procedures for the BLM to mitigate
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects of proposed oil and gas
activities on the surface resources of the
Reserve and to provide maximum
protection for surface values within
Special Areas for proposed oil and gas
activities. The BLM will continue to
follow the part 3130 regulations for
managing oil and gas leasing and
production in the Reserve.
The rule updates the purpose of the
subpart 2361 regulations to more
accurately and completely reflect the
scope of the regulations. The purpose of
the updated regulations is to provide
standards and procedures to implement
42 U.S.C. 6506a(b), which requires the
Secretary to ensure that ‘‘[a]ctivities
undertaken pursuant to this Act include
or provide for such conditions,
restrictions, and prohibitions as [she]
deems necessary or appropriate to
mitigate reasonably foreseeable and
significantly adverse effects on the
surface resources of the [NPR–A],’’ and

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

to provide standards and procedures to
implement 42 U.S.C. 6504(a), under
which any exploration in Special Areas
‘‘shall be conducted in a manner which
will assure the maximum protection of
such surface values to the extent
consistent with the requirements of this
Act for the exploration of the [NPR–A].’’
The rule establishes new standards
and procedures for managing and
protecting surface resources in the
Reserve from the reasonably foreseeable
and significantly adverse effects of oil
and gas activities. It requires the BLM,
in each decision concerning oil and gas
activity in the Reserve, to adopt
measures to mitigate the reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects on surface resources, taking
particular care with surface resources
that support subsistence. The rule
requires the BLM to manage oil and gas
activities in accordance with the IAP,
enshrining longstanding BLM practice
into regulations. In the BLM’s
experience, the IAP provides an
invaluable means of evaluating
management options, engaging the
public, and guiding decision-making,
consistent with the BLM’s duties under
NPRPA and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
The rule codifies the five existing
Special Areas and their significant
resource values and management as
currently established in Secretarial
decisions and the 2022 IAP, and it
establishes a process for designating,
amending, and de-designating Special
Areas in the future. The rule sets forth
standards and procedures for managing
oil and gas activities within Special
Areas, confirming that the management
priority within Special Areas is to
assure maximum protection of
significant resource values consistent
with the requirements of the NPRPA for
exploration of and production from the
Reserve. The procedures detail
requirements for analyzing proposed oil
and gas leasing, exploration,
development, or new infrastructure in
Special Areas, including providing
opportunities for public participation
and consulting with federally
recognized Tribes and Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
corporations that use the affected
Special Area for subsistence purposes or
have historic, cultural, or economic ties
to the Special Area. The BLM must
evaluate potential adverse effects on
significant resource values and consider
measures to avoid, minimize, or
otherwise mitigate adverse effects to
achieve maximum protection of
significant resource values.
The rule requires the BLM to manage
Special Areas to protect and support

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
fish and wildlife and their habitats and
the associated subsistence use of those
areas by rural residents, and it requires
the BLM to provide reasonable access to
and within Special Areas for
subsistence purposes. The rule
encourages the BLM to explore costewardship opportunities for Special
Areas, including co-management,
collaborative and cooperative
management, and tribally led
stewardship, fulfilling the special trust
relationship that the Department of the
Interior has with Tribes.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

III. Background
A. The Need for the Rule
The BLM is promulgating this final
rule because the regulatory framework
governing the management and
protection of environmental, fish and
wildlife, other surface resources, and
Special Areas in the Reserve needs
updating. Conditions throughout the
Arctic have changed dramatically since
1977, when the BLM issued the current
regulations for management of surface
resources and Special Areas in the
Reserve. Rapidly changing conditions,
including the intensifying impacts of
climate change on the Reserve’s natural
environment and Native communities,
make it necessary and appropriate for
the BLM to develop new regulations
that account for and respond to these
changing conditions and that require the
BLM to regularly address changing
conditions.
In addition, the current regulations do
not reflect the full management regime
for the Reserve. This rule will provide
a framework for management to protect
Special Areas and surface resources in
the Reserve, which requires a delicate
balance between exploration for and
development of oil and gas resources
and protecting subsistence, recreational,
fish and wildlife, historical, scenic, and
other values. The applicable legal
standards and procedures for
management of the Reserve are
currently scattered throughout several
statutes and BLM regulations, plans,
and guidance documents. For example,
the existing regulations do not integrate
with the BLM’s development and use of
IAPs, which have been used for more
than two decades to guide management
of lands within the Reserve. Although
the BLM is not required to prepare a
resource management plan for the
Reserve under FLPMA, see 42 U.S.C.
6506a(c), it has chosen to produce and
update the IAP through a public process
and supported by analysis in an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The IAP allocates land uses in the
Reserve and includes oil and gas lease

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

38713

stipulations and infrastructure
restrictions that apply to BLM
authorizations in Special Areas and
other areas throughout the Reserve. The
overlay of an updated regulatory regime
to govern the Reserve, including the
requirement to develop future IAPs to
direct management of the lands and
resources in the Reserve, will enhance
consistency and certainty, particularly
with respect to protection of surface
resources and Special Areas.
Through the NPRPA, as amended,
Congress has given the BLM three
overarching mandates for managing the
Reserve: (1) conduct an oil and gas
exploration, leasing and production
program; (2) protect environmental, fish
and wildlife, historical, and scenic
surface resources from the impacts of
that program through mitigation of
reasonably foreseeable adverse effects;
and (3) assure maximum protection for
significant surface values from the
impacts of the oil and gas program,
including subsistence use, within
Special Areas. Through this rulemaking
process, the BLM is developing a more
cohesive framework for these three
mandates by establishing requirements
and procedures for protecting the
surface values of the Reserve while
conducting the oil and gas program, as
discussed in more detail below.

bonus bid revenue for the Federal
Government and the State of Alaska;
however, bid revenue dropped off
significantly as lands in the Reserve
with the highest potential for
development were leased. Between 1999
and 2019, the BLM offered nearly 60
million acres of leases in the Reserve
but received bids on just 12 percent of
that acreage.3
The BLM continues to authorize oil
and gas leasing and production in the
Reserve. The most recent oil and gas
lease sale in the Reserve occurred in
2019. Under the 2022 IAP,
approximately 11.8 million acres of the
Reserve’s subsurface estate are available
for oil and gas leasing. In March 2023,
the BLM approved the Willow Master
Development Plan Project for
construction and operation of new
infrastructure in the Bear Tooth Unit
within the Reserve. The approved
Willow project incorporates substantial
resource protection measures, such as
reducing the number of proposed drill
sites, while authorizing the production
and transportation to market of Federal
oil and gas resources within the
Reserve, consistent with the BLM’s
statutory directives.

1. Conduct an Oil and Gas Leasing,
Exploration, and Production Program
The NPRPA directs the Secretary of
the Interior to ‘‘conduct an expeditious
program of competitive leasing of oil
and gas in the Reserve in accordance
with this Act.’’ In response to this
mandate, in 1981 the BLM developed
regulations establishing the procedures
for administering a competitive leasing
program for oil and gas within the
Reserve. Those regulations are set forth
in 43 CFR part 3130, and they are not
being amended in this rulemaking
process. Following promulgation of the
part 3130 regulations, the BLM held two
lease sales in the Reserve in 1982 and
one each in 1983 and 1984.1 After
receiving no bids during the 1984 lease
sale and determining that the oil and gas
industry had ‘‘little interest in another
lease sale,’’ the BLM discontinued sales
in the Reserve for the next 15 years.2
The BLM restarted lease sales in 1999
and, over the next 2 decades, held a
total of 15 sales for the Reserve. These
sales initially generated considerable

Under the NPRPA, the Secretary of
the Interior assumes all responsibilities
for the protection of environmental, fish
and wildlife, and historical or scenic
values. The Act authorizes the Secretary
to ‘‘promulgate such rules and
regulations as [she] deems necessary
and appropriate for the protection of
such values within the reserve.’’ 42
U.S.C. 6503(b). The BLM additionally
has a responsibility to ‘‘provide for such
conditions, restrictions, and
prohibitions as the Secretary deems
necessary or appropriate to mitigate
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects [of oil and gas activities]
on the surface resources’’ throughout
the Reserve. 42 U.S.C. 6506a(b). The
current regulations, however, provide
little detail on the standards and
procedures the BLM should use to
implement these important
requirements. New and revised
standards and procedures are needed to
ensure that the BLM is fulfilling its
statutory duties under the NPRPA,
FLPMA, and other authorities to the
best of its ability.
The many important surface resources
of the Reserve are described in detail in

1 U.S. Geological Survey, The NPR–A Data
Archive 2 (Mar. 2001), available at https://
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs024-01/fs024-01.pdf.
2 BLM, Northeast NPR–A Final IAP/EIS (Aug.
1998), available at https://web.archive.org/web/
20001018022001/http:/aurora.ak.blm.gov/npra/
final/html/contents_vol1.html.

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

2. Protect Environmental, Fish and
Wildlife, Historical, and Scenic Values

3 BLM, NPR–A Sale Statistics 1999 to Present,
available at https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/
files/documents/files/Oil_Gas_Alaska_NPR-A_
LeaseSale_Statistics_1999toPresent.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

38714

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

the preamble to the proposed rule.
These include extensive calving
grounds for the Teshekpuk Caribou
Herd and the Western Arctic Caribou
Herd; threatened and sensitive bird
species and the Qupa5uk Flyway
Network Site; marine mammals
including polar bears, six whale species,
spotted seals, and walruses; and
abundant fish species including Pacific
salmon. Overall, the implications of
climate change for wildlife in the Arctic
are substantial, particularly for marine
mammals that are threatened by
continued Arctic warming and the
resulting deterioration of sea ice. The
final rule better supports the BLM’s
ability to manage impacts to surface
resources resulting from climate change
and to respond to changing conditions
more rapidly.
3. Assure Maximum Protection for
Significant Surface Values, Including
Subsistence Use, Within Specially
Designated Areas
The NPRPA requires the BLM to
‘‘assure the maximum protection of
[significant subsistence, recreational,
fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic]
values’’ within Special Areas ‘‘to the
extent consistent with the requirements
of [the NPRPA] for the exploration of
the reserve.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6504(a). This
requirement applies to the impacts of all
oil and gas activities. 42 U.S.C. 6504(a);
6506a(n)(2). The final rule improves
upon the standards and procedures that
implement this requirement. For
example, the current regulations
identify specific measures the BLM may
take to assure maximum protection but
provide no further guidance on the
evaluation and selection of such
measures.
The final rule also maintains and
enhances access for long-standing
subsistence activities in the Reserve.
The importance of subsistence
harvesting to the In˜upiat people and
residents of communities in and around
the Reserve is discussed in depth in the
preamble to the proposed rule. Impacts
on subsistence are occurring on the
North Slope with greater frequency as
development expands across the region.
Nuiqsut, the community closest to
current oil and gas development on the
North Slope, has experienced the most
impacts. Effects on subsistence and
concerns for ongoing subsistence
activities have also been documented
for Point Lay, Wainwright, Utqiagvik,
Atqasuk, and Anaktuvuk Pass. Many of
these effects are related to oil and gas
exploration and development—
including seismic activity and oil and
gas-related research, pipelines, and
traffic—on caribou and other terrestrial

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

species. Provisions of the rule for
management of subsistence uses within
Special Areas and co-stewardship
opportunities in management of Special
Areas and subsistence fulfill the special
trust relationship that the Department of
the Interior has with Tribes.
In sum, this rule implements the
critical components of the statutory
framework described above, establishing
procedures for the BLM to mitigate
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects of proposed oil and gas
activities on the surface resources of the
Reserve and to provide maximum
protection for surface values within
Special Areas for proposed oil and gas
activities, consistent with the
requirements of the Act related to
conducting oil and gas exploration and
production—all as explicitly required
by the NPRPA. The BLM will continue
to follow the part 3130 regulations for
managing oil and gas leasing and
production in the Reserve. The BLM
will also continue to maintain an IAP
for the Reserve per the final rule. The
IAP addresses management of the
Reserve more broadly than oil and gas
activities, whereas this rule and the
codification of the 2022 IAP in
provisions of this rule apply only to oil
and gas activities.
Public Comments on the Need for the
Rule
During the public comment period,
the BLM received approximately 89,000
comments on regulations.gov from
Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations,
State and local governments,
organizations, businesses, and
individuals. Among them were
comments from the Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation, Doyon Limited,
In˜upiat Community of the Arctic Slope,
Kuukpik, Native Village of Kotzebue,
and Village of Wainwright.
This preamble responds to comments
in the relevant part of the discussion.
For example, the following addresses
comments on the need for the rule.
Comment: Commenters stated that the
Reserve was set aside for the purposes
of energy resource development and
security in the United States and that
they do not think that the BLM should
promote any regulations that would
slow, deter, or counter these purposes.
BLM Response: The rule implements
express statutory direction in the
NPRPA, which requires authorizations
for oil and gas activities to ‘‘include or
provide for such conditions,
restrictions, and prohibitions . . .
necessary or appropriate to mitigate
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects on the surface resources’’
throughout the Reserve. The NPRPA

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

also requires the BLM to ensure
maximum protection of Special Areas’
significant resource values from oil and
gas activities. Please see the Brief
Administrative History of the Reserve
discussion below for more details.
Comment: The BLM received
comments requesting that it remove the
climate change justification from the
Need for the Rule discussion. The BLM
also received comments that balancing
oil and gas activities with the protection
of surface resources is not enough to
address the climate change concerns
raised in section II(E), Need for the Rule.
BLM Response: Intensifying impacts
from climate change are particularly
affecting North Slope In˜upiaq
communities and creating substantial
uncertainty for managing surface
resources in the Reserve. Changes in
native plant communities, wildlife
habitat, and migration corridors,
particularly for caribou, are affecting the
availability of and access to subsistence
resources. Climate change is also
affecting things like permafrost stability
and creating engineering challenges for
infrastructure. Promulgating this rule
now provides industry with assurances
regarding management of the Reserve
and allows it to better plan for future
exploration and development. Updating
the regulatory framework will improve
the BLM’s ability to respond to changing
conditions in the Arctic while providing
transparency in conservation and
development decisions.
Comment: The BLM received
comments espousing the position that
there is not a need for additional rules
to manage the Reserve because the IAP
already provides stringent requirements
for environmental protection and
designates specific areas for oil and gas
development.
BLM Response: The 2022 IAP Record
of Decision (ROD) provides broad
management direction for uses and
activities allowed within the Reserve,
including requirements for
environmentally and socially
responsible resource development. The
BLM is seeking to codify the 2022 IAP
development process and management
framework for oil and gas activity into
regulations, which currently are over 40
years old and outdated. Additionally,
this final rule consolidates the
provisions governing the BLM’s
management of oil and gas activity
while mitigating adverse effects on
surface resources and managing Special
Areas for maximum protection of
significant resource values in the
Reserve.
Comment: Commenters requested that
the BLM cite the need to protect wildlife
species, including those with declining

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

populations like the Arctic peregrine
falcon and caribou, in the Need for the
Rule.
BLM Response: The concerns raised
in this comment are encompassed in the
proposed and final rule with references
to ‘‘protection and control of the
environmental, fish and wildlife, and
historical and scenic values of the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.’’
B. Brief Administrative History of the
Reserve
Designated by President Warren G.
Harding in 1923 as Naval Petroleum
Reserve No. 4, E.O. 3797–A, the Reserve
is one of several naval petroleum
reserves established on public land in
the early part of the 20th Century to
serve as an emergency oil reserve for the
U.S. Navy. The Reserve extends from
the north slope of the Brooks Range to
the Arctic Coast and encompasses
approximately 23 million acres of
public land.
The U.S. Navy explored for oil and
gas in the Reserve from 1944 to 1953,
resulting in the discovery of two small
oil fields (Simpson and Umiat), one
prospective oil field (Fish Creek), a gas
field (South Barrow), and four
prospective gas fields (Meade, Square
Lake, Titaluk, and Wolf Creek). The
Navy also pioneered numerous methods
for oil exploration in the Arctic and
collected a tremendous amount of
scientific information concerning
northern Alaska. By the 1970s, when
Congress began debating the role of the
naval petroleum reserves in the context
of the nation’s changing energy needs,
the Reserve remained ‘‘largely
unexplored and almost completely
undeveloped.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 94–156, at
3 (1975). In 1976, Congress passed the
NPRPA, which transferred
administrative jurisdiction over the
Reserve from the Secretary of the Navy
to the Secretary of the Interior and
redesignated the ‘‘Naval Petroleum
Reserve Numbered 4, Alaska’’ as the
‘‘National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska’’
in 1977. Public Law 94–258 (1976)
(codified at 42 U.S.C. 6502). It also
directed the President to prepare a study
to ‘‘determine the best overall
procedures’’ for exploring, developing,
and transporting the reserve’s oil and
gas resources. Id. section 105(b)(1)
(codified at 42 U.S.C. 6505(b)).
In the NPRPA, Congress sought to
strike a balance between oil and gas
exploration and ‘‘the protection of
environmental, fish and wildlife, and
historical or scenic values’’ in the
Reserve. It did so by directing the
Secretary to ‘‘promulgate such rules and
regulations as he [or she] deems
necessary and appropriate for the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

protection of such values within the
reserve.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6503(b). The
Conference Report explained that the
Act would immediately vest
responsibility for protection of the
Reserve’s ‘‘natural, fish and wildlife,
scenic and historical values . . . in the
Secretary of the Interior . . . so that any
activities which are or might be
detrimental to such values will be
carefully controlled.’’ H.R. Conf. Rep.
No. 94–942 (1976). The report stated the
Conference Committee’s expectation
‘‘that the Secretary will take every
precaution to avoid unnecessary surface
damage and to minimize ecological
disturbances throughout the reserve.’’
Id.
Congress further directed that ‘‘[a]ny
exploration within the Utukok River,
the Teshekpuk Lake areas, and other
areas designated by the Secretary of the
Interior containing any significant
subsistence, recreational, fish and
wildlife, or historical or scenic value,
shall be conducted in a manner which
will assure the maximum protection of
such surface values to the extent
consistent with the requirements of this
Act for the exploration of the reserve.’’
42 U.S.C. 6504(a). The Conference
Report elaborated that the Act would
‘‘immediately authorize the Secretary to
require that the exploration activities
within these designated areas be
conducted in a manner designed to
minimize adverse impacts on the values
which these areas contain.’’ H.R. Conf.
Rep. No. 94–942 (1976).
To implement the NPRPA, the BLM
developed regulations in 1977 to govern
management and protection of the
Reserve. Those regulations, which have
remained unchanged since their original
promulgation, are set forth at 43 CFR
part 2360, subpart 2361. The regulations
provide a purpose and objectives for the
protection of the environmental, fish
and wildlife, and historical or scenic
values of the Reserve and require the
BLM to take such action as is necessary
to mitigate or avoid unnecessary surface
damage and to minimize ecological
disturbance throughout the Reserve to
the extent consistent with the
requirements of the NPRPA for the
exploration of the Reserve. Among other
provisions, the regulations identify
examples of maximum protection
measures that may be implemented to
protect significant resource values and
provide guidance for designating
additional Special Areas within the
Reserve.
Three years after the BLM developed
regulations to govern management of the
Reserve, the Department of the Interior
Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1981,
directed the Secretary to ‘‘conduct an

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38715

expeditious program of competitive
leasing of oil and gas’’ in the Reserve,
while ‘‘provid[ing] for such conditions,
restrictions, and prohibitions as the
Secretary deems necessary or
appropriate to mitigate reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects on . . . surface resources . . . .’’
Public Law 96–514, 94 Stat. 2957
(1980). The BLM subsequently
developed a new set of regulations to
govern the oil and gas leasing program
in the Reserve, which were promulgated
in 1981 and are set forth at 43 CFR part
3130. The part 3130 regulations did not
amend the subpart 2361 regulations,
and, as a result, the BLM currently
follows two sets of regulations located
in different parts of the code governing
management of the Reserve.
The Fiscal Year 1981 Appropriations
Act also exempted the Reserve from the
requirement to prepare land use plans
under section 202 of FLPMA. However,
the BLM has found that planning is
beneficial to ensure compliance with
the statutory and regulatory framework
governing the Reserve and since 1998
has maintained an IAP for the Reserve.
Because planning in the Reserve is
exempted from FLPMA section 202, the
IAP is not developed as a resource
management plan and does not
implement multiple use and sustained
yield. Instead, the IAP focuses possible
future BLM management practices on
those uses that are allowable under the
NPRPA for the Reserve, and consistent
with NEPA regulations at 40 CFR parts
1500 through 1508, the IAP is
developed through an EIS process.
The BLM first developed an IAP for
the Northeast portion of the Reserve,
which was finalized in 1998, and
established initial surface protections
relevant to the Teshekpuk Lake and
Colville River Special Areas. Upon
signing the 1998 ROD, the Secretary
approved the addition of ‘‘much of the
Kikiakrorak and Kogosukruk Rivers and
an area approximately two miles on
either side of these rivers’’ to the
Colville River Special Area, thus
increasing its size to 2.44 million acres,
and the addition of the Pik Dunes to the
Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. 64 FR
16747 (April 6, 1999). The 2003
Northwest NPR–A IAP proposed the
new Kasegaluk Lagoon Special Area,
which the Secretary approved in a ROD
in 2004. See 70 FR 9096 (Feb. 24, 2005).
The Kasegaluk Lagoon Special Area is
located in the northwestern corner of
the Reserve and includes important
habitat for marine mammals, among
other values.
The BLM developed the first IAP for
the full Reserve in 2013. Through the
2013 IAP, the Secretary made several

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

38716

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

decisions concerning Special Areas.
First, the Secretary designated a fifth
Special Area: Peard Bay. The 107,000acre area was designated to ‘‘protect
haul-out areas and nearshore waters for
marine mammals and a high use staging
and migration area for shorebirds and
waterbirds.’’ (BLM, NPR–A IAP ROD 4
(Feb. 2013), available at https://
eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/
nepa/5251/42462/45213/NPR-A_
FINAL_ROD_2-21-13.pdf.) Second, the
Secretary expanded the Teshekpuk Lake
Special Area by 2 million acres ‘‘to
encompass all the roughly 30-to-50-mile
band of land valuable for bird and
caribou habitat between Native-owned
lands near Barrow and Native-owned
lands near Nuiqsut . . . .’’ (Id. at 19.)
Third, the Secretary expanded the
Utukok River Uplands Special Area to
7.1 million acres ‘‘to more fully
encompass prime calving and insectrelief habitat within the NPR–A . . . .’’
(Id. at 4.) Finally, the Secretary
broadened the purpose of the Colville
River Special Area to include the
‘‘protect[ion of] all raptors, rather than
the original intent of protection for
arctic peregrine falcons.’’ (Id.)
The current IAP, adopted in April
2022, was informed by a Final EIS
issued by the agency in 2020. The EIS
evaluated a range of alternatives for
managing oil and gas activities and
resources in the Reserve. (BLM, NPR–A
Final IAP/EIS (June 2020), available at
https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/
project/117408/570.) These alternatives
were informed and shaped by extensive
outreach efforts with the public and
stakeholders, including:
• Scoping: During the scoping period
from November 21, 2018, to February
15, 2019, the BLM held eight public
meetings in Alaska and received
approximately 56,000 comment
submissions, including form letters.
• Public Review of the Draft IAP/EIS:
During the comment period for the Draft
IAP/EIS from November 25, 2019,
through February 5, 2020, the BLM held
eight public meetings in Alaska and
received more than 82,000 comments,
including form letters and signed
petitions.
• Comments received after the Final
IAP/EIS was released and prior to the
ROD: In reaching the decision in the
2022 ROD, the BLM reviewed and fully
considered comments received after
distribution of the Final IAP/EIS on
June 26, 2020. The comments did not
identify any significant new
circumstances or information related to
environmental concerns bearing upon
the proposed action or its impacts.
Instead, they generally reflected
concerns already raised by comments

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

submitted during scoping and the
public’s review of the Draft IAP/EIS.
In addition to the above, the current
IAP benefited from suggestions and
careful review of the analysis in the
IAP/EIS by several cooperating agencies:
the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, In˜upiat Community of the
Arctic Slope, National Park Service,
North Slope Borough, State of Alaska,
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
During the IAP/EIS process, the BLM
consulted with:
• Tribes as required by a Presidential
Executive Memorandum dated April 29,
1994;
• Communities, Tribal organizations,
and Native corporations on the North
Slope;
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration—Fisheries
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act;
and
• Alaska’s State Historic Preservation
Office pursuant to the National Historic
Preservation Act.
Pursuant to Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)
section 810(a)(1) and (2), the BLM also
conducted hearings in North Slope
communities to gather comments
regarding potential impacts to
subsistence use resulting from the
alternatives considered in the IAP/EIS.
Section 3.6 of the 2022 IAP details the
BLM’s process for evaluating impacts to
subsistence use and findings based on
that evaluation.
The 2022 IAP makes approximately
11.8 million acres (52 percent) of the
Reserve’s subsurface estate available for
oil and gas leasing. The remaining
approximately 11 million acres (48
percent) of the Reserve, including the
majority of lands within Special Areas
and much of the coastal area of the
Reserve along the Beaufort Sea, are
closed to oil and gas leasing to protect
and conserve important surface
resources and uses in these areas. The
majority of the area closed to oil and gas
leasing was determined to be medium or
low potential for discovery or
development of oil and gas resources in
the Reasonably Foreseeable
Development Scenario in the 2020
NPR–A Final IAP/EIS. (BLM, NPR–A
Final IAP/EIS at B–1 (June 2020),
available athttps://eplanning.blm.gov/
public_projects/117408/200284263/
20020421/250026625/Volume%202_
Appendices%20B-Y.pdf.) The IAP
makes lands available for application for
oil and gas infrastructure, including
pipelines and other infrastructure
necessary for owners of any offshore
leases in the State or Federal waters of
the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas to bring

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

oil and gas across the Reserve to the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, while
also prohibiting new infrastructure on
lands containing habitat of special
importance to nesting, breeding, and
molting waterfowl as well as those with
critical calving and insect relief areas for
the Teshekpuk Lake and Western Arctic
Caribou Herds. (BLM, NPR–A IAP ROD
1–2 (Apr. 2022))
C. Statutory Authority
The NPRPA is the primary source of
management authority for the Reserve.
Under the NPRPA, the Secretary must
‘‘assume all responsibilities’’ for ‘‘any
activities related to the protection of
environmental, fish and wildlife, and
historical or scenic values’’ and
‘‘promulgate such rules and regulations
as he [or she] deems necessary and
appropriate for the protection of such
values within the reserve.’’ 42 U.S.C.
6503(b).
Congress has also directed the
Secretary to ‘‘conduct an expeditious
program of competitive leasing of oil
and gas’’ in the NPR–A. Id. However,
the NPRPA also requires the Secretary
to ensure all oil and gas activities within
the Reserve ‘‘include or provide for such
conditions, restrictions, and
prohibitions as the Secretary deems
necessary or appropriate to mitigate
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects on the surface resources’’
throughout the NPR–A. Id. at 6506a(b).
The NPRPA also authorizes the
Secretary to designate Special Areas to
protect ‘‘significant subsistence,
recreational, fish and wildlife, or
historical or scenic value[s]’’ in the
NPR–A and provides that any
‘‘exploration’’ in Special Areas ‘‘shall be
conducted in a manner which will
assure the maximum protection of such
surface values to the extent consistent
with the requirements of this Act for the
exploration of the reserve.’’ Id. at
6504(a).
Other authorities that guide
management of the NPR–A include
FLPMA and the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act of 1980
(ANILCA). Although Congress in 1980
exempted the NPR–A from FLPMA’s
land use planning and wilderness study
requirements, 42 U.S.C. 6506a(c), it did
not exempt the NPR–A from FLPMA’s
other provisions. Hence, the BLM must
‘‘take any action necessary to prevent
unnecessary or undue degradation’’ of
all BLM-administered public lands,
including within the NPR–A. 43 U.S.C.
1732(b).
Similarly, certain portions of ANILCA
apply within the Reserve. Of particular
importance for this rule, section 810 of
ANILCA, which governs subsistence

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

uses within the Reserve, requires the
BLM to ‘‘evaluate the effect’’ of
proposed activities ‘‘on subsistence uses
and needs . . . .’’ 16 U.S.C. 3120(a). If
such activities will ‘‘significantly
restrict subsistence uses,’’ then the BLM
must hold hearings in affected
communities, limit activities to ‘‘the
minimal amount of public lands
necessary,’’ and take ‘‘reasonable steps
. . . to minimize adverse impacts upon
subsistence uses and resources . . . .’’
Id. Fulfilling section 810’s requirements
is of crucial importance for the NPR–A,
as more than 40 communities utilize its
resources for subsistence purposes.
Public Comments on Statutory
Authority
Comments: Some commenters
asserted that the proposed rule conflicts
with the plain language and
congressional intent of the NPRPA, as
amended by Public Law 96–514
(codified at 42 U.S.C. 6506a). Other
commenters raised concerns that the
proposed rule ignores that the NPRPA
exempted the Reserve from certain
provisions of FLPMA. Others
commented that the proposed rule
violates the plain language and
congressional intent of FLPMA and the
application in the rule is therefore
inappropriate. Commenters further
stated that Congress designated the
Reserve to be developed in balance with
conservation and that the proposed rule
aims to align management of the
Reserve with FLPMA in a manner that
ignores the unique considerations
identified in the NPRPA and would
inappropriately restrict oil and gas
development and decrease domestic oil
supply.
BLM Response: The BLM disagrees
with commenters’ assertions that the
rule conflicts with the NPRPA or
FLPMA. This rule appropriately
implements the statutory framework in
the NPRPA, as amended, to provide for
oil and gas exploration and
development in the Reserve while
ensuring the protection of
environmental, fish and wildlife, and
historical or scenic values across the
Reserve; and specifically within Special
Areas to ensure that any oil and gas
activity is undertaken in a manner that
provides for the maximum protection of
surface values to the extent consistent
with the requirements of the NPRPA.
Similarly, this rule appropriately
implements the applicable provisions of
FLPMA to the management of the
Reserve. The Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies’ Fiscal Year (FY)
1981 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 96–
514) exempted management of the
Reserve from only two sections of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

FLPMA: section 202 (43 U.S.C. 1712),
which requires the BLM to prepare
resource management plans to guide
management of public lands; and
section 603 (43 U.S.C. 1782), which
required the BLM to complete
wilderness reviews and describes the
procedures for managing any lands
recommended to Congress for
wilderness designation pending
congressional action. The BLM is
otherwise obligated to manage public
lands within the Reserve pursuant to
FLPMA, where consistent with the
NPRPA, as amended. Under FLPMA,
the BLM has broad authority to regulate
the use, occupancy, and development of
public lands within the Reserve and
must take action ‘‘to prevent
unnecessary or undue degradation of
the lands’’ (43 U.S.C. 1732(b)).
Comments: Other comments
suggested that the BLM add a specific
reference to ANILCA in § 2361.3.
BLM Response: The BLM agrees with
this suggestion and has added a
discussion of ANILCA to that section of
the final rule.
D. Public Engagement
The BLM published the proposed rule
in the Federal Register on September 8,
2023 (88 FR 62025), for a 60-day
comment period ending on November 7,
2023. In response to public requests for
an extension, the BLM extended the
comment period for 10 days (88 FR
72985) and then again for 20 days (88
FR 80237). The resulting 90-day
comment period closed on December 7,
2023.
During the comment period, the BLM
hosted a variety of public outreach
activities. The BLM held two virtual
public meetings on October 6 and
November 6, 2023. Presentation slides
and video recordings of the virtual
meetings were made available on the
BLM website for the rulemaking
(https://www.blm.gov/about/laws-andregulations/NPR-A-Rule). The BLM held
three in-person meetings in Anchorage
(October 10, 2023), Nuiqsut (November
1, 2023), and Utqiagvik (November 2,
2023) to provide an overview of the
proposed rule and answer questions
from the public. The BLM also held one
hybrid meeting in Wainwright on
December 4, 2023. A court reporter was
present at the Nuiqsut and Utqiagvik
meetings to transcribe all comments and
questions. The hybrid meeting in
Wainwright was recorded via the Zoom
platform, and those comments were
collected by the BLM on behalf of the
commenters and submitted as
comments to the rulemaking docket on
regulations.gov (https://
www.regulations.gov/docket/BLM-2023-

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38717

0006). Additionally, the BLM posted
transcripts from the meetings as
supporting and related materials to the
rulemaking docket on regulations.gov.
The BLM also posted a fact sheet, a
frequently-asked-questions document, a
side-by-side comparison of the proposed
rule with the existing regulation, and
other background information on the
BLM website to further public
understanding of the proposed rule
(https://www.blm.gov/about/laws-andregulations/NPR-A-Rule).
In addition, during the comment
period, the BLM conducted external
outreach and participated in meetings to
discuss the content of the proposed rule,
including congressional briefings;
meetings with the State of Alaska; and
meetings with industry and other
stakeholder interest groups.
Public Comments on Public Engagement
Comments on scope of outreach:
Commenters noted their perception
that the BLM did not seek the input of
those likely to be affected by the
rulemaking prior to issuing the Notice of
Intent in the Federal Register, as they
stated is required by Executive Order
(E.O.) 13563. Specifically, commenters
stated their position that the BLM did
not conduct outreach or engagement
with the eight active lessees in the
Reserve, State and national trade
associations (American Petroleum
Institute and Alaska Oil and Gas
Association), and numerous Tribal and
local government entities including the
North Slope Borough, to ‘‘seek their
views on the scope or merits of the
contemplated proposed rulemaking.’’
Commenters also provided input on
outreach methods. Commenters
suggested that the BLM utilize KBRW as
local residents often listen to that
station for important announcements
including meetings. Commenters also
suggested that the BLM reach out to
local search and rescue offices in
villages because those volunteers
directly interact with subsistence users.
Comments emphasized that many
Tribes and allotment owners do not
have cell phones, utilize social media,
or own computers; many do not have
internet access, and if they do, it is
limited and unreliable.
BLM Response: The BLM’s intention
to initiate this rulemaking was
announced in March 2023. On August
25, 2023, the BLM mailed a formal offer
for consultation to 45 Tribes and 30
Alaska Native Corporations to engage in
consultation on the proposed rule. The
BLM did not receive a response to these
invitations from any of the Tribes or
Alaska Native Corporations. Since the
announcement of the proposed rule on

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

38718

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

September 8, 2023, the BLM has
continued to offer consultation via
phone, email, and in-person invitations
to Tribes and Alaska Native
Corporations that it determined would
be most likely to have substantial direct
effects from the rule, including the
Native Village of Atqasuk; Atqasuk
Corporation; Village of Wainwright;
Olgoonik Corporation; Native Village of
Nuiqsut; Kuupik Corporation; Native
Village of Barrow; Ukpeag˙vik In˜upiat
Corporation (UIC); Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation (ASRC); and
In˜upiat Community of the Arctic Slope
(ICAS). On September 6th, 2023, agency
staff called State and local governments
to ensure they were aware of the
upcoming publication of the proposed
rule and to offer opportunities to
discuss the rule language.
For some proposed rules, the BLM
chose to engage with stakeholders about
the broader topic earlier in the
rulemaking process. In this instance,
however, we believed it would be more
productive to engage in more in-depth
discussion regarding the content of the
proposed changes to the rule with the
benefit of the actual proposal for review
and discussion.
The BLM worked with communities
within the Reserve to host in-person
public comment meetings, including
posting meeting flyers, amplifying
meetings on social media, and
announcing the meetings on local CB
radios. We always appreciate
suggestions on outreach methods and
how we might better reach audiences.
We note the commenters’ specific
outreach suggestions for future efforts in
the North Slope region.
Comments on timing:
Commenters expressed their concerns
that the timeline for review of the rule
directly conflicted with hunting and fall
subsistence whaling activities.
Commenters also noted their perception
that the BLM is ignoring local
circumstances such as the North Slope
Borough’s mayoral elections, which
they stated prevented meaningful input
on the proposed rule from North Slope
communities. Comments expressed the
opinion that the public comment
timeline was inadequate, noting that 60
days was insufficient, and that the
additional 30 days of extensions still
did not allow North Slope organizations
to diligently prepare comments on the
rule and to weigh-in to the fullest extent
possible. Commenters requested
additional time to allow the public to
have meaningful opportunity to review
the necessary information and provide
substantive comments.
Commenters expressed concern that
the comment period for the rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

overlapped with the comment period for
the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing
Program Supplemental EIS comment
period.
Commenters emphasized the
importance of working with the NPR–A
Working Group, as the group consists of
important local leaders and provides a
forum for discussion of the rule
including recommendations.
Commenters suggested that certain
group members (specifically Utqiagvik)
did not receive notification of the
meetings and that they should be
involved in the discussion.
Commenters noted their opinion that
the schedule for in-person and virtual
public meetings for the rule did not
provide sufficient notice to allow the
public to meaningfully participate, nor
the opportunity to adjust schedules so
as to attend in person. Commenters also
noted their opinion that the meetings
were hastily scheduled, with only a few
days’ notice, and that meetings were
canceled with little or no notice and
often not rescheduled. Commenters
requested additional public meetings
and requested that those additional
meetings be adequately noticed to
facilitate public participation and local
engagement.
Commenters noted that there is no
reason the proposed rule should have
substantially less public participation
than other, less significant actions that
have dictated management of the
Reserve as both have been subject to the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Commenters noted that the APA ensures
that BLM rulemaking is a transparent
and regular process.
BLM Response: BLM agrees that the
timing for the public comment period
was difficult and not ideal. Whaling is
an incredibly important subsistence
activity for North Slope communities,
and fall is one of two key times to
harvest. While the comment period for
the proposed rule was during the fall
whaling season, the BLM took steps to
ensure that North Slope communities
were given the opportunity to provide
comments on the proposed rule and
engage in the process in a meaningful
way. First, the BLM conducted
extensive outreach to Reserve
communities, holding in-person public
meetings in Nuiqsut, Utqiagvik, and
Wainwright. Further, we recognize that
submitting public comments online or
through the mail might pose a challenge
to these communities. To facilitate
greater participation, we offered
opportunities for community members
at these sessions to submit their
comments for the record through
comment cards or through a court
reporter. In addition, the agency met

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

with the NPR–A Working Group three
times during the public comment
period. The NPR–A Working Group is
comprised of representatives from North
Slope local governments, Alaska Native
Corporations, and tribal entities. It is
intended to provide a forum for North
Slope communities to provide input to
management of the Reserve (https://
www.blm.gov/programs/energy-andminerals/oil-and-gas/about/alaska/
NPR-A/npr-a_working_group). For each
meeting in Reserve communities, the
BLM coordinated meeting dates, times,
and locations with local entities,
although some changes still resulted
due to unforeseen events or weather.
Regarding the comment received
specially addressing the November 2
meeting in Utqiagvik, meeting details
were finalized in mid-October 2023 and
advertised to the community via social
media and flyers, in addition to
notification to the NPR–A Working
Group and posting on the project
website.
The BLM received requests to extend
the public comment period for the
proposed rule; specifically, we were
asked to extend the comment period for
an additional 90 days, which would
have made for a 150-day (5-month)
comment period. A 5-month comment
period far exceeds the typical duration
for rulemaking comment periods. While
we were unable to grant the requested
extension, the BLM did extend the
comment period for 30 days, resulting
in a 90-day comment period for the
proposed rule. While the comment
period for the proposed rule overlapped
with the comment period on the Draft
Supplemental EIS for the Coastal Plain,
the Coastal Plain comment period was
60-days and ended one month before
the close of the comment period on the
proposed rule.4 Throughout the
comment period and since, the BLM has
continued to engage with Reserve region
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations
on the rule.
Comments on meeting format:
Commenters provided input on the
format of both the in-person and virtual
meetings. Commenters noted that public
comment and testimony was not part of
the meetings, which, in their opinion,
confirmed the BLM’s ‘‘limited intention
to actually gather knowledge or data, or
4 The Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is approximately 50 miles east of the NPR–
A. The 2017 Tax Act (Pub. L. 115–97) directed the
BLM to conduct two sales in the Coastal Plain
offering at least 400,000 acres of high-potential
hydrocarbon lands for bid by 2024. More
information on the supplemental environmental
impact statement for the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas
Leasing Program can be found on that project’s
website at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/
project/2015144/570.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
to collaborate.’’ Commenters also noted
their perception that the BLM limited
questions from the public and only
answered select written questions
submitted in English and then did not
read them verbatim but instead
paraphrased them. Some commenters
stated concern over the format of the
virtual meetings and noted that they did
not think the meetings were long
enough in duration and that they prefer
a townhall format over the webinar
format that was utilized. Commenters
further noted that they would have liked
to interact with each other and/or the
BLM. Commenters expressed their
opinion that the BLM’s comment
process does not provide special
considerations that account for
Indigenous groups’ understanding of
Western institutional public processes,
which makes the process less
transparent to Indigenous peoples.
Some commenters noted that, in their
opinion, the BLM should ‘‘reset the
process to allow more public
engagement and to receive the benefit of
comment from informed stakeholders
who can contribute to a better and more
durable final rule.’’
BLM Response: All members of the
public were invited to submit comments
to the BLM electronically at
Regulations.gov or by mail, personal
delivery, or messenger delivery. The
BLM uploaded comments received by
mail, personal delivery, or messenger
delivery to Regulations.gov. As the
official repository of comments,
Regulations.gov is available to the
public, allows the agency to better track
and make more effective use of
comments, and allows the public to
review submissions from other
commenters. For public meetings, the
agency hosted virtual and in-person
informational sessions along with inperson public comment meetings for
communities located within the
Reserve.
The informational sessions were
designed to help the interested public
understand the proposed rule and
provide a forum to answer questions.
The BLM communicated with attendees
that comments would not be collected at
the informational sessions due to the
logistical feasibility of accurately and
comprehensively recording comments
in those venues. Participants were given
both the Regulations.gov website and
the mailing address for comment
submission, and BLM representatives
were available to answer questions
about how to submit comments. The
agency did not receive any questions
during information sessions that were
not written in English.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

The BLM worked with communities
within the Reserve to host in-person
public comment meetings. We have
heard on numerous occasions through
other project outreach efforts that
submitting public comments online or
through the mail often poses a challenge
to these communities. To facilitate
greater participation, we offered
opportunities for community members
at these meetings to submit their
comments to the record through
comment cards or orally through a
transcriber.
Comments on public engagement for
the 2022 IAP:
Commenters expressed their opinion
that the BLM incorrectly relied on the
public comment process that informed
the 2020 IAP ROD and noted that the
BLM should have conducted NEPA
review for the proposed rule.
Commenters noted their opinion that
the BLM streamlined the public
involvement process and the actual
impacts of the rule by claiming that it
is administrative in nature, thus
dismissing the need for additional
stakeholder input. Commenters also
noted their opinion that the rule vastly
alters major Federal planning processes
and land management standards that
were developed using robust public
input and that if the BLM wants to move
forward with a rule that alters existing
Federal land management, then the
agency must acknowledge the public
involvement process requirements at a
minimum.
The BLM received comments stating
that ‘‘The State [of Alaska] strongly
opposes and finds it disingenuous for
BLM to consider and describe
stakeholder engagement during the
NPR–A IAP relevant stakeholder
engagement and as justification for the
need of the proposed rule.’’
BLM Response: The BLM did not rely
on the IAP public comment process as
the public comment for this rule.
Rather, the BLM provided for public
comment on the proposed rule as
required by the APA. With respect to
NEPA compliance for this rulemaking, it
is relevant that the current IAP was
supported by an extensive NEPA
analysis—including preparation of an
EIS. The final rule does not alter any
current on-the-ground management, and
it meets the criteria set forth at 43 CFR
46.210(i) for a Departmental categorical
exclusion in that this rule is ‘‘of an
administrative, financial, legal,
technical, or procedural nature.’’
Additionally, the final rule does not
involve any of the extraordinary
circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215
that would preclude the application of
the categorical exclusion. As such, the

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38719

BLM has complied with NEPA by
relying on this categorical exclusion.
E. Tribal Consultation
On August 25, 2023, the BLM invited
via mail 45 Tribes and 30 Alaska Native
Corporations to engage in consultation
regarding the proposed NPR–A rule.
Since the announcement of the
proposed rule, we have continued to
offer consultation to Native Village of
Atqasuk, Atqasuk Corporation, Village
of Wainwright, Olgoonik Corporation,
Native Village of Nuiqsut, Kuupik
Corporation, Native Village of Barrow,
UIC, ICAS, and ASRC. We met with the
Mayor of Atqasuk on October 31, Native
Village of Nuiqsut on November 1, ICAS
on November 3 and February 6, Village
of Wainwright on November 21,
Olgoonik Corporation on December 19,
ASRC on December 21, and Kuukpik on
February 1. In addition, staff met and
discussed the proposed rule with the
NPR–A Working Group (consisting of
representatives from North Slope local
governments, Native corporations, and
Tribal entities, https://www.blm.gov/
programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-andgas/about/alaska/NPR-A/npr-a_
working_group) on September 26,
October 17, and December 1. We also
held in-person public meetings in
Nuiqsut, Utqiagvik and Wainwright
where verbal comment was recorded,
along with three informational
sessions—one in Anchorage and two
virtual. The BLM will continue to
engage in consultation with Tribes and
Alaska Native Corporations after the
final rule is published.
Public Comments on Tribal
Consultation
Commenters expressed their opinion
that the Alaska Native Corporations and
the federally Recognized Tribes of
Alaska were not properly consulted
during the rulemaking process.
Commenters expressed their opinion
that the BLM did not comply with E.O.
13175, Secretary’s Order 3043, President
Biden’s ‘‘Memorandum on Tribal
Consultation and Strengthening Nationto-Nation Relationships’’ and
‘‘Memorandum on Uniform Standards
for Tribal Consultation,’’ and the DOI
Policy Manual 512 DM 4 and 5.
Comments stated that the BLM letter to
Alaska Tribes and Alaska Native
Corporations was sent 7 business days
before the proposed rule’s publication
which ‘‘fails to meet the numerous
consultation requirements detailed at
length’’ in the Executive order and
Memoranda listed above.
Commenters expressed that because
the rule was published during fall
whaling season, ‘‘What little

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

38720

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

consultation or public meeting process
did occur was hastily convened with
little to no opportunity for local
communities to receive timely notice.’’
Commenters requested that the BLM
engage in meaningful communication
and consultation with local villages and
Tribes to ensure the new regulations
meet the needs and concerns of the
communities who rely on the Reserve.
Comments requested that the BLM
consultation be more inclusive than just
the federally recognized Tribes and
ANSCA corporations. One commenter
stated: ‘‘Also, the rule seems to treat
ANCSA corporations the same as Tribes
which needs further clarification.’’
Another commenter stated: ‘‘BLM’s
efforts to avoid working with local
stakeholders of the NPR–A is almost
impressive in its breadth. Not only has
the State been excluded, but also leaders
from impacted NPR–A Alaska Native
communities, the North Slope Borough,
the BLM-created NPR–A Working
Group, the congressionally established
ASRC, the tribal representatives from
the ICAS, the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat
(VOICE), and the general public of
Alaska and residents of the NPR–A.
These process deficiencies are
especially stark after so many prior
NPR–A-focused planning and
permitting efforts featured
comprehensive consultation and
process. Conversely, this may be the
North Slope’s most disconnected and
disingenuous public process in the
modern era.’’
BLM Response: Please see our
response to similar comments in the
discussion of Public Engagement above.
We understand that some commenters
found the public comment period
dissatisfying. We received very helpful
input and our outreach complied fully
with applicable law and policy.
In addition, 512 DM 6 (https://
doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/
documents/512-dm-6.pdf) outlines
requirements for consultation between
appropriate ANCSA Corporation
officials and Department officials. While
not considered government-togovernment consultation, it is the policy
of the Department to recognize and
fulfill its legal obligations to consult
with ANCSA Corporations on the same
basis as Alaska Native Tribes. To the
extent that concerns expressed by a
federally recognized Tribe and an
ANCSA Corporation substantively
differ, officials shall give due
consideration to the rights of
sovereignty and self-government of the
Tribe, and to the unique legal status and
rights of the ANCSA Corporation.
In its many years of engaging with
North Slope communities, the BLM has

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

gained a deep understanding of the
connection those communities have
with the NPR–A. For example, for the
In˜upiat of the North Slope, ‘‘cultural
resources are not merely places or
things but also provide a link between
North Slope history, In˜upiat culture and
values, subsistence activities, and the
biological and physical environment.
These resources have spiritual and
cultural importance to residents of the
North Slope, and their protection is of
utmost importance to the In˜upiat.’’ 5
Contemporary In˜upiaq values, including
respect for nature, hunting traditions,
and family and kinship, are
‘‘inextricably linked with all facets of
In˜upiaq life,’’ but ‘‘none more so than
subsistence hunting and harvesting
traditions. Maintaining and passing
down cultural values, including
knowledge of subsistence hunting and
harvesting methods, traditions, and
places, is of utmost importance to North
Slope residents.’’ 6 ‘‘The In˜upiaq
people’s relationship to the land is
characterized by . . . subsistence
traditions . . . ; thus, to the In˜upiat,
protecting traditional lands and waters
and the wild resources that inhabit them
is essential to maintaining cultural
traditions, knowledge, and identity.
Today, the In˜upiat are continuously
adapting and responding to various
forces of change that challenge their
ability to protect these lands and waters
and that contribute to social stress
within communities.’’ 7 Among those
forces of change is oil and gas
development. ‘‘Given the historical and
unique nature of the economic, social,
and cultural value Alaska Natives place
on subsistence resources in the planning
area and the importance of these
resources to the nutritional health and
food security of Alaska Natives,’’ the
adverse impacts of oil and gas
development are predominately borne
by Alaska Natives residing in
communities that utilize subsistence
resources from the NPR–A.8
F. General Public Comments
General Comments About the Rule
Comments: Commenters expressed
support that the proposed rule would
provide enhanced protection for natural
resources for future generations,
including wildlife and biodiversity,
fragile Arctic environments, and
5 BLM, NPR–A Final IAP/EIS (June 2020), section
3.4.2., available at https://eplanning.blm.gov/
public_projects/117408/200284263/20020342/
250026546/Volume%201_ExecSummary_Ch1-3_
References_Glossary.pdf.
6 Id. section 3.4.4.
7 Id.
8 Id. section 3.4.5.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Alaska’s unique ecosystem. Commenters
believed that the proposed rule would
help the BLM address changing
conditions, including climate change,
improve upon standards and procedures
to protect surface values and significant
resource values, promote transparency
and inclusivity, and would overall
result in a more comprehensive plan to
manage the Reserve.
BLM Response: We appreciate the
recognition of these goals of the
proposed rule, and we agree the
proposed rule would advance these
outcomes. The BLM made changes in
the final rule to strengthen resource
protection measures and clarify
standards and procedures for
implementing the rule with
transparency and community
engagement.
Comments: The BLM received
comments expressing concerns that the
proposed rule would restrict oil and gas
development and could harm local
economies that are reliant on oil and gas
revenue. Commenters expressed
concern that the proposed rule may be
contrary to congressional direction set
forth in the NPRPA and may not fulfill
the purposes of the Reserve. We
appreciate commenters raising these
concerns through the rulemaking
process, and the final rule incorporates
changes to clarify the BLM’s statutory
mandate under the NPRPA for managing
the Reserve.
BLM Response: As detailed in
discussion and comment responses
throughout this preamble to the final
rule, the BLM believes managing oil and
gas leasing and production under this
regulatory framework will best enable
the BLM to meet its requirements to
ensure protection of environmental, fish
and wildlife, historical, and scenic
values in the Reserve and will benefit
local communities. This rule balances
all aspects of the BLM’s statutory
mandate for managing the NPR–A.
Comments: The BLM also received
comments generally addressing
recreation in the Reserve and requesting
more discussion on how recreation
activities and experiences would be
affected by the rule.
BLM Response: We did not address
recreation directly under the framework
of the rule because the rule only
addresses management of oil and gas
activities in the Reserve. As the BLM
implements the rule, there may be
indirect effects on recreation activities
in the Reserve, such as fewer impacts on
recreation experiences associated with
oil and gas production due to decisions
that minimize and mitigate those
impacts on surface resources in the
Reserve.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Comments About Climate Change
Comments: The BLM received
comments discussing the impacts of
climate change already being realized in
the Reserve, such as impacts to wildlife
habitat and permafrost and the potential
loss of associated subsistence food
sources. Commenters urged the
development of a comprehensive
analysis of the climate impacts of
Western Arctic oil and gas production.
Commenters recommended that an
updated climate analysis should
incorporate adaptive management
practices, which would allow the BLM
to manage the Reserve for improved
climate resiliency.
Commenters requested that the BLM
ensure decisions are consistent with
Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) guidance, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) guidance, and
Secretarial Order 3399 regarding
addressing climate impacts. In
particular, commenters recommended
that the BLM include a requirement in
the rule to analyze the social cost of
carbon, consider the reasonably
foreseeable effects of climate change on
infrastructure, and model greenhouse
gas emissions. Commenters proposed
various frameworks and approaches for
incorporating climate analysis and
emissions management into the rule.
BLM Response: This rule is focused
on impacts to surface values of the
Reserve and implementing the BLM’s
statutory obligation to protect those
values when authorizing oil and gas
leasing and production. Thus, the BLM
is not analyzing or specifically
considering the climate impacts of oil
and gas development as part of the
rulemaking process. We recognize that
the changing conditions of surface
values in the Reserve are being driven
in a significant way by climate change
and that changes due to climate change
are occurring at an accelerated rate in
the Arctic compared to other parts of the
planet. Because of the dynamic nature
of those impacts on surface resources,
however, the BLM must consider and
address climate impacts during the
implementation of the rule. For
example, the BLM will analyze the
condition of surface resources,
including changing conditions caused
by climate impacts, when determining
when to update the IAP. We further note
that the BLM must analyze and consider
greenhouse gas emissions, and climate
impacts in general, when conducting
NEPA analysis for oil and gas leasing
and production activities.
Comments: Some commenters argued
that the NPRPA creates an obligation for
the BLM to limit greenhouse gas

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

emissions from activities in the Reserve
and expressed concern that the
proposed rule fails to ‘‘mitigate
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects on the surface resources’’
by not addressing emissions from
recently approved oil and gas leases.
BLM Response: The BLM agrees that
the provisions of the NPRPA that
require the BLM to mitigate reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects on surface resources and to
assure maximum protection for
significant resource values in Special
Areas require the BLM to analyze and
consider greenhouse gas emissions
when it is considering new oil and gas
activity in the Reserve. As described
above, such analysis and consideration
will occur as part of the NEPA process
both for any changes to the IAP and for
project-level approvals.
Comments About Wildlife
Comments: Commenters provided
detailed information about fish and
wildlife habitats in the Reserve and the
impacts of oil and gas production on
specific species and their habitats. In
particular, comments documented
information about caribou in the Utukok
Uplands and their behavioral responses
to oil and gas development, as well as
polar bear populations within the
Reserve and the impacts of oil and gas
activities on the species. Commenters
recommended the rule include
additional protections to build resilient
habitats for plants and wildlife, such as
establishing connectivity zones between
Special Areas. Comments expressed
concern that existing mitigation
measures do not ensure maximum
protection for subsistence of the
Teshekpuk Caribou Herd.
BLM Response: The BLM appreciates
the wealth of information provided by
commenters about wildlife species and
habitats in the Reserve and impacts
occurring from oil and gas activities.
While analyzing specific habitat areas or
mitigation measures is outside the scope
of this rulemaking process, the BLM
believes the final rule strengthens
provisions that will support the BLM’s
management of important wildlife
habitat and other surface resources in
the Reserve. For example, the final rule
requires that all Special Area
designation and amendment processes
will rely on the best available scientific
information, including Indigenous
Knowledge, as well as the best available
information concerning subsistence uses
and resources within the Reserve. The
final rule also details procedures for the
BLM to avoid the adverse effects of
proposed oil and gas activities on the

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38721

significant resource values of Special
Areas.
Comments About Oil and Gas
Production
Comments: The BLM received
comments stating that the proposed rule
disregards congressional intent that the
BLM manage the Reserve for oil and gas
production, including the NPRPA’s
requirement that the BLM conduct an
expeditious program of competitive
leasing of oil and gas in the Reserve.
Commenters cited the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
commenters assert has held that the
NPRPA did not give the Secretary the
discretion not to lease, but rather that
the Secretary is given the discretion to
provide rules and regulations under
which leasing would be conducted.
BLM Response: We believe the final
rule appropriately reflects the BLM’s
mandates in the NPRPA to conduct an
oil and gas leasing and production
program in the Reserve while protecting
environmental, fish and wildlife, and
historical and scenic values within the
Reserve. In the same section that
establishes an oil and gas leasing
program in the Reserve, the NPRPA
explicitly directs the BLM to ‘‘provide
for such conditions, restrictions, and
prohibitions as . . . necessary or
appropriate to mitigate reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects on the surface resources’’ of the
Reserve when conducting the oil and
gas program (42 U.S.C. 6506a(b)).
Further the BLM updated § 2361.40 in
the final rule to specifically reference
the BLM’s mandate under the NPRPA to
assure maximum protection of
significant resource values in Special
Areas ‘‘consistent with the requirements
of the NPRPA for exploration and
production of the Reserve.’’ This is
consistent with Northern. Alaska
Environmental. Center v. Kempthorne,
457 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2006), which
states only that the government could
not forbid all oil and gas leasing
throughout the Reserve, not that it lacks
discretion not to lease in some areas.
Indeed, in that case, the court upheld an
IAP that deferred leasing in a significant
portion of the NPR–A.
Comments: The BLM received
comments discussing the maximum
protection requirements in the proposed
rule and the context of the statutory
language. Commenters stated that the
maximum protection requirement in the
NPRPA was not intended to create a
presumption against oil and gas
activities, but rather to ensure that
exploration operations would be
conducted to minimize adverse impacts
on the environment. Commenters

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

38722

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

argued that the maximum protection
provisions in the proposed rule are
contrary to the plain language of the
NPRPA, congressional intent and the
1981 Appropriations Act.
BLM Response: The NPRPA requires
the BLM to conduct oil and gas
activities in Special Areas ‘‘in a manner
which will assure the maximum
protection of [any significant
subsistence, recreational, fish and
wildlife, or historical or scenic] values
to the extent consistent with the
requirements of this Act.’’ The
Conference Report on the NPRPA
elaborated that the Act would
‘‘immediately authorize the Secretary to
require that the exploration activities
within these designated areas be
conducted in a manner designed to
minimize adverse impacts on the values
which these areas contain.’’ H.R. Conf.
Rep. No. 94–942 (1976). The provisions
of the rule implementing this
requirement enable the agency to fulfill
its statutory duty to protect Special
Areas. We note that maximum
protection measures are not an objective
standard but rather are established in
the context of resource needs and other
uses, including valid existing rights and
ongoing oil and gas production in the
Reserve. As established in the existing
regulation and carried forward to the
final rule, maximum protection
measures can include limiting types of
vehicles and aircraft, requiring use of
alternative routes, and rescheduling
activities. They can also include
restrictions on oil and gas infrastructure
or closures to certain oil and gas
activities, consistent with prescriptions
for the Special Areas and existing
leases. Maximum protection measures
are and will continue to be developed
through public processes with
opportunities for public input and
consultation with Tribes, ANCSA
corporations, and local governments.
Comments: Commenters requested a
more detailed explanation of how the
rule would apply to and affect existing
leases, operations, and activities.
Commenters expressed concerns that
the rule would adversely affect future
proposals for development activities
and impermissibly conflict with existing
leases, by which the BLM has granted a
right to build infrastructure and produce
oil. Commenters acknowledged existing
leases can be subject to reasonable
regulations but argued that the proposed
rule is not a reasonable restriction
because it would create uncertainty
about permit approval. Commenters
suggested that leases may expire while
the BLM delays action to document
uncertainty or denies a permit on the
grounds that the proposed infrastructure

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

is not practicable or essential. Other
comments discussed that the BLM has
authority to take actions it determines
are necessary to protect the environment
in the Reserve, including through
regulatory actions, and that this is
acknowledged in the standard language
in BLM leases.
BLM Response: The rule includes
specific protections for valid existing
rights. For example, the final rule allows
for new permanent infrastructure on
lands within Special Areas that are
allocated as unavailable to new
infrastructure if necessary to comport
with the terms of a valid existing lease.
The final rule similarly makes clear that
the presumption against new oil and gas
activities in Special Areas would be
overcome by the need to comport with
the terms of a valid existing lease.
At the same time, we note that, while
the terms of an existing lease and
approved development project or permit
will not be affected by the rule, a valid
lease does not entitle the leaseholder the
unfettered right to drill wherever it
chooses or categorically preclude the
BLM from considering alternative
development scenarios within leased
areas, nor does it give the leaseholder
the right to produce all economically
recoverable oil and gas on the lease.
Further, the BLM can condition permits
for drilling on implementation of
environmentally protective measures
and could even deny a specific
application altogether if it were to
propose development in a particularly
sensitive area, and where mitigation
measures would not be effective. Future
development of an existing lease, by its
terms, could be subject to additional
terms and conditions. For example, the
standard lease for activities in the
Reserve states, ‘‘An oil and gas lease
does not in itself authorize any on-theground activity’’ and notes that more
restrictive stipulations may be added.
Similarly, a standard lease stipulation
entitled ‘‘Conservation of Surface
Values for NPR–A Planning Area Land’’
provides: ‘‘Operational procedures
designed to protect resource values will
be developed during Surface Use Plan
preparation, and additional protective
measures may be required beyond the
general and special stipulations
identified in the above-referenced
documents.’’
Comments: The BLM received
comments expressing concern that oil
and gas activities in the Reserve cause
negative effects on the environment and
wildlife, such as land degradation, air
pollution, and threats to ecosystems, all
of which affect biodiversity and human
health. Commenters recommended the
BLM develop a comprehensive

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

cumulative effects analysis and whole
Arctic conservation strategy, referencing
a 2003 National Research Council report
on cumulative effects of oil and gas
activities on Alaska’s North Slope.
Commenters requested that the BLM
implement consistent monitoring
practices to ensure it has comprehensive
data to use in decision-making, which
would enable more effective
management of oil and gas activities in
the Reserve.
BLM Response: The BLM believes the
final rule supports decision-making that
will provide meaningful protections for
environmental and wildlife values in
the Reserve from the impacts of oil and
gas exploration and production,
consistent with the agency’s statutory
obligation to mitigate reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects on the surface resources of the
Reserve. In doing so, the rule will
support the BLM’s ability to manage for
ecosystem services, and particularly
their contributions to subsistence use, as
the agency makes management
decisions under the framework of the
rule. (See, e.g., Guidance For Assessing
Changes In Environmental And
Ecosystem Services In Benefit-Cost
Analysis, Office of Management and
Budget (Feb. 2024), available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2024/02/ESGuidance.pdf.) The
final rule establishes that in managing
both the significant resource values of
Special Areas and the surface resources
of the Reserve broadly, the BLM will
adopt conditions, restrictions, or
prohibitions that may involve
conditioning, delaying action on, or
denying some or all aspects of future
and proposed oil and gas activities. For
example, the BLM might condition or
deny development if an operator
proposes infrastructure along the
Colville River if it is feasible to locate
the infrastructure outside of the area
closed to protect wildlife and
subsistence activities, even if the
operator would prefer the location
closer to the river. It is not within the
scope of this rulemaking process to
develop a cumulative effects analysis or
establish monitoring protocols, which
are better suited to an IAP amendment
process.
G. Summary of Changes in the Final
Rule
The following paragraphs summarize
changes the BLM made from the
proposed rule to the final rule. More
detailed explanations for the changes
are found in the responses to comments
and the description of the final rule in
section IV of this preamble to the final
rule.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Section 2361.3

Authority

The BLM added references to FLPMA
and ANILCA in the Authorities section
in the final rule, including the caveat
that the land use planning and
wilderness study requirements of
FLPMA do not apply to lands within the
Reserve, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6506a(c).
Section 2361.5

Definitions

The BLM revised the definition of
‘‘infrastructure’’ in the final rule to
clarify that the term means, ‘‘a
permanent or semi-permanent structure
or improvement that is built to support
commercial oil and gas activities on
BLM-administered lands within the
Reserve, such as pipelines, gravel
drilling pads, man camps, and other
structures or improvements.’’ The
revised definition further clarifies that
‘‘infrastructure’’ does not include
structures or improvements that will
primarily be used by and provide a
benefit to communities located within
or in close proximity to the Reserve.
The BLM clarified in the final rule
that the term ‘‘significant resource
values’’ refers to surface values that the
BLM identifies as significant, in order to
ensure consistency with the language in
the NPRPA. Similarly, the BLM made
minor clarifications in the definition of
the term ‘‘Special Areas’’ to ensure
consistency with the language in the
NPRPA. The final rule defines ‘‘Special
Areas’’ as: ‘‘areas within the Reserve
identified by the Secretary or by statute
as having significant resource values
and that are managed to assure
maximum protection of such surface
values, to the extent consistent with the
requirements of the Act for the
exploration and production of the
Reserve.’’
The final rule incorporates the
definition for the term ‘‘co-stewardship’’
that is used in BLM Permanent
Instruction Memorandum No. 2022–011
(Co-Stewardship with Federally
Recognized Indian and Alaska Native
Tribes Pursuant to Secretary’s Order
3403).

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Section 2361.10
Resources

Protection of Surface

The BLM added ‘‘oil and gas’’ before
the word ‘‘activities’’ throughout the
section to clarify that the requirements
of this rule only apply to oil and gas
activities. The final rule replaces
‘‘Bureau’’ with ‘‘authorized officer’’ to
provide clarity about the BLM official
responsible for implementing
requirements in the rule.
The BLM removed proposed
paragraph (b)(3) from the final rule
because it is duplicative of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

environmental analysis requirements
under NEPA. The paragraph had
provided that, in assessing effects of a
decision concerning proposed activity
in the Reserve, the Bureau would
identify and evaluate any reasonably
foreseeable effects of its decision,
including effects later in time or farther
removed in distance, and effects that
result from the incremental effects of the
proposed activities when added to the
effects of other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable actions.
Section 2361.20 Existing Special Areas
The BLM did not amend the final rule
in response to specific comments
regarding the significant resource
values, boundaries, or management of
existing Special Areas. The rule merely
codifies the existing Special Areas and
their significant resource values and
management as currently established in
Secretarial decisions and the 2022 IAP.
The final rule establishes a process in
§ 2361.30 for designating, amending,
and de-designating Special Areas that
will be followed to make changes to
Special Areas.
Section 2361.30 Special Areas
Designation and Amendment Process
The BLM reorganized § 2361.30 in the
final rule, with a new paragraph (a) that
outlines requirements applicable to all
processes that will designate, dedesignate, or otherwise change
boundaries or management of Special
Areas. These provisions require that the
BLM: (1) rely on the best available
scientific information, including
Indigenous Knowledge; (2) provide the
public and interested stakeholders with
meaningful opportunities to participate
in the evaluation process; (3) consult
with any federally recognized Tribes
and ANCSA corporations that use the
affected Special Area for subsistence
purposes or have historic, cultural or
economic ties to the Special Area; and
(4) base decisions solely on the presence
or absence of significant resource
values. This new paragraph will provide
more consistency to all decision-making
processes for Special Areas.
The final rule changes the Special
Area evaluation period from 5 to 10
years, while specifying that the BLM
may conduct the evaluation sooner if
the authorized officer determines that
changing conditions warrant earlier
review. For example, the BLM may
decide to conduct an evaluation in less
than 10 years upon receiving
nominations or recommendations for
Special Area changes. The BLM believes
this change addresses concerns about
agency and community capacity while
ensuring regular reviews occur to

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38723

maintain an inventory of resource
conditions and make management
changes as appropriate. The final rule
specifies that as part of the evaluation,
the BLM will determine whether to
require additional measures or
strengthen existing measures to assure
maximum protection of significant
resource values within existing Special
Areas.
The BLM also revised the final rule to
provide more clarity and certainty
around the interim measures provision.
The final rule clarifies that interim
measures may be implemented at any
time after BLM receives a
recommendation to designate or modify
a Special Area. The final rule also
clarifies that any interim measures must
be consistent with the governing
management prescriptions in the IAP,
and the BLM is required to provide
public notice that interim measures are
in place and reassess such measures to
determine if they are still needed if they
remain in place for more than 5 years.
Section 2361.40 Management of Oil
and Gas Activities in Special Areas
Section 2361.40 is revised in the final
rule to state the management priority
within Special Areas is to assure
maximum protection of significant
resource values, ‘‘consistent with the
requirements of the NPRPA for
exploration [and production] of the
Reserve.’’ The BLM believes this
clarification addresses public comments
requesting additional consistency with
the language of the NPRPA and reflects
the BLM’s statutory mandate for
managing the Reserve.
The final rule clarifies that the BLM
will identify and adopt maximum
protection measures for each significant
resource value that is present in a
Special Area when Special Areas are
designated. The BLM will also update
maximum protection measures as
appropriate thereafter, including in the
IAP, lease terms, and permits to conduct
oil and gas activities. The final rule also
includes maximum protection measures
that are identified in the existing
regulation but had been eliminated in
the proposed rule, as well as additional
examples of categories of measures.
On lands within Special Areas that
are allocated as closed to leasing or
unavailable to new infrastructure, the
final rule allows for the BLM to approve
new permanent infrastructure related to
existing oil and gas leases only if such
infrastructure is necessary to comport
with the terms of a valid existing lease.
This provision removes language in the
proposed rule that further specified that
the infrastructure must be essential for
exploration or development activities

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

38724

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

and no practicable alternatives exist
which will have less adverse impact on
significant resource values of the
Special Area.
The final rule provides clarity around
how the presumption against new
leasing and new infrastructure on lands
within Special Areas that are allocated
as open for those activities will be
addressed through the environmental
review process. The rule provides that
as part of the environmental analysis,
the BLM will document a justification
for overcoming the presumption, such
as if the proposed infrastructure is
necessary to comport with the terms of
a valid existing lease, or if it will
primarily be used by and provide a
benefit to communities located within
or in close proximity to the Reserve, and
the proposal has been conditioned to
avoid, minimize, or otherwise mitigate
adverse effects. The public will have an
opportunity to review and comment on
any justification for overcoming the
presumption.
The BLM reorganized § 2361.40 to
clarify the requirements for preparing an
environmental analysis of proposed
leasing, exploration, development, or
new infrastructure in Special Areas, and
reaching a final decision. These
procedures are set forth in a revised
§ 2361.40(g). The BLM must provide
meaningful opportunities for public
participation, including responding to
comments, and consult with federally
recognized Tribes and ANCSA
corporations that use the affected
Special Area for subsistence purposes or
have historic, cultural, or economic ties
to the Special Area. The BLM must
evaluate potential adverse effects on
significant resource values and consider
measures to avoid, minimize, or
otherwise mitigate adverse effects to
achieve maximum protection of
significant resource values. The BLM
must also document and consider
uncertainty about potential adverse
effects on significant resource values,
and account for any uncertainty when
taking actions taken to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate adverse effects.
If the BLM determines through the
environmental analysis that the
proposal cannot avoid adverse effects on
significant resource values in a Special
Area, then the BLM must prepare a
Statement of Adverse Effect. The
requirement to prepare a Statement of
Adverse Effect was included in the
proposed rule, but the final rule
provides more clarity around how it fits
within the environmental review
process. The Statement of Adverse
Effect will be incorporated into the
environmental analysis and provided to
the public for review and comment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

Lastly, the BLM updated the maps for
the final rule so that they show the
boundaries of the existing Special Areas
on the maps from the 2022 IAP showing
the current allocations for oil and gas
leasing and infrastructure. The maps
depict the exact data from the IAP ROD,
and do not change any designations or
allocations from the 2022 IAP.
Section 2361.50 Management of
Subsistence Uses Within Special Areas
The final rule removes the phrase ‘‘to
the extent consistent with assuring
maximum protection of all significant
resource values that are found in such
areas’’ from this section, so paragraph
(b) now simply reads: ‘‘The Bureau will
provide reasonable access to and within
Special Areas for subsistence purposes.’’
This phrase was causing confusion and
was unnecessary because § 2361.30
requires the BLM to adopt measures to
assure maximum protection of
significant resource values when
designating Special Areas.
The BLM also revised the language in
this section to refer to ‘‘reasonable
access’’ instead of ‘‘appropriate access’’
for consistency with the language in
section 811 of ANILCA.
Section 2361.60 Co-Stewardship
Opportunities in Management of Special
Areas and Subsistence
In the final rule, the title of this
section is revised from ‘‘Co-stewardship
opportunities in Special Areas.’’ The
first sentence is also revised to add ‘‘and
subsistence resources throughout the
Reserve.’’ Those revisions reflect that
the BLM will seek co-stewardship
opportunities not just in managing
Special Areas, but also in managing
subsistence resources more broadly.
The first sentence is also revised to
add ‘‘federally recognized’’ to clarify
that the BLM engages in co-stewardship
only with federally recognized Tribes.
Separately, the Bureau may partner with
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
corporations, local governments, or
organizations as provided by law, which
will not be co-stewardship arrangements
but a different type of partnership. The
text of the rule has been revised to make
this distinction clearer.
IV. Section-by-Section Discussion and
Response To Comments on Individual
Provisions
Section 2361.1—Purpose
Existing and Proposed Regulations
Existing § 2361.0–1 is redesignated to
§ 2361.1 in the final rule. The existing
provision states that the purpose of the
regulations is ‘‘to provide procedures for
the protection and control of

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

environmental, fish and wildlife, and
historical or scenic values’’ in the
Reserve. The BLM proposed to revise
§ 2361.1 to establish a two-part purpose
for the rule to more accurately and
completely reflect the scope of the
regulations. The first purpose was to
provide standards and procedures to
implement 42 U.S.C. 6506a(b), which
requires the Secretary to ensure that
‘‘[a]ctivities undertaken pursuant to this
Act include or provide for such
conditions, restrictions, and
prohibitions as [she] deems necessary or
appropriate to mitigate reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects on the surface resources of the
[Reserve].’’
The second purpose outlined in the
proposed rule was to provide standards
and procedures to implement 42 U.S.C.
6504(a), under which any exploration in
Special Areas ‘‘shall be conducted in a
manner which will assure the maximum
protection of such surface values to the
extent consistent with the requirements
of this Act for the exploration of the
reserve.’’ The standards and procedures
to implement these two provisions will
also fulfill the BLM’s mandate to take
action necessary to prevent unnecessary
or undue degradation under FLPMA, 43
U.S.C. 1732(b).
Public Comments on § 2361.1
Commenters expressed support for
the proposed revisions to § 2361.1 to
provide needed clarity, purpose, and
priority for the protection and
management of Special Areas. We agree
that the changes will help.
Commenters recommended that the
BLM include oil and gas leasing and
production as a purpose of the
regulations. We decline this suggestion.
Regulations for oil and gas leasing and
production within the Reserve are
covered in 43 CFR part 3130.
Commenters requested that the BLM
revert to the purpose in the original
version of § 2361.1. We decline this
request. The existing regulations do not
reflect the full scope of the BLM’s
statutory obligations or the scope of this
rule. Proposed § 2361.1 accurately and
completely reflected that scope.
Commenters requested that the
Purpose section include language that is
in the current version of 42 U.S.C.
2361.0–2, which recites that the
objective of the regulations is to provide
environmental protection ‘‘to the extent
consistent with the requirements of the
Act.’’ We believe that is unnecessary.
The proposed rule included language in
the Purpose section which stated that
the regulation was ‘‘pursuant to and
consistent with the provisions of the
Naval Petroleum Reserves Production

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 303; 42 U.S.C. 6501
et seq.).’’
The BLM received comments
requesting that the rule explicitly state
that the purpose of the regulations is to
provide standards and procedures to
cease any new oil and gas activities in
the Reserve and execute a phase down
of all existing oil and gas extraction. The
comments suggest that including this
language would allow the BLM to meet
its statutory requirement to ensure
mitigation of reasonably foreseeable and
significantly adverse effects and prevent
unnecessary or undue degradation. This
comment’s recommendation would not
be consistent with the NPRPA, which
directs the Secretary to implement an
oil and gas leasing program in the
Reserve.
Description of the Final Rule
The BLM did not change this section
of the proposed rule in the final rule.
The final rule states the purpose of the
regulations is to provide procedures for
protection and control of the
environmental, fish and wildlife, and
historical and scenic values of the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska,
including mitigating the significantly
adverse effects of oil and gas activities
on the surface resources of the Reserve
and assuring maximum protection of
significant resource values in Special
Areas pursuant to and consistent with
the provisions of the Naval Petroleum
Reserves Production Act of 1976 (90
Stat. 303; 42 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (94 Stat. 2371, 16 U.S.C. 3101 et
seq.), and other applicable authorities.
Section 2361.0–2—Objectives
Existing and Proposed Regulations
The existing § 2361.0–2 states the
objectives of the regulations. The BLM
proposed to remove this section because
the proposed revision of § 2361.1 would
make it redundant.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Public Comments on Existing § 2361.0–
2
The BLM received comments
requesting that it not amend the
Objectives section because the original
Objectives section clarified that
environmental protections are designed
to control exploration and production
activities. Commenters expressed the
opinion that the existing provision
appropriately states the objective of the
NPRPA and implements regulations
based on Congress’s intent to provide
for the protection of the environmental
and other surface values consistent with
the exploration and development of oil
and gas resources within the Reserve.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

Commenters suggested the proposed
changes to the Objectives section
disregard the BLM’s primary purpose
under the NPRPA of expeditious
leasing, exploration, and development
of the Reserve. Commenters
recommended the Objectives include
the clause: ‘‘. . . maximum protection
of such surface values to the extent
consistent with the requirements of this
Act for the exploration of the reserve’’
in accordance with the BLM’s
obligations under the NPRPA and
associated law.
BLM Response: We did not make
changes in response to these comments.
The existing § 2361.0–2 was removed
because the proposed rule’s revision of
§ 2361.1 made it redundant. The
proposed rule included language in the
Purpose section stating that the
regulation is ‘‘pursuant to and
consistent with the provisions of the
Naval Petroleum Reserves Production
Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 303; 42 U.S.C. 6501
et seq.).’’
Description of the Final Rule
The BLM did not change this section
of the proposed rule in the final rule.
The final rule removes § 2361.0–2 from
the regulations.
Section 2361.3—Authority
Existing and Proposed Regulations
Existing § 2361.0–3 is redesignated to
§ 2361.3 in the final rule. The existing
rule identifies the NPRPA as the only
statutory authority for the regulations.
In the proposed rule, the BLM included
the Department of the Interior
Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1981
(Pub. L. 96–514), which amended the
NPRPA and instructed the Secretary to
mitigate reasonably foreseeable and
significantly adverse effects on the
surface resources in the Reserve
(codified at 43 U.S.C. 6506a).
Public Comments on § 2361.3
Commenters recommended the rule
include ANILCA as an authority for the
rule, in part because section 810 of
ANILCA governs subsistence use on
public lands in Alaska. Commenters
also pointed out that FLPMA generally
applies to public land management in
Alaska, rather than section 202. We
agree that referring to ANILCA is
helpful. Other than the land use
planning provisions of section 202 and
the wilderness inventory requirements
in section 603, FLPMA applies to lands
within the Reserve.
Description of the Final Rule
The BLM changed the final rule in
response to comments, adding
references to FLPMA and ANILCA in

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38725

the Authorities section in the final rule,
including the caveat that the land use
planning and wilderness study
requirements of FLPMA do not apply to
lands within the Reserve, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 6506a(c).
Section 2361.4—Responsibility
Existing and Proposed Regulations
Existing § 2361.0–4 is redesignated to
§ 2361.4 in the final rule.
The BLM proposed to modify the
statement in the existing regulations
that, under the NPRPA, the BLM is
responsible for managing surface
resources in the Reserve to add that
BLM is also responsible for managing
the subsurface mineral resources in the
Reserve. The proposed rule also added
that the BLM is responsible for assuring
maximum protection of Special Areas’
significant resource values. The
proposed rule deleted paragraph (b)
because the U.S. Geological Survey is no
longer responsible for managing
exploration in the Reserve. Secretarial
Order 3071, 47 FR 4751 (Feb. 2, 1982);
Secretarial Order 3087, 48 FR 8982–83
(Mar. 2, 1983).
Public Comments on § 2361.4
Comment: The BLM received a
comment stating that the BLM is
responsible for managing subsurface
resources, and therefore the commenter
requested that the rule include a plan
for periodic mineral surveys of the
Reserve so the BLM can more effectively
govern subsurface resources beyond just
oil, gas, and coal.
BLM Response: We decline this
suggestion because it goes beyond the
scope of this rule. In addition, even if
mineral surveys were within the scope
of BLM’s typical activities, they would
be inappropriate here. The NPRPA
withdrew the Reserve from all forms of
entry and disposition under the public
land laws, including the mining and
mineral leasing laws, with the only
exception being certain gravel sales. The
1981 Appropriations Act amended the
NPRPA to allow for the oil and gas
leasing program (42 U.S.C. 6502).
Comment: Commenters recommended
removing the term ‘‘environmental
degradation’’ from the section but did
not provide an explanation for the
change.
BLM Response: The BLM declines to
make this change. The current
regulation at § 2361.0–4 uses the term
‘‘environmental degradation,’’ and the
use of this term in § 2361.0–4 is
consistent with the BLM’s duties and
obligations under applicable laws,
including the NPRPA, FLPMA, and
ANILCA.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

38726

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Comment: Commenters recommended
that because the proposed changes to
the section discuss the BLM’s
responsibility for assuring maximum
protection of Special Areas’ significant
resource values, then the section should
also discuss the need to balance
resource protection with the
responsibility to develop the Reserve’s
oil and natural gas resources.
BLM Response: While the BLM must
‘‘conduct an expeditious program of
competitive leasing of oil and gas’’ in
the Reserve, oil and gas leasing within
the Reserve is addressed in 43 CFR part
3130. Hence, it is not necessary to
include that in the Responsibility
section for this rule.
Description of the Final Rule
The BLM did not change this section
of the proposed rule in the final rule.
Section 2361.4 in the final rule states
that the BLM is responsible for the
surface and subsurface management of
the Reserve, including protecting
surface resources from environmental
degradation and assuring maximum
protection of significant resource values
in Special Areas.
Section 2361.5—Definitions

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Existing and Proposed Regulations
Existing § 2361.0–5 is redesignated to
§ 2361.5 in the final rule.
The BLM proposed to update the
definition for ‘‘exploration’’ to ensure
consistency with NPRPA’s definition of
‘‘petroleum’’ (42 U.S.C. 6501); update
the definition of ‘‘Special Areas’’ for
consistency with other proposed
changes to the regulations; and
incorporate a definition for ‘‘Indigenous
Knowledge,’’ consistent with the
guidance set forth in the Memorandum
issued by CEQ and the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP) on
November 30, 2022. The BLM also
proposed to add new definitions for
‘‘Integrated Activity Plan,’’
‘‘infrastructure,’’ and ‘‘significant
resource value.’’
Public Comments on § 2361.5
Comment: Commenters provided a
general statement of support for § 2361.6
and the new definition for ‘‘Indigenous
Knowledge,’’ consistent with the
guidance set forth in the Memorandum
issued by CEQ and OSTP on November
30, 2022.
BLM Response: We agree that the new
definition will provide useful direction
for the BLM in taking into account
Indigenous Knowledge and add
consistency in implementing CEQ and
OSTP guidance.
Comment: Comments included a
recommendation that the proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

processes for collecting and utilizing
Indigenous Knowledge properly
includes Alaska Native Corporations.
Commenters stated that Alaska Native
Corporations have a unique
congressional mandate to manage
Alaska Native lands for the benefit of
their Alaska Native owners and Alaska
Native Corporations regularly utilize
Indigenous Knowledge to manage
Indigenous-owned lands in Alaska.
Furthermore, Alaska Native
Corporations employ Indigenous
Knowledge holders who understand the
unique aspects of managing these
traditional lands.
BLM Response: We decline this
suggestion because the proposed rule’s
definition of Indigenous Knowledge
already encompasses all Alaska Native
peoples, including Alaska Native
Corporations and other Alaska Native
entities, by specifying that it ‘‘is
developed by Indigenous Peoples
including, but not limited to, Tribal
Nations, American Indians, and Alaska
Natives.’’ Consistent with Departmental
policy found in 512 DM 6, the BLM
recognizes and respects the distinct,
unique, and individual cultural
traditions and values of Alaska Native
peoples and the statutory relationship
between Alaska Native Corporations
and the Federal Government.
Comment: Commenters recommended
that the BLM consider the following
definition of Indigenous Knowledge:
‘‘Indigenous Knowledge means a body
of observations, oral and written
knowledge, practices, and beliefs
developed by Tribes and Indigenous
Peoples through interaction and
experience with the environment. It is
applied to phenomena across biological,
physical, social, spiritual, and cultural
systems. Indigenous Knowledge can be
developed over millennia, continues to
develop, and includes understanding
based on evidence acquired through
direct contact and long-term contact
with the environment and long-term
experiences, as well as extensive
observations, lessons, and skills passed
from generation to generation and
acquired through multigenerational
observations, lessons, and skills over
time. Indigenous Knowledge is
developed by Indigenous Peoples
including, but not limited to, Tribal
Nations, American Indians, and Alaska
Natives’’.
BLM Response: We decline this edit as
it does not meaningfully change or
improve the definition and would not
be consistent with the definition being
used by other Federal agencies.
Comment: Commenters requested the
BLM clarify the definition of
‘‘Indigenous Knowledge’’ or how

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Indigenous Knowledge would be used
in the Reserve. Commenters stated that
the proposed definition could be
interpreted to mean that any person or
entity simply deemed ‘‘Indigenous’’
would have a claim to have Indigenous
Knowledge and that this proposed
definition diminishes the knowledge of
those who actually live in the area as
opposed to those who do not.
BLM Response: We decline this
suggestion. The proposed rule’s
definition of Indigenous Knowledge
encompasses all Alaska Native peoples,
including members of Alaska Native
Corporations and other Alaska Native
entities, by specifying that it ‘‘is
developed by Indigenous Peoples
including, but not limited to, Tribal
Nations, American Indians, and Alaska
Natives.’’ In the final rule, Indigenous
Knowledge, as well as best available
information on subsistence resources
and uses, will be considered in
designating, de-designating and
modifying boundaries or management of
Special Areas. As a result, the
Indigenous Knowledge will need to be
specific to the areas and uses at issue,
which will necessarily be focused on
those informed about resources and uses
on the ground, i.e., members of local
communities and Tribes.
Comment: Commenters requested the
BLM clarify in the proposed rule how
traditional knowledge will be used in
conjunction with recognized scientific
practices and standards of the North
Slope Borough and the State of Alaska,
particularly as those standards relate to
the development in the Arctic and the
Reserve.
BLM Response: We decline this
suggestion. As the proposed rule states
in § 2361.30, Indigenous Knowledge is
included as a part of best available
scientific information.
Comment: Commenters expressed
general support for the reasoning stated
for the proposed definition of
‘‘infrastructure.’’
BLM Response: The BLM appreciates
public support for the proposed
approach.
Comment: Commenters recommended
amending the definition of
‘‘infrastructure’’ by omitting clauses:
‘‘and that is not ephemeral, such as
snow or ice roads’’ and ‘‘but it does not
include exploratory wells that are
drilled in a single season.’’ The
commenter thought these revisions
would strengthen the definition.
BLM Response: We decline this
suggestion. This definition is based on
the framework set out in the IAP to
identify which types of new
infrastructure are subject to prohibitions
within certain areas of the Reserve.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Section 1.2 of the 2022 IAP excludes
single season snow and ice
infrastructure as well as exploratory
wells that are drilled in a single season.
Based on comments received, the BLM
clarified the definition to provide
additional detail about what qualifies as
infrastructure and what types of
structures or improvements are not
considered infrastructure for the
purposes of this rule.
Comment: Some commenters stated
their opinion that the definition of
‘‘infrastructure’’ may violate valid
existing lease rights where a new oil and
gas location for commercial
development would be infrastructure
and is restricted in multiple provisions,
but exploratory wells drilled in a single
season would not be infrastructure nor
under the same restrictions.
BLM Response: The BLM disagrees
with commenters’ assertion. The rule is
incorporating the allocations for
infrastructure from the IAP and using a
similar definition that focuses on
permanent or semi-permanent
structures. Further, the final rule makes
clear that new infrastructure will not be
restricted if the location of the proposed
structures or improvements is necessary
to comport with the terms of a valid
existing lease.
Comment: Commenters stated that the
proposed definition of ‘‘infrastructure’’
creates an arbitrary division between
types of infrastructure. Commenters
noted that infrastructure built to support
science and public safety could have the
same characteristics and features as
infrastructure built to support
commercial oil and gas activities and
could support oil and gas activities, or
vice versa. In addition, commenters
stated that infrastructure associated
with oil and gas development often
includes new roads and local facilities
that benefit the community. On the
North Slope, access to subsistence areas
and connectivity provided by roads is
considered a benefit by many residents.
For example, roads associated with
industrial development near the Native
villages of Utqiagvik and Nuiqsut have
improved the ability of residents to
pursue subsistence opportunities.
BLM Response: The definition of
infrastructure in the final rule applies to
permanent or semi-permanent
structures or improvements that support
oil and gas activities, and does not
apply to other, non-oil and gas
structures or improvements, because
that term is used specifically to
implement the Special Area provision of
the NPRPA, 42 U.S.C. 6504(a) (as
amended), which by its terms applies
only to oil and gas exploration and
production activities. Although the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

general mitigation provision of this rule
(§ 2361.10) applies only to oil and gas
activities, it is not the only tool
available to the BLM for requiring
mitigation in the Reserve. The BLM has
explicit and ample authority under the
NPRPA to apply mitigation
requirements within the reserve, as well
as under NEPA to evaluate potential
mitigation measures as part of the
analysis for proposed actions.
Mitigation for other types of activities,
such as siting and construction of
infrastructure for scientific research or
public safety, may be addressed through
other means, such as implementing
requirements of the IAP for non-oil and
gas infrastructure or as determined
through the analysis in project-specific
decisions. With regard to infrastructure
that benefits communities within the
Reserve, § 2361.10 of the final rule
provides that, when identifying
conditions, restrictions, and
prohibitions necessary or appropriate to
mitigate the reasonably foreseeable and
significantly adverse effects of proposed
oil and gas activities in the portions of
the Reserve outside Special Areas, the
Bureau will fully consider community
access and other infrastructure needs.
Additionally, in response to comments,
the BLM revised the restrictions on new
infrastructure in § 2361.40 of the final
rule to clarify that within Special Areas,
infrastructure that will primarily be
used by and provide a benefit to
communities located within or in close
proximity to the Reserve may be
allowed provided that appropriate
measures are adopted to assure
maximum protection of significant
resource values.
Comment: Commenters stated that the
definition of ‘‘infrastructure’’ would
allow for the authorization of temporary
infrastructure for exploration, but would
delay or prevent the BLM from
authorizing infrastructure to support
commercial development on existing
leases. Comments further stated that this
definition may result in a regulatory
‘‘taking’’ claim.
BLM Response: The final rule
expressly allows for the authorization of
new infrastructure, as defined in
§ 2361.5, that is necessary to honor the
terms of a valid existing lease. The final
rule will therefore not deprive a
leaseholder of its rights under an
existing lease.
Comment: Commenters expressed the
opinion that defining ‘‘infrastructure’’ as
‘‘essentially limited to structures or
improvements in support of commercial
oil and gas activities’’ raises concerns
about what types of infrastructure could
be allowed within Special Areas and
other sensitive regions. For example,

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38727

‘‘Lease Stipulation K–1 does not apply
to intercommunity roads or other
permanent roads constructed with
public funds for general transportation
purposes. While the presence and use of
such roads would have an effect on
caribou and other significant resource
values, it is not clear to what extent
such infrastructure would fall within
the proposed definition and thus come
under the purview of maximum
protection provisions.’’ Commenters
also stated that additional clarity is
needed on ‘‘where access and
infrastructure could be allowed and
how maximum protection will be
assured in such areas.’’
BLM Response: The BLM revised the
definition of ‘‘infrastructure’’ in the
final rule to clarify what structures or
improvements are regulated by this rule.
The final rule defines the term as, ‘‘a
permanent or semi-permanent structure
or improvement that is built to support
commercial oil and gas activities on
BLM-administered lands within the
Reserve, such as pipelines, gravel
drilling pads, man camps, and other
structures or improvements.’’ The
revised definition further clarifies that
‘‘infrastructure’’ does not include
structures or improvements that will
primarily be used by and provide a
benefit to communities located within
or in close proximity to the Reserve. In
addition, the rule is incorporating the
IAP’s prescriptions on infrastructure,
and is not prescribing specific new
measures for management of Special
Areas.
Comment: Commenters recommended
that defining the term ‘‘Integrated
Activity Plan’’ is not necessary, as the
requirement under section 202 of the
FLPMA to prepare land use plans does
not apply to the Reserve and, therefore,
the IAP should not be defined as a land
management plan. Commenters
suggested the IAP is unique to the
Reserve and it should remain that way.
BLM Response: The BLM agrees that
it does not develop IAPs to comply with
section 202 of FLPMA, though it
prepares IAPs to provide a framework
for managing the Reserve. The BLM
believes that the final rule should define
the term ‘‘IAP’’ to accurately describe
the relationship to the requirements in
the rule and IAPs and to assist the BLM
when preparing future IAPs.
Comment: Commenters suggested that
the BLM revise its proposed new
definition of ‘‘significant resource
value’’ to be consistent with 42 U.S.C.
6504(a) and state ‘‘any significant
subsistence, recreational, fish and
wildlife, historical, or scenic value
identified by the BLM as supporting the
designation of a Special Area.’’

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

38728

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Commenters noted that omitting the
word ‘‘significant’’ in the definition in
the proposed rule is outside of BLM
statutory authority and ‘‘incorrectly
lowers the requirements for designation
of Special Areas’’ to have significant
resource values.
BLM Response: The BLM believes that
including the word ‘‘significant’’ in the
definition of ‘‘significant resource
value’’ is redundant and circular. The
definition makes clear that the value
supports designation of a Special Area,
which makes it significant. This
definition is consistent with the NPRPA.
To provide additional clarity and
consistency with the NPRPA, the final
rule specifies that the term ‘‘significant
resource values’’ refers to surface
values.
Comment: Commenters requested a
more precise definition of ‘‘significant
resource value’’ given that ‘‘the creation
and expansion of Special Areas that
would subsequently preclude or
severely limit oil and gas exploration
and development is based on the
presence of a significant resource
value.’’ The comment stated that ‘‘this is
an inadequate and circular definition.’’
BLM Response: The BLM declines this
request. The significant resource values
that BLM is required to assure
maximum protection for are specifically
listed in section 104(b) the NPRPA (42
U.S.C. 6504), and this rule is
implementing the NPRPA.
Comment: Commenters suggested the
BLM revise the definition of ‘‘significant
resource value’’ because the proposed
definition is ‘‘vague and would allow
BLM to designate lands as having
surface resources to support a special
area designation if there are any
subsistence, recreational, fish and
wildlife, historical, or scenic values
contained in the near vicinity.’’
BLM Response: The BLM declines this
request. The definition comes from the
plain language of the NPRPA.
Comment: Commenters believe that
the proposed definition of ‘‘significant
resource value’’ is contrary to statutory
authority and should be revised since it
is ‘‘contrary to the requirements that
Congress established for the designation
of Special Areas.’’ The comment states
that when the definitions for ‘‘Special
Areas’’ and ‘‘significant resource value’’
are considered collectively, the
proposed rule could be interpreted to
remove the statutory requirement that
‘‘restricts the designation of Special
Areas to those areas containing certain
significant values.’’
BLM Response: The BLM disagrees
with the comment’s interpretation of the
two definitions. The definition of
‘‘significant resource value’’ recites the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

specific surface values listed in the
NPRPA that may warrant designation
and management of a Special Area by
the Secretary of the Interior. The
definition of ‘‘Special Area’’ makes clear
those areas must have significant
resource values. These definitions, and
the rest of the regulation, do not provide
for or imply that the BLM would
designate Special Areas in the absence
of significant resource values.
Comment: A commenter suggested
adopting the definition of ‘‘Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern’’ as a
substitute for the definition of ‘‘Special
Areas.’’
BLM Response: We decline that
suggestion. The NPRPA provides a
specific definition of what would be
considered a Special Area, which differs
from the definition of an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern as defined in
FLPMA.
Comment: Commenters requested the
BLM include oil and gas resources as a
‘‘significant resource value’’ given that
the economic opportunity and revenue
generated by oil and gas production
provides significant value to the
residents of the North Slope in the form
of health and emergency services and
other basic needs.
BLM Response: We decline that
suggestion. Section 104(b) of the NPRPA
(42 U.S.C. 6504) specifically lists the
surface resource values that should be
considered—‘‘containing any significant
subsistence, recreational, fish and
wildlife, or historical or scenic value’’—
and oil and gas is not one of them.
Comment: Commenters opined that
the revised definition of ‘‘significant
resource value’’ exceeds statutory
authority in providing that such
designated areas would be protected to
a maximum standard. Commenters
suggested the definition implies that
Special Areas are held to a higher
standard and that reasonable impacts
associated with oil and gas development
are not allowed. Commenters also
opined that the proposed rule expands
the definition of ‘‘Special Areas’’
beyond the scope of law. The definition
would ‘‘impede development of a
competitive leasing and development
program’’ in the Reserve, as intended by
Congress.
BLM Response: We disagree. The
definition in the proposed rule is
consistent with the NPRPA, which
explicitly states, ‘‘to assure the
maximum protection of such surface
values to the extent consistent with the
requirements of this Act.’’
Comment: Commenters recommended
the definition of ‘‘significant resource
value’’ explicitly exclude future oil and
gas leasing, exploration, and

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

development. Commenters believe that
allowing leasing, exploration, and
development within Special Areas is
‘‘contrary to the goal of establishing
Special Areas.’’
BLM Response: The BLM does not
agree with this comment. Allowing
some leasing, exploration, and
development in Special Areas is not
automatically inconsistent with the goal
of Special Areas, which Congress
specifically provided should be given
maximum protection for their
significant resource values consistent
with the requirements of the Act for the
exploration and production of oil and
gas in the Reserve. This rule does not
close areas to any activities beyond the
closures already adopted by the IAP and
leaves additional protective measures
for area-specific analysis, subject to the
processes described in this rule.
Comment: The BLM requested
comments on whether to include the
definition of ‘‘permanent oil and gas
facilities’’ as defined in the 2022 IAP
ROD. Commenters recommended
removing the exclusions in the IAP
definition because exploration
wellheads and seasonal facilities such
as ice roads and ice pads can be
designed for use in successive winters
and therefore should not be excluded.
Commenters recommended that the
BLM expand this definition to clearly
encompass all permanent oil and gas
facilities at any stage, including
exploration and delineation,
development, production,
transportation, and decommissioning.
Commenters encouraged the addition of
water reservoirs and trenching done at
any stage to be added to the definitions
because these activities have long
lasting effects on multiple resources.
Commenters suggested that the
definition include any development that
permanently alters the surface resources
or ecological values. Commenters
recommended removing ‘‘materials sites
such as sand and gravel’’ from the
definition as they are not necessarily oil
and gas related and they can be
reclaimed.
BLM Response: Based on the feedback
received, the BLM is not including a
definition for ‘‘permanent facilities’’ in
the final rule. We believe that the
revised definition of ‘‘infrastructure’’ in
the final rule adequately encompasses
this subject by clarifying that for the
purposes of this rule ‘‘infrastructure’’
includes permanent and semipermanent structures and
improvements, and by providing
explanation and examples of those
structures and improvements.
Comment: The BLM requested
comments on whether to incorporate a

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
proposed definition of ‘‘essential’’ that
resembles provisions of Lease
Stipulation K–12 from the 2022 IAP
ROD. In response to this request, some
commenters stated that defining
‘‘essential’’ would provide clarity, and
that the language of ‘‘no other feasible
and prudent option is available’’ is good
as a constraining description.
Commenters suggested making the
definition prioritize resource protection
over production. Other commenters
opined that the definition of ‘‘essential’’
as written in the proposed rule is
sufficient and is in line with the
purpose of providing maximum
protection to Special Areas.
Commenters pointed out that they
believe the definition of ‘‘essential’’ in
the 2022 IAP ROD differs slightly from
the definition of essential in
§ 2361.40(d)(3).
BLM Response: The BLM is not
including a definition for ‘‘essential’’ in
the final rule. After assessing public
comment and the structure of the rule,
the BLM instead eliminated the
provision in the proposed rule that
limited new permanent infrastructure
related to existing oil and gas leases to
that which is ‘‘essential for exploration
or development activities and no
practicable alternatives exist. . .’’ on
lands within Special Areas that are
allocated as unavailable to new
infrastructure. Therefore, the term
‘‘essential’’ does not appear in the final
rule. The provisions in the IAP,
including the definition of the word
‘‘essential’’ in the stipulations, will
apply.
Comment: Commenters recommended
defining the terms ‘‘reasonably
foreseeable’’ and ‘‘significantly adverse
effects.’’ Commenters also
recommended defining the term
‘‘effects’’ to clarify that effects include
effects on environmental, fish and
wildlife, and historical or scenic values.
BLM Response: We decline this
request. These terms have standard
accepted meanings and have been
further clarified through their use in
NEPA. The term ‘‘effects’’ is used
throughout this rule in reference to
environmental analysis that will occur
and be documented under NEPA, and so
defining the term separately here would
create confusion.
Comment: Commenters recommended
that since ‘‘rural resident’’ is not defined
in 50 CFR 100.4 but is defined in
ANILCA Title VIII, the proposed rule
should not reference 50 CFR 100.4.
BLM Response: The regulations in 50
CFR part 100 implement the Federal
Subsistence Management Program on
public lands within the State of Alaska
pursuant to the authority in Title VIII of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

ANILCA. While the term ‘‘rural
resident’’ is used throughout ANILCA, it
is not specifically defined; however, 50
CFR 100.4 defines the term ‘‘rural’’ and
the term ‘‘resident’’ and then uses those
terms in the definition of ‘‘subsistence
uses.’’ The BLM will retain this citation.
Comment: Commenters
recommending defining the term
‘‘ecological integrity’’ in the rule
because protecting surface resources
requires maintaining the ecological
integrity of surface resources. The
scientific meaning of ‘‘ecological
integrity’’ is the capability of supporting
and maintaining a balanced, integrated,
adaptive community of organisms
having a species composition and
functional organization comparable to
that of the natural habitat of the region.
BLM Response: The BLM did not
include the term ‘‘ecological integrity’’
in the final rule, and therefore it is not
defined in this section of the final rule.
Comment: The BLM received a
comment that the phrase ‘‘minimize the
disruption of natural flow patterns and
changes to water quality’’ should be
replaced with ‘‘maintain natural flow
regimes and the ecological integrity of
lotic and lentic ecosystems.’’ ‘‘Natural
flow regime’’ could be defined as the
magnitude, frequency, duration, timing,
and rate of change of flow events that
characterize the hydrology of a natural
river environment.
BLM Response: This phrase is used in
the 2022 IAP to describe the objectives
of restrictions that the IAP applies to
new oil and gas leases and
infrastructure. The proposed rule and
final rule incorporate the phrase to
explain restrictions in the 2022 IAP that
are codified by the rule. Because the
rule is using language that is used in the
2022 IAP, the BLM declines to change
the wording here, which would create
confusion.
Comment: Commenters recommended
defining the following terms in the
regulation:
• Financial readiness means the
lessee’s financial capability to honor its
contractual obligations.
• U.S. energy needs means the
projected energy consumption of the
United States of America in a given
year, which comes from different
sources such as nuclear power, natural
gas, petroleum, renewable energy, and
coal.
• Financial projection means the
lessee’s financial planning to estimate
expected revenues, expenses, and cash
flows which are normally used to build
a company budget.
• Financial stress means a financial
method designed to simulate the

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38729

lessee’s finances under adversarial
situations.
• Financial balances means all the
financial statements prepared by the
lessee for cooperative reasons or to
report to other U.S. agencies.
BLM Response: These terms do not
appear in the rule text and thus need
not be defined in this rule.
Comment: Some commenters
recommending eliminating the new
definitions for Indigenous Knowledge,
Integrated Activity Plan, infrastructure,
and significant resource values.
BLM Response: We decline those
suggestions. These definitions are
needed to ensure clarity and
consistency in the implementation of
the proposed rule.
Description of the Final Rule
In response to comments, the BLM
revised the definition of
‘‘infrastructure’’ in the final rule to
clarify that the term means, ‘‘a
permanent or semi-permanent structure
or improvement that is built to support
commercial oil and gas activities on
BLM-administered lands within the
Reserve, such as pipelines, gravel
drilling pads, man camps, and other
structures or improvements.’’ The
revised definition further clarifies that
‘‘infrastructure’’ does not include
structures or improvements that will
primarily be used by and provide a
benefit to communities located within
or in close proximity to the Reserve.
The BLM also clarified in the final
rule that the term ‘‘significant resource
values’’ refers to surface values, in order
to ensure consistency with the language
in the NPRPA. Similarly, the BLM made
minor clarifications in the definition of
the term ‘‘Special Areas’’ to ensure
consistency with the language in the
NPRPA. The final rule defines ‘‘Special
Areas’’ as: ‘‘areas within the Reserve
identified by the Secretary or by statute
as having significant resource values
and that are managed to assure
maximum protection of such surface
values, to the extent consistent with the
requirements of the Act for the
exploration and production of the
Reserve.’’
The final rule incorporates the
definition for the term ‘‘co-stewardship’’
that is used in BLM Permanent
Instruction Memorandum No. 2022–011
(Co-Stewardship with Federally
Recognized Indian and Alaska Native
Tribes Pursuant to Secretary’s Order
3403). This definition was added in
response to comments on § 2361.60.
All other definitions included in the
proposed rule are carried forward to the
final rule without change.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

38730

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Section 2361.6—Effect of Law
Existing and Proposed Regulations
Existing § 2361.0–7 is redesignated to
§ 2361.6 in the final rule. The BLM
proposed to update this section to
conform to existing legal authorities,
including adding provisions to
implement the Department of the
Interior Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year
1981, Public Law 96–514 (Dec. 12,
1980), 94 Stat. 2957, 2964, in revised
paragraph (a), and the Barrow Gas Field
Transfer Act of 1984, Public Law 98–
366 (July 17, 1984), 98 Stat. 468, 470, in
new paragraph (b)(4).
Public Comments on § 2361.6
Commenters supported the provision
included at proposed § 2361.6(b)(4)
authorizing the Secretary to grant such
rights-of-way to the North Slope
Borough as may be necessary to permit
the North Slope Borough to provide
energy supplies to villages on the North
Slope. We agree with these comments.
Commenters recommended that this
section state that the rule does not apply
to oil and gas leases issued prior to the
effective date of the rule. The BLM
addresses the rule’s application to
existing oil and gas leases in responses
to comments in section III(E) earlier in
this preamble to the final rule (General
Public Comments, Comments about oil
and gas production).
Description of the Final Rule
The BLM did not change this section
of the proposed rule in the final rule.
Section 2361.7—Severability

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Existing and Proposed Regulations
The BLM proposed this new section
to establish that if any provision of part
2360 is invalidated, then all remaining
provisions would remain in effect.
Public Comments on § 2361.7
Commenters recommended the BLM
remove this section from the final rule
because they see it as unnecessary or
uncharacteristic for a rulemaking. The
BLM decided to retain this section as
proposed in the final rule because the
various components of the rule are
distinct and may operate independently.
As such, they should be considered
separately by a reviewing court, and if
any portion of the rule were to be
invalidated, the remaining provisions
could continue to provide the BLM with
necessary tools to manage oil and gas
activity and protect important resources
in the Reserve.
Many of the provisions simply update
the regulations to bring them more into
line with the BLM’s statutory duties.
Those updates would function

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

independently of the rest of the rule.
The procedural requirements in
§ 2361.10(b) for protecting surface
resources in the Reserve also would
stand alone, as would the codification of
existing Special Areas in § 2361.20, the
procedural requirements in § 2361.30,
the specific requirements for new
infrastructure in § 2361.40, and other
provisions.
Further, the paragraphs within
specific sections may also function
independently of each other. For
example, the final rule’s provisions
pertaining to the management of oil and
gas activities in Special Areas in
§ 2361.40 describe how the authorized
officer will assure maximum protection
for significant resource values while
allowing for exploration and production
within the Reserve. Within that section,
each paragraph serves a separate
function, such as requiring the
authorized officer to avoid the adverse
effects of proposed oil and gas activities
on the significant resource values of
Special Areas; directing the authorized
officer to identify, adopt, and update
maximum protection measures;
prescribing requirements for
considering the authorization of new
leases or infrastructure proposed in
areas allocated as closed to leasing or
unavailable to new infrastructure;
prescribing different requirements for
considering the authorization of new
leases or infrastructure proposed in
areas allocated as available for future oil
and gas leasing or new infrastructure;
and providing the framework for
considering new oil and gas activities
through a NEPA process. Hence, if a
court prevents any provision of one part
of this rule from taking effect, that
should not affect the other parts of the
rule. The remaining provisions would
remain in force.
Description of the Final Rule
The BLM did not change this section
of the proposed rule in the final rule.
Section 2361.10—Protection of Surface
Resources
Existing and Proposed Regulations
Existing § 2361.1 is redesignated to
§ 2361.10 in the final rule, and the title
is changed from ‘‘protection of the
environment’’ to ‘‘protection of surface
resources’’ to more closely track with
the BLM’s statutory authority under 42
U.S.C. 6506a(b), which directs the BLM
to ‘‘provide for such conditions,
restrictions, and prohibitions as the
Secretary deems necessary or
appropriate to mitigate reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

effects on the surface resources of the
[Reserve].’’
The BLM proposed to establish new
standards and procedures for managing
and protecting surface resources in the
Reserve from the reasonably foreseeable
and significantly adverse effects of oil
and gas activities. In 1980, Congress
authorized the Secretary to mitigate
those effects through ‘‘necessary or
appropriate’’ ‘‘conditions, restrictions,
and prohibitions.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6506a(b).
Existing paragraph (a) requires the
authorized officer to take action ‘‘to
mitigate or avoid unnecessary surface
damage and to minimize ecological
disturbance throughout the reserve to
the extent consistent with the
requirements of the Act for the
exploration of the reserve.’’ The BLM
proposed to amend paragraph (a) to
mirror the statutory language. As
amended, paragraph (a) also provided
further clarification by recognizing that,
in some circumstances, the BLM may
delay or deny proposed activities that
would cause reasonably foreseeable and
significantly adverse effects on surface
resources.
The proposed rule deleted existing
paragraph (b). It concerns coordination
between the BLM and the U.S.
Geological Survey, which is no longer
relevant because the Geological Survey
is no longer responsible for managing
exploration in the Reserve. Paragraph
(b) in the proposed rule spelled out new
procedures for protecting surface
resources in the Reserve. As explained
above, Congress assigned the BLM the
duty to protect the surface resources in
the Reserve, but BLM regulations do not
fully explain the scope of that duty. The
proposed rule was drafted to provide
direction to the agency and the public
in complying with Congress’s mandate.
In paragraph (b)(1), the proposed rule
directed the BLM to manage oil and gas
activities in accordance with the IAP. In
doing so, the proposed rule enshrined
longstanding BLM practice into
regulations. As explained above, in the
1980 Amendments to the NPRPA
Congress chose to exempt the Reserve
from FLPMA’s planning requirements
(42 U.S.C. 6506a(c)). Nonetheless, since
1998, the BLM has prepared several
IAPs to primarily govern oil and gas
activities in the Reserve. The IAP is a
form of land use plan that ‘‘addresses a
narrower range of multiple use
management than a resource
management plan.’’ 2013 NPR–A IAP
ROD at 17. In the BLM’s experience, the
IAP provides an invaluable means of
evaluating management options,
engaging the public, and guiding
decision-making, consistent with the
BLM’s responsibilities under applicable

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Federal laws, including NPRPA and
NEPA. Accordingly, the proposed rule
required the BLM to maintain an IAP,
which would provide predictability to
industry and North Slope communities
and help guide BLM use authorizations
in the Reserve but would give way to
the regulations in the event of a conflict.
Paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed rule
required the BLM, in each decision
concerning oil and gas activity in the
Reserve, to adopt measures to mitigate
the reasonably foreseeable and
significantly adverse effects on surface
resources, taking particular care with
surface resources that support
subsistence. The BLM would do so by
documenting for each decision its
consideration of effects and how those
effects informed the choice of mitigation
measures. Paragraphs (b)(3) and (4)
specified that the BLM’s effects analysis
would include any reasonably
foreseeable effects, including indirect
effects (those that are ‘‘later in time or
farther removed in distance’’),
cumulative effects (those ‘‘that result
from the incremental effects of proposed
activities when added to the effects of
other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable actions’’), and ‘‘any
uncertainty concerning the nature,
scope, and duration of potential
effects.’’ For example, if the BLM
determined that a proposed lease sale’s
effects on subsistence resources—when
added to the effects of other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable
actions—could be significantly adverse,
then under this proposed section, the
BLM would need to adopt measures to
mitigate those effects.
The proposed rule deleted existing
paragraphs (c) and (d). Existing
paragraph (c) requires the BLM to take
maximum protection measures on all
actions within Special Areas and
identify the boundaries of Special Areas
on maps. It also describes some
requirements that may constitute
‘‘maximum protection measures.’’
Existing paragraph (d) concerns
designation of new Special Areas. The
proposed rule moved this content to
§§ 2361.20, 2361.30, and 2361.40, as
most appropriate. Moving this material
to those new sections would provide
clarification by focusing § 2361.10 on
protection of surface resources
throughout the Reserve.
Proposed new paragraph (c) clarified
that for surface resources in Special
Areas, the BLM also would have to
comply with the provisions governing
Special Areas in §§ 2361.20 through
2361.60. Moving the provisions
concerning Special Areas to different
sections makes that cross-reference
necessary.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

Proposed new paragraph (d) required
the BLM to include in each oil- and gasrelated decision or authorization, ‘‘such
terms and conditions that provide the
Bureau with sufficient authority to fully
implement the requirements of this
subpart.’’ That provision would ensure
that the BLM incorporates into decision
documents whatever language is
necessary to enable it to implement any
final rule.
Existing paragraph (e)(1) provides that
‘‘the authorized officer may limit,
restrict, or prohibit use of and access to
lands within the Reserve, including
special areas.’’ The existing rule
conditions that authority by requiring it
to be exercised ‘‘consistent with the
requirements of the Act and after
consultation with appropriate Federal,
State, and local agencies and Native
organizations.’’ The proposed rule
specified that the authorized officer has
that authority ‘‘regardless of any
existing authorization.’’ That added
language would clarify that existing
authorizations would not prevent the
BLM from limiting, restricting, or
prohibiting access to the Reserve
consistent with the requirements of the
Act. The proposed rule retained the
condition that exercises of that authority
must be consistent with the NPRPA, and
it added ‘‘and applicable law’’ to clarify
that the authorized officer cannot
contradict other legal requirements.
Instead of requiring the authorized
officer to consult with ‘‘Native
organizations,’’ the proposed rule
provided more specificity by requiring
consultation with federally recognized
Tribes and Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act corporations. Consistent
with the BLM’s duty under NPRPA and
ANILCA, the proposed rule also
amended paragraph (e)(1) to allow the
authorized officer to limit, restrict, or
prohibit use of and access to the Reserve
to protect subsistence uses and
resources.
The proposed rule amended existing
paragraph (f) to recognize the breadth of
Federal laws that apply to the
management and protection of
historical, cultural, and paleontological
resources in the Reserve.
Public Comments on § 2361.10
Comment: Commenters supported
‘‘protection of surface resources’’ and
establishing new standards and
procedures for managing and protecting
surface resources in the Reserve from
the foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects of oil and gas activities.
BLM Response: The BLM appreciates
commenters acknowledging the
intention of the regulations.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38731

Comment: Commenters recommended
changing the title of this section to
‘‘Protection of environmental values,
including surface resources,’’ to reflect
the NPRPA which speaks to ‘‘protection
of environmental . . . values’’ broadly.
42 U.S.C. 6503(b).
BLM Response: The reference to
surface resources is consistent with the
NPRPA, which provides: ‘‘Activities
undertaken pursuant to this Act shall
include or provide for such conditions,
restrictions, and prohibitions as the
Secretary deems necessary or
appropriate to mitigate reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects on the surface resources of the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.’’
43 U.S.C. 6506a(b). The BLM did not
change the title of this section in the
final rule.
Comment: Commenters recommended
revising proposed § 2361.10 to
emphasize the overarching purpose of
the Reserve for oil and gas production
by clarifying that the NPRPA requires
resource protection ‘‘to the extent
consistent with the requirements of this
Act for the exploration of the reserve.’’
Other commenters recommended
revising proposed § 2361.10 to
emphasize the overarching purpose of
the Reserve for environmental
protection by clarifying that the NPRPA
requires protection of environmental
values, including, but not limited to,
surface resources.
BLM Response: The BLM believes
§ 2361.10 appropriately reflects the
mandates in the NPRPA to conduct an
oil and gas leasing and production
program in the Reserve while protecting
environmental, fish and wildlife, and
historical and scenic values within the
Reserve. The NPRPA specifically directs
the BLM to mitigate adverse effects on
the surface resources of the Reserve
when conducting the oil and gas
program. The BLM added the phrase
‘‘oil and gas’’ to modify ‘‘activities’’
throughout this section of the final rule
to clarify that these regulations are
specific to the BLM’s implementation of
its oil and gas program in the Reserve.
We also note that the final rule in
§ 2361.40 references the BLM’s mandate
under the NPRPA to assure maximum
protection of significant resource values
in Special Areas ‘‘consistent with the
requirements of the NPRPA for
exploration and production of the
Reserve.’’
Comment: Commenters recommended
that the BLM develop and explain the
criteria it will use to determine the
scope of effects that are both
‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ and
‘‘significantly adverse’’ to provide

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

38732

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

transparency and promote regulatory
certainty.
BLM Response: We decline that
suggestion. These terms have a generally
accepted meaning, including as a part of
any NEPA analysis, and are also covered
in the NEPA regulations in 40 CFR part
1500. Providing additional definitions
in the rule would not add more clarity.
Comment: Commenters recommended
the rule should articulate that continued
oil and gas activities at any scale in the
Reserve will cause reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects on surface resources in the
Reserve and prohibit new leasing and
production throughout the Reserve, as
well as require delaying or denying
proposed activities that would hinder
the protection of surface resources.
BLM Response: The BLM does not
accept these recommendations. The
requirements of the rule are consistent
with the plain language of the NPRPA
that requires all oil and gas activities in
the Reserve be subject to ‘‘such
conditions, restrictions, and
prohibitions as the Secretary deems
necessary or appropriate to mitigate
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects.’’ Further, § 2361.10(a)
specifically provides for the BLM to
condition, delay, or deny some or all
proposed activities as may be necessary
to fulfill these requirements.
Comment: The BLM received
comments stating that, while the
preamble states that the Reserve’s
standards related to the protection of
surface values would also fulfill the
BLM’s mandate to take action necessary
to prevent unnecessary or undue
degradation, there is no mention of this
obligation in the proposed rule.
Commenters requested that the BLM
add provisions that expressly reference
and incorporate unnecessary or undue
degradation standards or include cross
references to those standards in
§§ 2361.10 and 2361.40.
BLM Response: The BLM declines the
request to expressly reference FLPMA’s
unnecessary or undue degradation
provision in the rule. FLPMA requires
the BLM to prevent unnecessary or
undue degradation on all BLM-managed
public land. This mandate applies to a
broader range of uses within the Reserve
than are being addressed in this rule
and the BLM will prevent unnecessary
and undue environmental degradation
within the Reserve whether or not it is
specifically identified in §§ 2361.10 and
2361.40. Nevertheless, the BLM did add
FLPMA to the Authorities section of the
rule.
Comment: The BLM received
comments stating that the NPRPA
requires mitigation, but commenters

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

expressed concern that the rule focuses
on prevention.
BLM Response: The BLM follows a
mitigation hierarchy that generally
includes avoidance as the first step in
mitigating adverse effects on public land
resources and values, consistent with
the CEQ regulations implementing
NEPA, particularly 40 CFR 1508.1(s). In
pursuit of the BLM’s mandate under the
NPRPA to ‘‘provide for such conditions,
restrictions, and prohibitions as the
Secretary deems necessary or
appropriate to mitigate reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects on the surface resources of the
[Reserve]’’, the rule draws on all steps
of the mitigation hierarchy, including
preventing impacts entirely through
avoidance where appropriate. For
example, § 2361.10(a) requires the
Bureau to protect surface resources by
adopting appropriate measures to
mitigate reasonably foreseeable and
significantly adverse effects of proposed
oil and gas activities; § 2361.10(b)(2)
requires the authorized officer to adopt
measures to mitigate reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects on surface resources, particularly
with regard to those resources that
support subsistence use and needs; and
§ 2361.40(g) requires the authorized
officer to evaluate and require
mitigation measures to address adverse
effects on significant resource values
when considering authorizing oil and
gas leasing or new infrastructure in a
Special Area.
Comment: The BLM received
comments concerning the phrase,
‘‘delaying action on, or denying some or
all aspects of proposed activities’’ in
proposed § 2361.10(a). Some
commenters suggested that the BLM
lacks the statutory authority to delay or
deny activities in the Reserve. Other
commenters supported the provision in
the proposed rule and recommended the
BLM describe circumstances that would
warrant denying proposed activities.
Commenters recommended this
provision should discuss mitigating
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects to the climate.
Commenters requested the final rule
specifically provide that if differences in
caribou behavior, distribution, or
harvests are detected, BLM will prohibit
additional development.
BLM Response: The NPRPA provides
the BLM with the authority to ‘‘provide
for such conditions, restrictions, and
prohibitions as the Secretary deems
necessary or appropriate to mitigation
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects on the surface resources
of the [Reserve].’’ Additionally, the
BLM’s oil and gas lease forms for leases

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

issued in the Reserve include terms that
enable the BLM to require measures
deemed necessary to minimize adverse
impacts to the land, air, and water; to
cultural, biological, visual, and other
resources; and to other land uses or
users. Examples of how the BLM might
exercise this authority would be to
reduce the number of drill pads or
density of roads in a development
proposal to protect caribou calving,
restrict timing on drilling activities to
protect subsistence activities, or phase
project components to limit the amount
of habitat being impacted at a given
time.
Analyzing climate impacts of oil and
gas development is not part of this rule,
which is focused on impacts to surface
values of special areas and surface
resources broadly. Climate change
impacts the surface values that the BLM
is required to protect, including
subsistence resources, fish and wildlife
habitat, and recreation opportunities,
and those impacts will be analyzed and
addressed through NEPA processes
when evaluating potential projects.
Similarly, the BLM is not addressing
specific resource values such as caribou
in the rule; however, caribou habitat
will be considered as a significant
resource value where appropriate as the
BLM implements the rule.
Comment: Commenters stated
concerns that proposed § 2361.10(a) will
result in violations of valid existing
lease rights, and that the BLM should
provide clear assurance that the
government will not withhold approval
for reasonable proposals for
infrastructure, such as roads and
pipelines, necessary to bring valid
existing leases into production.
BLM Response: We do not agree with
these assertions. The BLM will
implement § 2361.10(a) consistent with
valid existing lease rights. As discussed
in more detail in section III(E) above,
while the rule will not affect the terms
of an existing lease or approved
development project or permit, future
development of an existing lease may be
subject to additional terms and
conditions if necessary to ensure that
the BLM’s decision is consistent with its
statutory responsibility to mitigate
reasonably foreseeable adverse effects of
oil and gas activity on the surface
resources as required by the NPRPA. For
example, the Willow Master
Development Plan includes numerous
lease stipulations, required operating
procedures, and mitigation measures
intended to avoid, minimize, or
otherwise mitigate the effects of oil and
gas production on surface resources.
Comment: The BLM received
comments stating that the proposed rule

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
is not adaptive as it only requires future
leases to comply with lease stipulations
and ‘‘by exempting all the currently
authorized activities, the BLM
constrains its ability to adapt its
resource management strategy in
response to climate change.’’ The BLM
also received comments stating that
‘‘concerns about breach-of-contract
claims against the Federal Government
are ill-founded as BLM has reserved the
right—in the lease itself—to set the rate
of production.’’ The commenters state
that the BLM can use the authority
granted in the lease language to create
regulations that deny or prohibit
additional oil and gas exploration and
development as well as suspend
operations and production of current
drilling. Comments express that the
NPRPA gives BLM authority to restrict
or suspend activities in the Reserve and
state that the BLM ‘‘can do so ‘in the
interest of conservation of natural
resources’ or to ‘mitigate reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects on surface resources.’ ’’
BLM Response: The rule will apply to
existing leases to the extent it is
compatible with the terms of those
leases. The BLM is not exempting all
currently authorized activities but is
constrained by valid existing rights.
Comment: Commenters recommended
that the BLM state that its ability to
impose mitigation is only related to
activities specifically undertaken
pursuant to the NPRPA, and that for
mitigation to apply, the NPRPA activity
must cause effects ‘on the surface
resources’ of the Reserve.
Commenters requested that the BLM
make commitments related to mitigation
measures for the ecosystems and species
affected by oil and gas development, as
well as design and adopt a
comprehensive mitigation plan for
impacts to threatened or endangered
species in the Reserve. The BLM
received comments requesting the BLM
supplement its 2022 IAP with
additional mitigation measures that
address the impacts of all permitted
activities in the Reserve as well as the
cumulative impacts of actions outside of
agency control.
BLM Response: As discussed above,
the BLM has authority to require
mitigation of impacts to public lands
resources from authorizations and other
Federal actions in the Reserve,
consistent with the NPRPA and FLPMA.
For example, the NPRPA requires that
oil and gas authorizations include
provisions to mitigate reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects on surface resources. The rule is
clear that the mitigation requirements in
§ 2361.10(b)(2) apply to adverse effects

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

on surface resources of the Reserve, and
the final rule specifies in paragraph (b)
that the requirements in the section
apply to proposed oil and gas activities.
The BLM further notes that although
this rule would only apply to oil and gas
activities, protection of surface
resources from other actions may be
addressed through other means, such as
the IAP and site-specific authorizations.
The BLM is not developing mitigation
plans or supplementing the 2022 IAP as
part of this rulemaking process.
Comment: Commenters recommended
adding evaluation procedures before
proposed § 2361.10(b)(1) that would
require the BLM to evaluate the
condition of surface resources within
the Reserve at least every 5 years,
including a climate impacts assessment.
Commenters recommended adding a
new section requiring a commitment to
survey and monitor significant surface
resources on an on-going basis and to
rigorously study changes in and impacts
to those resources.
Commenters recommended that the
regulations require the BLM to establish
baseline data for resources in the
Reserve, including specifically caribou
distribution and movement, subsistence
food contamination, and air quality
data.
BLM Response: The BLM does not
currently have the resources to conduct
a full evaluation of all surface resources
in the Reserve every 5 years. Under
§ 2361.30, the BLM will evaluate the
Reserve for significant resource values
every 10 years, which will provide
important resource inventory and
monitoring information at regular
intervals and enable the BLM to study
changes to those resources over time,
including the impacts from a changing
climate. Additionally, under
§ 2361.10(b)(1), the BLM will maintain
an IAP addressing management of all
BLM-administered lands and minerals
throughout the Reserve. The IAP
amendment process will provide
opportunities for the BLM to evaluate
all surface resources within the Reserve
on a regular basis and update baseline
data for those resources.
Comment: Commenters stated that the
BLM must ensure an appropriate
framework for IAP development that is
consistent with Federal law and follows
NEPA’s process for public participation.
The BLM received a comment
requesting that the language in the
proposed rule requiring the BLM to
maintain an IAP for the Reserve be
removed from the rule as it could
prematurely restrict the BLM’s ability to
make informed decisions with respect to
future IAPs.

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38733

BLM Response: The BLM has been
preparing IAPs since 1998 through a
NEPA process and is incorporating this
requirement into the rule to ensure
ongoing, robust public participation in
preparation of these management plans.
Merely requiring the BLM to maintain
an IAP for the Reserve does not restrict
decision-making space for future IAP
amendments.
Comment: Commenters discussed
integrating the 2022 IAP into the rule;
some commenters were concerned that
the IAP would not address long-term
impacts from resource extraction and
asked the BLM to perform a
comprehensive review of the plan.
Other comments requested the BLM
support and align with the IAP as it is
a system that already works and is
‘‘highly protective of surface resources
in the NPR–A, but it does not preclude
oil and gas development.’’
BLM Response: The 2022 IAP was
based on a previous, multi-year
environmental analysis and public
engagement process. The BLM is not
reviewing the plan at this time. The rule
aligns with the 2022 IAP and codifies
portions of it related to Special Area
designation and management.
Comment: Commenters recommended
the rule require measures to mitigate
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects on carbon storage, an
ecosystem service that is currently
provided by boreal peatlands and
permafrost. Commenters recommended
the rule require measures to mitigate
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects on caribou and their
habitat.
BLM Response: The NPRPA requires
that oil and gas authorizations including
provisions to mitigate reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects on surface resources. The rule is
clear that the mitigation requirements in
§ 2361.10(b)(2) apply to adverse effects
on surface resources of the Reserve, and
the final rule specifies in paragraph (b)
that the requirements in the section
apply to proposed oil and gas activities.
In addition, the BLM has authority to
mitigate impacts to public lands
resources from authorizations and other
Federal actions in the Reserve,
consistent with the NPRPA and FLPMA.
The BLM is not developing mitigation
measures for specific resources as part
of this rulemaking process.
Comment: Commenters suggested that
the requirement in proposed
§ 2361.10(b)(3) to consider any
reasonably foreseeable effects, including
indirect effects and cumulative effects,
unnecessarily duplicates the BLM’ s
existing obligations under NEPA. Other
commenters recommended that the

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

38734

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

BLM clarify in proposed § 2361.10(b)(3)
that reasonably foreseeable effects
include effects from activities that have
not yet been proposed but that are
induced by the proposed activity. The
BLM received comments stating that the
NPRPA does not authorize the BLM to
consider incremental effects of proposed
activities when authorizing activities in
the NPRPA nor does it allow the BLM
to condition, restrict, or prohibit
activities because of potential effects
from activities outside of the Reserve.
BLM Response: The BLM removed
§ 2361.10(b)(3) from the final rule
because it was duplicative of the
agency’s obligations under NEPA and
potentially confusing to restate in the
rule. We note that NEPA obligates the
BLM to analyze direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts, including to
consideration of the impacts of
reasonably foreseeable future actions,
when making decisions about
authorizing activities.
Comment: The BLM received
comments regarding proposed
§ 2361.10(b)(4), specifically the use,
meaning, and implication of the phrase
‘‘any uncertainty concerning the nature,
scope, and duration of potential effects’’
in the proposed rule. Some commenters
suggested that the BLM lacks the
statutory authority to consider ‘‘any
uncertainty’’ in potential effects and
then implement restrictions on
proposed activities that ‘‘account for
and reflect such uncertainty’’ for any
impacts. Other commenters supported
the requirement in the proposed rule for
the BLM to account for uncertainty
regarding potential impacts of proposed
development and recommended the
final rule include more specificity about
what qualifies as uncertainty and how it
can be considered in decisions.
BLM Response: We decline these
suggestions. Considering uncertainty is
a standard practice for any Federal
agency that completes NEPA analysis.
Agencies are required to use high
quality information and science and
data when conducting their analysis. To
the extent there are uncertainties,
current regulations in 40 CFR 1502.21(a)
address incomplete or unavailable
information in analysis and state that
‘‘When an agency is evaluating
reasonably foreseeable significant
adverse effects on the human
environment in an environmental
impact statement, and there is
incomplete or unavailable information,
the agency shall make clear that such
information is lacking.’’ The text in the
regulation builds on the language in the
NEPA regulations to require more
specific discussion of how the BLM is
taking uncertainties into account in

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

making decisions, which is within the
BLM’s authority and beneficial in light
of the rapidly changing conditions in
the Arctic.
Comment: Commenters recommended
§ 2361.10(b)(4) explicitly state that the
BLM must base its decisions on the best
available science and will not rely
solely on the lack of scientific certainty
when declining to impose any
conditions, restrictions, or prohibitions.
BLM Response: The BLM declines this
request. Including this language would
be duplicative of the requirements of the
NEPA process and other aspects of the
regulation.
Comment: Commenters recommended
adding a new § 2361.10(b)(5) that states:
In assessing effects of a decision
concerning proposed activity in the
Reserve, the Bureau will identify and
evaluate any significantly adverse
effects of its decision, including any
effects on environmental, fish and
wildlife, and historical or scenic values
that are individually or collectively
significant and any impacts associated
with greenhouse gas emissions.
BLM Response: The BLM declines this
request. The first part of the proposed
requirement is duplicative with the
BLM’s NEPA process and the
requirement in the NPRPA to mitigate
significantly adverse effects. Further,
analyzing the climate impacts of oil and
gas development is not part of this rule,
which is focused on addressing impacts
to significant resource values of Special
Areas and surface resources in the
Reserve. The BLM analyzes climate
impacts as part of NEPA analysis when
evaluating potential projects, including
leasing and development decisions.
Comment: Commenters expressed
concern with limiting consultation in
paragraph (e)(1) to federally recognized
Tribes and ANCSA corporations and
requested that BLM consultation be
more inclusive than just those two
groups. Commenters requested the BLM
add a requirement to engage in
meaningful communication and
consultation with local villages and
Tribes to ensure the new regulations
meet the needs and concerns of the
communities who rely on the Reserve.
BLM Response: The BLM did not
consider a broader approach to
consultation in the proposed rule, and
so the final rule does not adopt such an
approach. The BLM works closely with
local communities when making
management decisions for the Reserve
and will continue to engage and
communicate with local communities in
implementing the rule, independent of
formal consultation efforts.
While not considered government-togovernment consultation, per 512 DM 6,

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

it is the policy of the Department to
recognize and fulfill its legal obligations
to consult with ANCSA Corporations on
the same basis as Alaska Native Tribes.
Native organizations are always invited
to participate in the public-involvement
periods of NEPA projects and lend their
voices to management actions within
the Reserve or on any BLM-managed
public lands.
Comment: Commenters recommended
the BLM define the role of the North
Slope Science Initiative (NSSI) with
respect to surveys and monitoring, the
evaluation of effects, recommendations
for modified protections and
restrictions, and mitigation measures.
BLM Response: The NSSI is an
advisory body that is intended to
coordinate inventories, monitoring, and
research for a better understanding of
terrestrial, aquatic, and marine
ecosystems of the North Slope of
Alaska, and was established by the
Secretary pursuant to section 348 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law
109–58, 119 Stat. 594, 708 (2005)
(codified at 42 U.S.C. 15906). While the
NSSI provides valuable information, the
BLM does not believe it is appropriate
for these regulations that apply only to
BLM-managed public lands in the
Reserve to define NSSI’s role. The NSSI
is a body that coordinates scientific
efforts between agencies and provides
guidance and recommendations to the
Secretary, the BLM, and other agencies
within the Department.
Comment: Commenters recommended
the BLM include a presumption against
all oil and gas activities in § 2361.10
similar to the presumption proposed in
§ 2361.40(c) to ensure protection against
significantly adverse effects.
BLM Response: A presumption
against all oil and gas activities in the
Reserve would not be consistent with
the NPRPA, which requires the BLM to
conduct an oil and gas leasing program
in the Reserve. The NPRPA imposes
special requirements on the BLM to
protect significant resource values
within Special Areas, which is why the
presumption is only included in
§ 2361.40. We note the final rule
provides opportunities for the BLM to
avoid and mitigate adverse impacts on
surface resources generally. For
example, § 2361.10(a) requires the BLM
to protect surface resources by adopting
whatever conditions, restrictions, and
prohibitions it deems necessary or
appropriate to mitigate reasonably
foreseeable and significantly adverse
effects of proposed oil and gas activities,
including conditioning, delaying action
on, or denying some or all aspects of
proposed oil and gas activities.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: Commenters recommended
the final rule stipulate that the BLM will
not waive lease stipulations or
mitigation provided by Required
Operating Procedures (ROPs) unless the
threats to the resources that supported
the ROPs no longer exist.
BLM Response: We decline that
suggestion. ROPs are a standard practice
across the BLM and describe the
protective measures that the BLM will
impose on applicants during the
permitting process. Similar to lease
stipulations, the objective of a ROP must
be met in order for exceptions,
modifications, or waivers to be granted
under the 2022 IAP. At the permitting
stage, the BLM authorized officer will
not include those ROPs that, because of
their location or other inapplicability,
are not relevant to a specific permit
application. We also note that at the
permit stage, the BLM may establish
additional requirements as warranted to
protect the land, resources, and uses in
accordance with the BLM’s
responsibilities under relevant laws and
regulations.
Comment: Commenters recommended
the rule require the BLM to consider
and adopt as necessary measures to
specify the rates of development and
production in the public interest.
Commenters recommended the rule
include a provision that the BLM may
specify the rate of production and limit
or suspend activity on leases.
Commenters also requested that the rule
update the pricing of bonds or schemes
that standardize financial health
requirements for lessees (such as those
found in the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act) and reflect the
true cost of development and the
increased risk of abandonment for oil
and gas projects in the Reserve.
BLM Response: The BLM declines this
request. Regulations for oil and gas
leasing and production within the
Reserve are covered in 43 CFR part
3130, which the BLM is not revising in
this rule. The standard lease terms and
conditions also provide for the BLM to
provide conditions on production.
Comment: Commenters recommended
the BLM recognize and enforce water
quality standards identified by Native
landowners near Utqiagvik and Nuiqsut
to protect watersheds that extend
beyond Special Areas.
BLM Response: We decline that
suggestion. While the BLM requires
compliance with applicable laws, this
addition would be outside the scope of
this rulemaking.
Comment: Commenters asked for
clarification in § 2361.10 about
subsistence use under ANILCA section

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

811, and recreational shooting under the
Dingell Act.
BLM Response: We decline that
suggestion. The proposed rule addresses
oil and gas activities and does not limit
subsistence use access or preclude
recreational shooting.
Comment: Commenters requested
increased protections for vegetation, as
regeneration of vegetation is dependent
on environmental conditions.
BLM Response: We decline this
suggestion. Vegetation is included
because it is encompassed by ‘‘the
environmental, fish and wildlife, and
historical and scenic values of the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.’’
Comment: Commenters expressed
concern about the ability to challenge
the BLM’s oil and gas related decisions.
BLM Response: The regulation does
not change procedural requirements for
public participation in the BLM’s
decision-making processes.
Comment: Commenters asked the
BLM to include burying pipelines in
lease requirements.
BLM Response: This issue is
addressed at the project level, as a
mitigation measure or design feature
associated with a specific development
proposal. The BLM declines to include
this requirement in this regulation.
Comment: Commenters expressed
support for the BLM’s integration of the
IAP into the proposed rule, including in
sections pertaining to protection of
surface resources and designation and
management of Special Areas, regarding
the obligation that the BLM must
consult specifically with ‘‘federally
recognized Tribes’’ not ‘‘Native
organizations.’’
BLM Response: We appreciate the
support.
Comment: Commenters requested that
the BLM analyze future development on
a case-by-case basis prioritizing
consultation and coordination with
those people who are directly impacted.
BLM Response: The BLM analyzes
specific development proposals on a
case-by-case basis through the NEPA
process, and that process is unchanged
by this regulation. The BLM will
continue to consult with appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies, and
with federally recognized Tribes, and
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
corporations as required by laws,
regulations, and policies governing
government-to-government
consultation. The BLM also made minor
edits to the language of this section for
clarity. The BLM will also continue to
engage stakeholders, local communities,
and the general public in decisionmaking processes for development
projects.

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38735

Description of the Final Rule
In response to comments, the BLM
removed paragraph (b)(3) from the final
rule because it is duplicative of
environmental analysis requirements
under NEPA. The BLM also added ‘‘oil
and gas’’ before the word ‘‘activities’’
throughout the section to clarify that the
requirements of this rule only apply to
oil and gas activities. The final rule
clarifies that new use authorizations
must conform to any designation or
modifications of Special Areas that have
occurred outside of the IAP.
The final rule replaces ‘‘Bureau’’ with
‘‘authorized officer’’ to provide clarity
about the BLM official responsible for
implementing requirements in the rule.
The final rule defines authorized officer
as ‘‘any employee of the Bureau of Land
Management who has been delegated
the authority to perform the duties of
this subpart.’’ This term refers to an
employee that carries out duties that are
carefully circumscribed by this rule,
other relevant regulations, and Bureau
policy, such as the BLM delegation of
authority manual. This employee’s
duties are also subject to the control or
direction of other executives including
the BLM Director, the Assistant
Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management, the Deputy Secretary, and
the Secretary, all of whom are officers
of the United States, appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate.
The remainder of the section is
unchanged from the proposed rule.
Section 2361.20—Existing Special Areas
Existing and Proposed Regulations
The existing regulations only identify
the Colville River, Teshekpuk Lake, and
Utukok River Uplands Special Areas by
name (§ 2361.1(c)); they do not account
for the Kasegaluk Lagoon and Peard Bay
Special Areas. Further, the current
regulations do not identify or describe
the significant resource values
associated with each Special Area.
Under the NPRPA, the BLM must assure
maximum protection of each of these
values consistent with exploration of
the Reserve. In pursuit of that
obligation, the proposed rule
established new § 2361.20 to
incorporate all five of the existing
Special Areas into part 2360 and
identify the significant subsistence,
recreational, fish and wildlife,
historical, and scenic values that are
associated with each of them.
The proposed rule required any lands
designated as a Special Area to continue
to be managed as such for the alreadyidentified values and any additional
values identified through the process set
forth in new § 2361.30. The existing

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

38736

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

regulations (§ 2361.1(c)) require the
boundaries of the Special Areas to be
depicted on maps available for public
inspection in the BLM’s Fairbanks
District Office. Proposed § 2361.20
specified that a map of each Special
Area would be available at the Arctic
District Office, which is now the BLM
office that oversees the Reserve. The
BLM would also publish and maintain
copies of these maps on its website.
Public Comments on § 2361.20
Comment: The BLM received
comments expressing support of the
existing Special Areas section, stating
appreciation for proposing to recognize
all five of the existing Special Areas and
their significant resource values in
regulations. Commenters believe that
this establishes management priorities
against which development proposals
can be evaluated and mitigated.
BLM Response: We agree recognizing
all existing Special Areas in the
regulation will provide increased
transparency and clarity for managing
these areas and their significant
resource values.
Comment: Commenters recommended
changes to management of existing
Special Areas, such as by closing them
to oil and gas leasing and development
and strengthening prohibitions against
oil and gas infrastructure or
development impacts.
BLM Response: The BLM is not
changing the specific management
prescriptions for existing Special Areas
as part of this rulemaking process, as
those decisions were most recently
identified in the 2022 IAP. The rule
codifies the existing Special Areas and
their significant resource values as
currently established in Secretarial
decisions. The final rule establishes a
process in § 2361.30 for designating,
amending, and de-designating Special
Areas. Changes to management of
existing Special Areas will follow that
process.
Comment: Commenters recommended
changes to the boundaries of existing
Special Areas and specified additional
values associated with existing Special
Areas and recommended the BLM add
those values to the final rule.
Comments specific to the Teshekpuk
Lake Special Area include:
• Polar bears have begun inhabiting
the Teshekpuk Lake area due to the
receding sea ice and should be
identified as a significant resource
value;
• Pik Dunes has unique geologic
character, insect-relief habitat for
caribou, rare endemic plant
populations, use by various water and
shorebirds, and scenic and recreational

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

value, and should be closed to fluid
mineral leasing, new infrastructure, and
other activities including sand and
gravel mining;
• The Special Area should be
expanded to include the area between
the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area
western boundary and the village of
Atqasuk, which has high density of
Yellow-billed loons, Red-throated
Loons, King Eider, raptor nests, and
caribou calving sites;
• The Qupaluk Flyway Network Site
be reviewed to ensure that it is not
available for leasing or infrastructure;
and
• The Special Area is unnecessarily
large, and the BLM should re-analyze
the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area
boundaries before finalizing the rule.
Comments specific to the Colville
River Special Area include:
• The final rule should be updated to
reflect the following special resource
values are present in the Special Area:
caribou summer range, winter range,
and migratory connectivity; suitable
Wild and Scenic Rivers; Yellow-billed
loons; raptors; and moose;
• The Colville River Delta is
particularly important for birds and
should be closed to all to oil and gas
leasing;
• The Arctic peregrine falcon has
been delisted, so the Special Area
should be decreased or eliminated;
• The Special Area should be
considered critical habitat for the Arctic
peregrine falcon; and
• Parts of the Special Area,
specifically Ocean Point, are important
for subsistence, yet heavy traffic and
long-term impacts from development
threaten caribou migration and
subsistence hunting.
Comments specific to the Kasegaluk
Lagoon Special Area include:
• The Special Area is important for
brants, shorebird migration,
Red-throated and Yellow-billed loons,
and the significant resource values for
the Special Area should include
high-use staging and migration area for
waterfowl, shorebirds, loons, and other
waterbirds.
Comments specific to the Utukok
River Uplands Special Area include:
• The final rule should be updated to
reflect that suitable Wild and Scenic
Rivers are special resource values in the
Special Area;
• The final rule should designate an
area north and west of the Kokolik River
near the west boundary of the Reserve
as part of the Utukok River Uplands
Special Area to help avoid river
crossings of the Kokolik River to access
potential development areas and better
protect the Kokolik River; and

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

• The final rule should move the
northern border of the area unavailable
for leasing and new infrastructure to
cover all of the Utukok River Upland
Special Area as this area was not
included in the area made unavailable
for leasing and infrastructure in the
2013 IAP. Commenters state that the
reasons for excluding it no longer exist
and failing to make this area unavailable
for leasing infrastructure may lead to
Western Arctic Caribou Herd calving
habitat loss under possible future
developments.
BLM Response: The BLM did not
amend the rule in response to specific
comments regarding the significant
resource values or boundaries of
existing Special Areas. The rule merely
codifies the existing Special Areas and
their significant resource values as
currently identified by Secretarial
decisions designating or amending the
Special Areas. The final rule establishes
a process in § 2361.30 for designating,
amending, and de-designating Special
Areas. Changes to existing Special
Areas, including identifying additional
values and changing management, will
follow that process, recognizing that the
BLM may not remove lands from the
Teshekpuk Lake and Utukok River
Uplands Special Areas unless directed
to do so by statute. The protections for
a surface value in a Special Area are not
limited to those protections in the IAP
or other Secretarial decisions relating to
the establishment of Special Areas. For
example, polar bears are protected by
the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and the Endangered
Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544.
Indeed, as shown in the 2013 IAP map
3.3.8–6, a significant portion of polar
bear denning critical habitat in the
Reserve and a number of identified dens
are located within the Teshekpuk Lake
Special Area, which provides an
additional layer of protection for that
species.
Description of the Final Rule
The BLM did not change this section
of the proposed rule in the final rule.
The following existing Special Areas are
codified in the final rule:
• Colville River Special Area, which
has important habitat for raptor and
other bird species, including the Arctic
peregrine falcon; important habitat for
moose; important habitat for fish;
important subsistence activities;
important recreational activities; worldclass paleontological deposits; and
significant cultural resources;
• Kasegaluk Lagoon Special Area,
which has important habitat for marine
mammals; unique ecosystem for the
Arctic Coast; opportunities for primitive

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
recreational experiences; important
habitat for migratory birds; and
important subsistence activities;
• Peard Bay Special Area, which has
haul-out areas and nearshore waters for
marine mammals; and high-use staging
and migration areas for shorebirds and
waterbirds;
• Teshekpuk Lake Special Area,
which has important habitat for a large
number of migratory and other
waterbirds; important caribou habitat;
important shorebird habitat; subsistence
hunting and fishing activities; Pik
Dunes; and overwintering habitat for
fish; and
• Utukok River Uplands Special Area,
which has important habitat for the
Western Arctic Caribou Herd;
subsistence hunting activities; grizzly
bear habitat; and important wilderness
values.
Additional details on the significant
resource values of each Special Area are
found in the preamble to the proposed
rule.
Section 2361.30—Special Areas
Designation and Amendment Process

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Existing and Proposed Regulations
The existing regulations provide
general direction for recommending and
considering additional Special Areas in
§ 2361.1(d). In the past, the BLM has
typically designated Special Areas, and
received Special Area recommendations
from the public and stakeholders,
through the IAP revision and
amendment process. Enumerating
procedures for designating and
amending Special Areas in the
regulations will provide clarity for
stakeholders and ensure that the BLM
fulfills its statutory obligation to assure
maximum protection of Special Areas’
significant resource values.
The proposed rule added a new
section to provide standards and
procedures for designating and
amending Special Areas. Paragraph (a)
required the BLM, at least once every 5
years, to evaluate lands in the Reserve
for significant resource values and
designate new Special Areas or update
existing Special Areas by expanding
their boundaries, recognizing the
presence of additional significant
resource values, or requiring additional
measures to assure maximum protection
of significant resource values. Paragraph
(a)(2) allowed, but did not require, the
BLM to conduct this evaluation through
the IAP amendment process. Paragraph
(a)(3) required the BLM to rely on the
best available scientific information,
including Indigenous Knowledge, and
the best available information

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

concerning subsistence uses and
resources.
Paragraph (a)(4) required the BLM to
provide meaningful opportunities for
public participation in the evaluation
process, including review and comment
periods and, as appropriate, public
meetings. Existing § 2361.1(d) concerns
the submission, content, and public
review of recommendations for
additional Special Areas. Proposed
paragraph (a)(4) retained the basic
contours of that provision but provided
additional specificity. The proposed
language allowed the public to
participate in the evaluation process,
including by recommending new
Special Areas, new significant resource
values for existing Special Areas, and
measures to assure maximum protection
of Special Areas’ significant resource
values. The proposed rule required the
BLM to evaluate and respond to such
recommendations. Similar to existing
§ 2361.1, proposed paragraph (a)(4)
specified that Special Area
recommendations should describe the
size and location of the lands,
significant resource values, and
measures necessary to assure maximum
protection of those values.
Proposed paragraph (a)(5) allowed the
authorized officer to implement interim
measures to assure maximum protection
of significant resource values in lands
under consideration for designation as a
Special Area. This provision was
designed to assist the BLM in fulfilling
its statutory duty to protect Special
Areas.
Paragraph (a)(6) required that the
BLM base decisions to designate Special
Areas solely on whether significant
resource values are present and
prohibited the BLM from considering
the existence of measures to protect or
otherwise administer those values. For
example, if lands not within a Special
Area contained important caribou
calving habitat and those lands were
already subject to certain protections
under the IAP, the BLM would not be
permitted to consider those protections
during the decision-making process for
the proposed designation or update. The
proposed rule explained that this
change is needed to align the
regulations with the NPRPA, which
authorizes the Secretary to designate
Special Areas based on the presence of
‘‘any significant subsistence,
recreational, fish and wildlife, or
historical or scenic value . . . .’’ 42
U.S.C. 6504(a).
Proposed paragraph (a)(7) required
the BLM, when designating a Special
Area or recognizing the presence of
additional significant resource values in
an existing Special Area, to adopt

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38737

measures to assure maximum protection
of significant resource values. That
provision mirrors the BLM’s statutory
responsibility under the NPRPA. 42
U.S.C. 6504(a). Paragraph (a)(7) was
designed to provide needed clarification
by specifying that those measures would
supersede any inconsistent provisions
in the IAP.
Proposed paragraph (a)(8)
incorporated the requirement of existing
§ 2361.1(c) that the BLM publish in the
Federal Register a legal description of
any new Special Area. The proposed
rule also required the BLM to publish in
the Federal Register a summary of the
significant resource values supporting
the Special Area designation. Rather
than requiring publication in local
newspapers as the current regulations
require, the proposed rule required the
BLM to maintain maps of the Special
Areas on its website. Those proposals
were designed to provide more effective
public notice.
Proposed § 2361.30(b) established a
framework for removing lands from
Special Area designations. Because
Congress identified the Utukok River
Uplands and Teshekpuk Lake Special
Areas in the NPRPA and required them
to be managed to protect surface
resources, the BLM cannot remove lands
from those Special Area designations
absent statutory authorization. See
Public Law 94–258, sec. 104(b), 90 Stat.
304 (1976). For other Special Areas, the
proposed rule permitted the BLM to
remove lands from a Special Area
designation only when the significant
resource values that supported the
designation are no longer present (e.g.,
if important wildlife habitat that
supported the designation was no longer
present). That provision is consistent
with the BLM’s statutory duty to ‘‘assure
the maximum protection of such surface
values consistent with the requirements
of [the NPRPA] for the exploration of
the reserve.’’ Id.
Before removing lands from a Special
Area designation, proposed paragraph
(b) required the BLM to provide the
public with the opportunity to review
and comment on its proposed decision
and consult with federally recognized
Tribes and Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act corporations. Finally,
the proposed rule required the BLM to
document its consideration of those
comments. Those requirements would
assure public participation in the dedesignation process.
Public Comments on § 2361.30
Comment: Commenters requested the
BLM explain how new and additional
procedural requirements would
integrate with the environmental

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

38738

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

analysis that the BLM already conducts
under NEPA for proposed Federal
actions. Commenters recommended the
BLM ensure the new procedures are not
duplicative of NEPA obligations.
Commenters expressed their concern
that if they are separate and distinct
from each other, it could increase the
number of procedural steps, time, and
risk for proposed activities in the
Reserve.
Commenters recommended that the
BLM continue to use the IAP for
management of the Reserve including
adding, revising, or removing Special
Areas. Commenters suggested that
requiring a separate 5-year cycle for
Special Area review and evaluation may
establish a different management
framework applicable only to Special
Areas which would be separate from the
review and management of the entire
Reserve through IAP/EIS processes.
Commenters expressed concern that
mechanisms provided in the proposed
rule that could be used to manage lands
as Special Areas could preclude a
rigorous public process pursuant to
NEPA.
Commenters expressed concern that
there is an over-reliance on public
participation in the contraction and
expansion processes outlined in the
proposed rule, and suggested this may
allow the Reserve to be managed by
outside interest groups instead of
prioritizing Native communities and
local stakeholders.
BLM Response: The new procedures
outlined in § 2361.30 are intended to
ensure that the BLM regularly reviews
the surface values and environmental
conditions in the Reserve specifically
for the purpose of managing Special
Areas with significant subsistence,
recreational, fish and wildlife,
historical, and scenic values to assure
their maximum protection, as directed
by the NPRPA. These procedures will
support other NEPA processes by
ensuring the BLM has up-to-date
baseline conditions for surface values
within the Reserve and will specifically
support oil- and gas-related NEPA
analyses by ensuring necessary
measures are in place to protect
important resources. It is anticipated
that the BLM will often incorporate
these procedures into IAP revisions and
amendments; however, rapidly
changing conditions in the Arctic
require that the BLM has the ability to
conduct this review and decisionmaking process outside of an IAP
process when necessary.
The final rule has been updated from
the proposed rule to ensure that robust
public participation is a mandated
component of all processes to designate,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

amend, and de-designate Special Areas.
The BLM is required to include and
consider input from all members of the
public in making decisions governing
the public lands. The BLM will
continue to work closely with Native
communities and local stakeholders
when making decisions regarding
management of the Reserve.
Comment: Commenters expressed
concern that the BLM may not have
included a regulatory consultation
obligation for expanding Special Areas
or increasing protective measures in
Special Areas.
BLM Response: We agree with this
comment that clarification on
consultation would be helpful. We have
reorganized § 2361.30 in the final rule,
with a new paragraph (a) that outlines
requirements applicable to all processes
that would designate, de-designate, or
otherwise change boundaries or
management of Special Areas. In all
processes, including those resulting in
de-designation or removal of lands from
a Special Area, the BLM is required to
provide the public and interested
stakeholders with meaningful
opportunities to participate in the
evaluation process, and consult with
any federally recognized Tribes and
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
corporations that use the affected
Special Area for subsistence purposes or
have historic, cultural, or economic ties
to the Special Area.
Comment: Commenters expressed the
opinion that the requirements in
§ 2361.30(a)(1) are duplicative of
FLPMA section 201 and should be
eliminated from the final rule.
BLM Response: FLPMA section 201
requires that the BLM maintain on a
continuing basis an inventory of all
public lands and their resource and
other values, and to keep the inventory
current so as to reflect changes in
conditions and to identify new and
emerging resource and other values.
Consistent with FLPMA and the
NPRPA, proposed § 2361.30(a)(1)
specifies that the BLM must maintain a
current inventory of the significant
subsistence, recreation, fish and
wildlife, historical, and scenic values
within the Reserve. This requirement is
not duplicative of FLPMA but rather
expounds on it by detailing the very
specific public lands values that the
NPRPA requires the BLM to evaluate
and manage for protection in the
Reserve.
Comment: Commenters recommended
that the process for designating and
removing Special Areas should be
identical, balanced, reasonable, and
should include consultation and
environmental analysis to support

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

decision-making. Commenters
recommended that Indigenous
Knowledge be included in all Special
Area designation decisions to fully
capture the expertise about resources,
such as permafrost, and to appropriately
assess impacts to those resources.
BLM Response: The BLM revised the
final rule to create a new paragraph (a)
that outlines requirements applicable to
all processes that would designate, dedesignate, or otherwise change
boundaries or management of Special
Areas. These requirements include
relying on the best available scientific
information, including Indigenous
Knowledge, as well as the best available
information concerning subsistence uses
and resources within the Reserve. This
new paragraph will provide more
consistency to all decision-making
processes for Special Areas.
Comment: The BLM received multiple
comments discussing the timing of the
Special Areas review, including:
• Commenters believe that the timing
of the Special Area review should be
more frequent than the 5 years proposed
to account for rapidly changing
conditions;
• Commenters expressed support for
the 5-year review interval;
• Commenters believe that the 5-year
review is restrictive and unfounded in
law;
• Commenters suggested including an
additional mid-way report to help
ensure agency accountability;
• Commenters requested the BLM
remove the 5-year review requirement
and allow for changes to be made when
best available information demonstrates
that such changes are necessary;
• Commenters recommended a 10year interval for Special Area evaluation
and suggested that the BLM conduct
evaluations in the context of preparing
a holistic IAP. Comments suggest that
this would bring stability to managing
the Reserve and help reduce the needed
frequency for stakeholder engagement
during large-scale planning efforts;
• Commenters expressed concern that
the BLM lacks the staff and resources to
engage in 5-year reviews;
• Commenters expressed concern that
5-year interval reviews would place a
heavy burden on local communities and
preclude or limit local input on the
public process; and
• Commenters recommended that at
every 5-year period, the BLM should
consider removing and decreasing
Special Areas, not only creating or
expanding Special Areas.
BLM Response: The final rule changes
the review period to 10 years, while
specifying the BLM may conduct the
review sooner if the authorized officer

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
determines that changing conditions
warrant. This requirement is limited to
identifying additional or expanding
existing Special Areas, additional
special values, and additional protective
measures in order to address the risks
associated with changing circumstances
on the ground, which may require
additional protections. The BLM
believes this change addresses concerns
about agency and community capacity
while ensuring regular reviews occur to
maintain an inventory of resource
conditions and make management
changes as appropriate.
The NPRPA requires the BLM to
manage areas designated by the
Secretary to have significant resource
values in a manner that assures the
maximum protection of those values
consistent with exploration and
production of the Reserve. Once those
values have been identified and
designated, they must continue to be
managed for protection consistent with
the Act. The BLM will only remove
Special Area designations when the
significant resource values are no longer
present. Therefore, the rule does not
require the BLM to regularly evaluate
eliminating or reducing Special Area
designations. The BLM will evaluate the
presence or absence of significant
resource values in existing Special
Areas when updating the IAP, and
through that process the public can
provide information to BLM regarding
the absence of significant resource
values to inform de-designation
decisions.
Comment: Commenters requested that
the proposed rule clarify that the BLM
is required not only to identify and
adopt new maximum protection
measures during the 5-year review, but
also evaluate existing measures and
strengthen them as needed.
BLM Response: The final rule
specifies that as part of the review, the
BLM will determine whether to require
additional measures or strengthen
existing measures to assure maximum
protection of significant resource values
within existing Special Areas.
Comment: Commenters recommend
that during the review process, the BLM
should conduct an assessment to
determine if Significant Resource
Values continue to exist and whether
maximum protection is necessary.
BLM Response: The BLM declines this
request. The public can submit
information regarding the status of
significant resource values during the
review process, and that information
would be taken into account in a future
planning process and as applicable in
decision-making as part of the NEPA
process, i.e., if it is significant new

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

information. The reason for the required
regular review is to address risks
associated with needing additional
protections in light of changing
circumstances on the ground.
Comment: Commenters recommended
the final rule state that the BLM will
designate Special Areas in a manner
that maintains the ecological integrity
necessary to sustain such values.
BLM Response: The BLM believes this
is unnecessary because the final rule
requires the BLM to rely on the best
available scientific information when
making management decisions for
Special Areas and maintaining
ecological integrity is consistent with
adoption and implementation of
maximum protective measures.
Comment: Commenters recommended
the BLM enable adoption of permanent
maximum protection measures in the
rule.
BLM Response: Including permanent
maximum protection measures is not
within the regulatory framework of the
rule, which establishes administrative
processes by which the BLM will adopt
and may change maximum protection
measures for significant resource values
in Special Areas. The overarching
requirement to adopt measures for
maximum protection of significant
resource values in Special Values
continues to apply.
Comment: Commenters requested
more explanation of the standards that
would be used to determine a resource
is significant.
BLM Response: The BLM declines this
suggestion. The definitions in the rule
and the Special Areas identified in the
NPRPA and IAP provide sufficient
clarity for the use of this term in the
rule. Ultimately, determinations about
the significance of subsistence,
recreational, fish and wildlife,
historical, and scenic values will be at
the discretion of the BLM. As stated in
the definition of Significant Resource
Value in the final rule, it is a surface
value ‘‘that the Bureau identifies as
significant and supports the designation
of a Special Area.’’ This evaluation will
necessarily be determined in the context
of site-specific resources, with input
from Tribes, scientific experts, other
government agencies, and the public.
Therefore, a more specific definition
could be overly prescriptive and would
not necessarily add more clarity.
Comment: Commenters asked why
Indigenous Knowledge is only included
in § 2361.30 and not throughout the rest
of the proposed rule.
BLM Response: Best available
scientific information, including
Indigenous Knowledge, is discussed in
the context of evaluating resources for

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38739

designation, de-designation, and
management of Special Areas. The BLM
expects Indigenous Knowledge would
also be part of consultations, which are
required throughout all aspects of the
rule.
Comment: The BLM received
comments expressing the opinion that
the NPRPA’s maximum protection
clause expressly applies only to Special
Areas designated by the Secretary of the
Interior and should not apply to areas
under consideration, therefore proposed
§ 2361.30(a)(5) regarding interim
measures exceeds the BLM’s statutory
authority. Other commenters expressed
the opinion that § 2361.30(a)(5) conflicts
with FLPMA section 201. Commenters
also generally recommended that
§ 2361.30(a)(5) be eliminated because
areas shouldn’t be managed as Special
Areas until they are designated as such.
Commenters requested more clarity
around the process for implementing
interim measures in lands under
consideration for designation as a
Special Area.
BLM Response: The NPRPA provides
the BLM with the direction and
authority to provide for such conditions,
restrictions, and prohibitions as deemed
necessary or appropriate to mitigate
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects on the surface resources
of the Reserve. These conditions,
restrictions, and prohibitions may
include interim measures to protect
surface resources within Special Areas
under consideration for designation.
The option for the authorized officer
to apply interim measures is not
inconsistent with the requirement of 42
U.S.C. 6504 to ensure maximum
protection of significant resource values
to the extent consistent with the
requirements of the NPRPA. Rather, this
discretion supports the BLM’s ability to
fulfill this obligation as part of a formal
designation of a new Special Area while
ensuring any interim management is
consistent with both the requirements of
the NPRPA and the specific provisions
of the current IAP.
The BLM revised the final rule to
provide more clarity and certainty
around the interim measures provision.
The final rule clarifies that interim
measures may be implemented at any
time after the BLM receives an internal
or external recommendation to
designate or modify a Special Area. The
final rule also clarifies that any interim
measures must be consistent with the
governing management prescriptions in
the IAP, and the BLM is required to
provide public notice that interim
measures are in place and reassess such
measures to determine if they are still

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

38740

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

needed if they remain in place for more
than 5 years.
Comment: Commenters expressed the
opinion that the requirement in
§ 2361.30(a)(6) to designate Special
Areas solely on the basis of the presence
of significant resource values is an
improper interpretation of 42 U.S.C.
6504. Commenters also recommended
the BLM should consider effectiveness
of mitigation measures and other
management when determining whether
to designate Special Areas and
suggested that if the values can be
managed with existing measures, then a
Special Area may not be required.
Other commenters supported the
recognition that Special Area
designations and expansions be based
solely on the presence of significant
resource values without regard to the
administration of measures to protect
the values.
BLM Response: The NPRPA provides
for the Secretary to designate Special
Areas that contain significant
subsistence, recreational, fish and
wildlife, or historical or scenic values,
and requires the Secretary to assure the
maximum protection of those values
when authorizing oil and gas activities,
to the extent consistent with the
requirements of the Act. The NPRPA
does not place contingencies on either
of those directives, such as considering
other management decisions in place
that may affect the risk to the resources
or the likely effectiveness of mitigation
measures to address the impacts of oil
and gas activities. Furthermore,
management decisions may change over
time, and so relying on current
overlapping management is not
adequate to ensure appropriate
protection for significant resource
values. Therefore, the BLM believes the
most appropriate way to fulfill the
congressional directives set forth in the
NPRPA is to designate Special Areas
where the identified significant resource
values exist regardless of other
management that may be in place, and
to implement maximum protection
measures that specifically target those
resource values.
Comment: Commenters recommended
that the rule should require that Special
Areas and areas under consideration for
Special Area designation be closed to oil
and gas leasing.
BLM Response: Management
decisions for Special Areas, including
oil and gas allocations, are made
through the IAP process and/or the
separate Special Area designation
process described in the rule. These
regulations implement the NPRPA,
which requires the BLM to provide
maximum protection for significant

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

surface values in Special Areas in the
context of conducting an oil and gas
leasing and production program in the
Reserve. The rule incorporates this
directive through a presumption that
leasing and production in Special Areas
will not be consistent with this
standard, while also ensuring
consistency with the requirements of
the NPRPA and valid existing rights.
Comment: Commenters expressed the
opinion that the BLM is not prohibited
from removing lands from Teshekpuk
Lake and Utukok River Uplands because
the NPRPA does not specify a
geographic boundary for these areas nor
does it make these current designations
permanent.
BLM Response: Section 104(b) of the
NPRPA (42 U.S.C. 6504) identifies the
Utukok River and Teshekpuk Lake areas
as special areas containing significant
subsistence, recreational, fish and
wildlife, or historical or scenic values
that are subject to the ‘‘maximum
protection’’ standard. Congress
specifically identified these two Special
Areas by naming them in the NPRPA.
The BLM does not believe it has the
authority to de-designate some or all of
the Special Area designations for
Teshekpuk Lake and Utukok River
Uplands that were explicitly included
in the NPRPA, because Congress has
expressly directed that the BLM apply
the maximum protection standard in
those areas.
Comment: Commenters recommended
that the BLM not allow for land to be
removed from Special Areas where
wildlife habitat values are no longer
present because the land is no longer
inhabitable by the species or because
species populations are declining.
Commenters suggested that the BLM
should not allow for further
development and degradation of the
land in those circumstances.
BLM Response: This issue is best
addressed in the Special Area
amendment process, because it is
dependent on site-specific
circumstances. The regulations are
designed to implement the NPRPA,
which directs the BLM to designate and
manage Special Areas to provide
maximum protection for significant
resource values. While the rule provides
that an authorized officer may only
remove areas from Special Area
designation if the significant resource
values are no longer present, any such
decision would be conducted through
site-specific processes, with opportunity
for public input and consultation
regarding the appropriate decisions on
types of habitats and desired future
conditions.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Comment: Commenters requested
more clarity regarding the process by
which a resource value will be
determined to be sufficiently absent to
warrant de-designation of a Special
Area.
Commenters recommended that the
rule should require the BLM to use the
best scientific data available when
determining whether the significant
resource values that support the
designation are no longer present.
BLM Response: The BLM revised the
final rule to create a new paragraph (a)
that outlines requirements applicable to
all processes that will designate, dedesignate, or otherwise change
boundaries or management of Special
Areas. In all processes, including those
resulting in de-designation or removal
of lands from a Special Area, the BLM
is required to rely on the best available
scientific information, including
Indigenous Knowledge, as well as the
best available information concerning
subsistence uses and resources within
the Reserve. The BLM must also provide
the public and interested stakeholders
with notice of, and meaningful
opportunities to participate in, the
evaluation process, and consult with
any federally recognized Tribes and
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
corporations that use the affected
Special Area for subsistence purposes or
have historic, cultural, or economic ties
to the Special Area. These requirements
will ensure opportunities for public and
Tribal input and participation in any
evaluation of whether all of the
significant resource values that support
a Special Area designation are no longer
present.
Comment: Commenters suggested
establishing an overlay of Indigenous
Ancestral Homeland Preservation
Special Areas within the NPR–A to
protect significant subsistence values.
BLM Response: The BLM would
appreciate this information being
provided as part of decisions on
managing surface values in the Reserve.
Specifying this overlay is beyond the
current scope of the regulation.
Comment: Commenters expressed
concerns that the proposed rule does
not quantify the economic impacts of
the process of designating new Special
Areas nor the economic impacts of
limitations on exploration and
development within Special Areas and
recommended that an economic impact
analysis should accompany each
decision.
BLM Response: The NPRPA requires
the maximum protection of significant
resources values in Special Areas
subject to the requirements of the Act.
Economic impacts are part of NEPA

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

analysis and will be disclosed as part of
any such analysis.
Comment: Commenters requested
clarity that Special Area designation
will not interfere with the ANILCA
section 1111(a) temporary access
provisions.
BLM Response: Section 1111(a) of
ANILCA requires the Secretary to
authorize and permit temporary access
by the State or a private landowner to
or across certain lands in Alaska that
have been designated to specific uses,
including the Reserve, but only if such
access will not result in permanent
harm to the resources of such unit, area,
Reserve or lands. This rule is consistent
with that provision of ANILCA and
would not alter the BLM’s
implementation.
Description of the Final Rule
Section 2361.30 is reorganized in the
final rule, with a new paragraph (a) that
outlines requirements applicable to all
processes that will designate, dedesignate, or otherwise change
boundaries or management of Special
Areas. In all processes, including those
resulting in de-designation or removal
of lands from a Special Area, the BLM
is required to rely on the best available
scientific information, including
Indigenous Knowledge, as well as the
best available information concerning
subsistence uses and resources within
the Reserve. The BLM must provide the
public and interested stakeholders with
meaningful opportunities to participate
in the evaluation process and consult
with any federally recognized Tribes
and Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act corporations that use the affected
Special Area for subsistence purposes or
have historic, cultural, or economic ties
to the Special Area. The BLM must also
base decisions solely on the presence or
absence of significant resource values
and not the existence of measures that
have been or may be adopted to protect
or otherwise administer those values.
Section 2361.30(b) requires the BLM
to evaluate all public lands within the
Reserve for the presence of significant
subsistence, recreational, fish and
wildlife, historical, or scenic values
every 10 years, or sooner if the
authorized officer determines that
changing conditions warrant. As part of
this evaluation, the BLM will consider
designating new Special Areas,
expanding existing Special Areas,
recognizing the presence of additional
significant resource values in existing
Special Areas, and requiring additional
measures or strengthening existing
measures to assure maximum protection
of significant resource values within
existing Special Areas. The evaluation

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

may occur through an IAP amendment
process but can occur separately.
The BLM is required to consider and
respond to recommendations from the
public and interested stakeholders in
the evaluation process regarding lands
that should be considered for
designation as a Special Area,
significant resource values that should
be recognized in Special Areas, and
measures that should be required to
assure maximum protection of
significant resource values within
Special Areas. The rule lists information
that should be submitted by the public
to ensure the BLM can adequately
review recommendations, including the
size and location of the recommended
lands, significant resource values that
are present within or supported by the
recommended lands, and measures that
may be necessary to assure maximum
protection of those values.
Section 2361.30(b)(4) provides that
the BLM may implement interim
measures to protect significant resource
values while the agency is considering
Special Area designations and changes
to management. The BLM could
implement interim measures at any
point after receiving a recommendation
for a new or modified Special Area.
These measures must be consistent with
the governing management
prescriptions in the IAP. The BLM must
provide public notice that interim
measures are in place and such
measures will be reassessed to
determine if they are still needed if they
remain in place for more than 5 years.
When the BLM decides to designate
lands as a Special Area or recognizes the
presence of additional significant
resource values in a Special Area, the
BLM must adopt measures to assure
maximum protection of the significant
resource values. These measures are not
constrained by the provisions of the
current IAP. Once adopted, these
measures supersede inconsistent
provisions of the IAP then in effect for
the Reserve and will be incorporated
into the IAP during the next revision or
amendment. When the BLM designates
lands as a Special Area, the agency must
publish a legal description of those
lands in the Federal Register, along
with a concise summary of the
significant resource values that support
the designation. The BLM will maintain
up-to-date maps of all designated
Special Areas on its website and make
maps available for public inspection at
the Arctic District Office.
Section 2361.30(c) provides
procedures for removing lands from or
de-designating a Special Area. Lands
may only be removed from Special Area
designation when all of the significant

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38741

resource values that support the
designation are no longer present. In
making such a determination, the BLM
must prepare a summary of its proposed
determination, including the underlying
factual findings, and provide a public
comment opportunity on the proposed
determination. The BLM must also
comply with all of the requirements in
§ 2361.30(a). The BLM’s final
determination must document how the
views and information provided by the
public, federally recognized Tribes,
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
corporations, federally qualified
subsistence users, and other interested
stakeholders have been considered. The
BLM may not remove lands from the
Teshekpuk Lake and Utukok River
Uplands Special Areas unless directed
to do so by statute.
Section 2361.40—Management of Oil
and Gas Activities in Special Areas
Existing and Proposed Regulations
The current regulations paraphrase
the maximum protection requirement of
the NPRPA and provide examples of
measures that the BLM could
potentially take to assure maximum
protection. See § 2361.1(c). Proposed
new § 2361.40 enhanced the specificity
of the current regulations on the
mechanisms for assuring maximum
protection of significant resource values
in Special Areas by establishing new
standards and procedures for achieving
maximum protection of Special Areas’
significant resource values, with a
specific focus on addressing the impacts
of oil and gas activities. Of note, this
section affirmatively established that
assuring maximum protection of
significant resource values is the
management priority for Special Areas.
Under proposed paragraph (a), the BLM
needed to comply with this standard
and adopt maximum protection
measures for each significant resource
value associated with a Special Area.
Proposed paragraph (b) required the
BLM take such steps to avoid the
adverse effects of proposed oil and gas
activities on the significant resource
values of Special Areas, including by
conditioning, delaying action on, or
denying proposals for activities.
Proposed paragraph (c) required oil
and gas leasing and new infrastructure
to conform to the land use allocations
and restrictions identified on maps 2
and 4 of the 2022 IAP ROD, unless the
BLM makes revisions in accordance
with § 2361.30 of these regulations.
Map 2 shows the areas of the Reserve
that are open and closed to oil and gas
leasing. The map reflects that
approximately 11.8 million acres are

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

38742

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

open to leasing subject to the terms and
conditions detailed in the IAP, while
approximately 11 million acres are
closed, including most of the Teshekpuk
Lake and Utukok River Uplands Special
Areas. The map also shows areas that
are open to leasing but subject to no
surface occupancy, and areas that are
outside the BLM’s subsurface authority.
Map 4 shows the areas of the Reserve
that are available and unavailable for
new infrastructure. The map shows that
new infrastructure is prohibited on
approximately 8.3 million acres of the
Reserve, limited to ‘‘essential’’
infrastructure on approximately 3.3
million acres, and permitted on
approximately 10.8 million acres.
The proposed purpose of requiring
leasing and infrastructure in Special
Areas to conform to IAP maps 2 and 4
was to codify the existing protections
and restrictions from the 2022 IAP ROD.
The BLM developed that land use plan
through a lengthy public planning
process involving all stakeholders,
which stretches back to the
development of the 2013 IAP ROD. The
2022 IAP ROD, which is based in large
part on the framework set forth in the
2013 IAP ROD, incorporates aspects of
the 2020 IAP ROD, and reflects nowsettled expectations about the use of the
Reserve. It also reflects what the BLM
views as the floor of protections for the
Reserve that grew out of the public
planning process. By incorporating the
two maps into the rule, the BLM
intended to incorporate the land use
allocations, restrictions, and
stipulations from the 2022 IAP ROD into
the rule without reprinting lengthy text.
Proposed paragraph (c) also
established a presumption against
leasing and new infrastructure on lands
in Special Areas that are allocated as
available for those activities. That
presumption could have been overcome
if specific information is available to the
BLM that clearly demonstrates that
those activities can be conducted with
no or minimal adverse effects on the
significant resource values of the
Special Area. The intensive process that
led to the IAP resulted in a
comprehensive plan for protection of
the Special Areas in the Reserve. To
fulfill the BLM’s statutory duty to assure
maximum protection for those areas’
significant resource values, the BLM
believed that plan should be treated as
a regulatory floor, and additional
activities should only be allowed when
maximum protection is assured.
The proposed definition of
‘‘infrastructure’’ in § 2361.5(g) excluded
‘‘exploratory wells that are drilled in a
single season; infrastructure in support
of science and public safety; and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

construction, renovation, or
replacement of facilities on existing
gravel pads at previously disturbed sites
where the facilities will promote safety
and environmental protection.’’ These
exceptions were specifically analyzed
and adopted in the 2022 IAP ROD.
Proposed § 2361.40(d) established three
additional exceptions to the oil and gas
leasing and new infrastructure
prohibitions in paragraph (c). The first
exception permitted leasing and
infrastructure solely to address drainage
of Federal oil and gas resources.
Drainage occurs ‘‘when a well that is
drilled or is in production adjacent to
Federal or Indian leases or unleased
lands is potentially draining Federal or
Indian oil and gas resources.’’ BLM MS–
3160, Drainage Protection Manual 1–1
(2015), available at https://
www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/
uploads/mediacenter_
blmpolicymanual3160.pdf. The
proposed rule prohibited surface
disturbing activities on any lease tract
issued for this purpose. The exception
for drainage of Federal oil and gas
resources was included because the
regulations expressly provide for leasing
of tracts that are subject to drainage in
order to prevent loss of United States oil
and gas resources and potential
royalties. See 43 CFR 3130.3. Nosurface-occupancy leases are an option
the BLM may elect to use when the
surface management agency has
determined that surface oil and gas
facilities and operations would pose an
unacceptable risk to the surface
resources. The second exception
permitted the construction of new
infrastructure, including roads,
transmission lines, and pipelines, that
would primarily benefit communities in
and around the Reserve or would
support subsistence activities. The BLM
proposed to include that exception
because communities in and around the
Reserve must have some infrastructure
to survive and thrive. The third
exception allowed the BLM to approve
new infrastructure if essential to
support exploration or development of a
valid existing lease and no practicable
alternatives exist that would have less
adverse impact on significant resource
values of the Special Area. That
exception was necessary to
accommodate the rights of current
leaseholders.
Proposed paragraph (e) required the
BLM to document and consider any
uncertainty regarding potential adverse
effects on Special Areas and ensure that
its actions account for such uncertainty.
That provision was drafted to help the
BLM fulfill its statutory mandate to

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

assure maximum protection for Special
Areas’ significant resource values.
Proposed paragraph (f) required the
BLM to prepare a Statement of Adverse
Effect whenever it cannot avoid adverse
effects on a Special Area. In each
statement, the BLM was required to
describe the significant resource values
that may be affected; the nature, scope,
and duration of the effects; measures the
BLM evaluated to avoid those effects; a
justification for not requiring those
measures; and measures it would
require to minimize and mitigate the
adverse effects on significant resource
values. Measures the BLM could require
under this provision include
compensatory mitigation. Such
measures would be developed,
evaluated, and, as necessary, adopted in
project-specific analyses. Proposed
paragraphs (g) and (h) required the BLM
to provide the public with an
opportunity to review and comment on
any Statement of Adverse Effect and
consult with federally recognized Tribes
and Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act corporations that have ties to the
area.
Finally, proposed paragraph (i)
required the BLM to include in each oiland gas-related decision or
authorization ‘‘terms and conditions
that provide the Bureau with sufficient
authority to fully implement the
requirements of this section.’’ That
provision ensured that the BLM
incorporates into decision documents
the necessary language to implement
any final rule.
Public Comments on § 2361.40
Comment: The BLM received
comments generally supporting
§ 2361.40, particularly for reasons of
reducing climate change and protecting
areas that are important for wildlife
habitat and subsistence use.
BLM Response: We agree the rule will
help the BLM address these important
issues.
Comment: Commenters stated that
maximum protection in the proposed
rule is being used as a management
standard and a baseline to disqualify
any resource development activity from
proceeding contrary to congressional
intent and the NPRPA.
BLM Response: The NPRPA
specifically requires that oil and gas
activities within Special Areas be
‘‘conducted in a manner which will
assure the maximum protection of such
surface values to the extent consistent
with the requirements of this Act.’’ The
regulation is implementing this
direction from Congress to balance
resource development with resource
protection, by requiring the application

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
of maximum protection measures to
significant resource values in Special
Areas when conducting oil and gas
activities. The regulations will not
prohibit oil and gas activities but rather
ensure they proceed according to the
intent of the NPRPA.
Comment: Commenters requested the
rule clarify the process for identifying
and adopting maximum protection
measures for each significant resource
value that is present in a Special Area.
Commenters also recommended that the
BLM be required to evaluate existing
measures in addition to identifying new
ones, and that this process rely on best
available scientific information
including Indigenous Knowledge.
Commenters requested the BLM
discuss significant resource values and
include clear definitions of the
measures necessary to ensure maximum
protection for each. Comments
contained suggestions that the denial or
reduction of proposed drilling sites,
prohibition of roads, restrictions on
sand and gravel extraction and water
withdrawals, suspension of activities,
and specified rates of development and
production should be specifically listed
as potential maximum protection
measures.
BLM Response: The final rule clarifies
that the BLM will identify and adopt
maximum protection measures for each
significant resource value that is present
in a Special Area when Special Areas
are designated. The BLM will also
update maximum protection measures
as appropriate thereafter, including in
the IAP, lease terms, and permits to
conduct oil and gas activities. The final
rule also includes maximum protection
measures that are identified in the
existing regulation but had been
eliminated in the proposed rule, as well
as some additional categories of
measures that may be included, such as
limiting infrastructure and use of roads
and restricting use of sand, gravel, and
water. The BLM is not analyzing
existing measures or adopting new ones
for significant resource values in this
rulemaking process. The rule provides
informative categories of measures that
could be applied, subject to existing
management prescriptions for each
Special Area and the terms of existing
leases, and sets forth the process by
which measures will be adopted moving
forward.
Comment: Commenters expressed
concern that the presumption against
leasing and new infrastructure on lands
within Special Areas that are allocated
as open for those activities would affect
valid existing rights and could
constitute a breach of contract or
regulatory taking. Commenters

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

recommended that the rule be revised to
expressly state that it does not apply to
any existing leases or future activities
carried out pursuant to the terms of
those leases.
Commenters suggested that the
presumption against new leasing and
new infrastructure on lands within
Special Areas that are allocated as open
to those activities is contrary to the
NPRPA and ANILCA section 1326.
BLM Response: The provisions of this
section are consistent with the BLM’s
obligations to manage Special Areas to
provide maximum protection for
significant resource values, subject to
the other directives in the NPRPA
regarding conducting exploration,
leasing, and development. The rule
includes specific protections for valid
existing rights. At the same time, we
note that, while the terms of an existing
lease and approved development project
or permit would not be affected by the
rule, a valid lease does not entitle the
leaseholder the unfettered right to drill
wherever it chooses or categorically
preclude the BLM from considering
alternative development scenarios
within leased areas, nor does it give the
leaseholder the right to produce all
economically recoverable oil and gas on
the lease. Future development of an
existing lease is, by its terms, subject to
additional terms and conditions. For
example, the standard lease for
activities in the Reserve states, ‘‘An oil
and gas lease does not in itself authorize
any on-the-ground activity’’ and notes
that more restrictive stipulations may be
added. Similarly, a standard lease
stipulation entitled ‘‘Conservation of
Surface Values for NPR–A Planning
Area Land’’ provides: ‘‘Operational
procedures designed to protect resource
values will be developed during Surface
Use Plan preparation, and additional
protective measures may be required
beyond the general and special
stipulations identified in the abovereferenced documents.’’
Comment: Commenters recommended
§ 2361.40(c) be revised to eliminate the
phrase ‘‘or minimal’’ so that the
presumption would only be overcome if
it can be demonstrated that there will be
no adverse effects on significant
resource values.
BLM Response: The BLM included the
term ‘‘minimal’’ to address situations
where it is not possible to eliminate all
adverse effects, and in recognition of the
NPRPA’s direction to apply the
maximum protection standard
consistent with exploration and
production of the Reserve. However, the
remainder of the process set out in this
updated section will ensure thorough
consideration, opportunity for review

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38743

and comments, and documentation of
how adverse effects have been avoided.
Comment: Commenters recommended
the BLM provide a path for an applicant
to overcome the presumption against
new leasing and new infrastructure on
lands within Special Areas that are
allocated as open for those activities,
such as requiring the applicant to
explain why it cannot avoid locating
new infrastructure in the Special Area
and to provide maximum protection for
resource values and subsistence users.
BLM Response: The final rule
provides clarity around how the
presumption against new leasing and
new infrastructure on lands within
Special Areas that are allocated as open
for those activities would be overcome
through the environmental review
process. The rule provides that as part
of the environmental analysis, the BLM
may document justification for
overcoming the presumption in
§ 2361.40(f), such as if the proposed
infrastructure is necessary to comport
with the terms of a valid existing lease,
or if it will primarily be used by and
provide a benefit to communities
located within or in close proximity to
the Reserve, and the proposal has been
conditioned to avoid, minimize, or
otherwise mitigate adverse effects.
Comment: Commenters recommended
that § 2361.40(d)(1) be revised to clarify
that seismic exploration is considered a
‘‘surface-disturbing oil and gas
activit[y]’’ and that restrictions on new
infrastructure would not be waived
under this provision.
BLM Response: This rule maintains
the current approach in the IAP that
does not include geophysical
exploration as surface occupancy to
maintain consistency and because any
changes to that approach should be
made through the IAP process with
associated NEPA analysis. This rule
does not address waiver of limitations
on infrastructure. However, as discussed
above, waivers, exceptions, and
modifications are subject to the
conditions set out in the IAP.
Comment: Commenters recommended
that the community infrastructure
exception be clarified that it only
applies if it has community benefit and
is owned, operated, or managed by the
appropriate community or Native entity,
the North Slope Borough, of the State of
Alaska.
BLM Response: The definition of the
term ‘‘infrastructure’’ in the final rule
has been revised to state that
‘‘infrastructure’’ does not include
infrastructure that will primarily be
used by and provide a benefit to
communities located within or in close
proximity to the Reserve.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

38744

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Comment: Commenters urged the
BLM to provide greater limits on
‘‘essential infrastructure’’ such as
allowing permanent infrastructure if it
can occur with no adverse impacts on
significant resource values, rather than
if no practicable alternatives exist that
would have less adverse impact.
The BLM received comments stating
that limiting infrastructure to that which
is essential and for which no practicable
alternatives exist would establish an
implied presumption that no
infrastructure can be installed in Special
Areas, which violates the NPRPA and
the terms of existing leases.
BLM Response: The BLM is not
revising the approach to addressing
infrastructure, which is consistent with
the provisions of the IAP and the
directive in the NPRPA to provide for
maximum protection of significant
resource values in Special Areas subject
to the other purposes of the Act.
Comment: Commenters recommended
that the final rule adopt a requirement
based on precautionary principles in
instances of significant uncertainty,
which may mean requiring additional
information from applicants or lessees
or delaying action until relevant effects
are better known.
BLM Response: The BLM believes the
language in the rule is adequate for the
agency to address uncertainty. The final
rule requires the BLM to document and
consider uncertainty concerning
potential adverse effects on significant
resource values of Special Areas and
ensure that uncertainty is accounted for
when taking actions to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate adverse effects. The BLM has
the authority under the regulations to
delay action on activities where
necessary to avoid adverse effects on
significant resource values.
Comment: The BLM received
comments about the requirement to
mitigate residual effects that cannot be
avoided or minimized, including:
• Commenters recommended the rule
include provisions that authorize the
BLM to review and modify mitigation
measures as needed after oil and gas
operations have commenced.
• Commenters suggested that the
BLM lacks statutory authority to require
compensatory mitigation, and none is
provided in the NPRPA, FLPMA, or
ANILCA.
• Commenters expressed concern that
despite BLM mitigation and
environmental review efforts, impacts to
Nuiqsut from oil and gas activities have
gotten worse. Commenters state that the
current mitigation process requires
stakeholders to advocate for mitigation
measures, which places an unfair
burden on the stakeholder, including

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

Native villages. Commenters
recommend the BLM include a regular
process for identifying new mitigation
measures and updating existing
mitigation measures similar to the
process for evaluating Special Areas in
the proposed rule. Commenters also
recommended that the rule include a
requirement for establishing baseline
data and monitoring of impacts.
BLM Response: The BLM has
authority to require appropriate
mitigation under a variety of authorities,
including the NPRPA and FLPMA.
Mitigation measures can continue to be
regularly identified and updated
through IAP and/or Special Area
amendment processes and are also
identified at the leasing and permitting
stages of development. Similarly,
baseline data and monitoring plans are
established in NEPA analyses
conducted to support amendments or
revisions to the IAP and approval of
other activities in the Reserve.
Comment: The BLM received
comments regarding reclamation and
bonding for oil and gas activities,
including: the rule should include
assessment methods to gauge the
financial stability of oil and gas
companies and bankruptcy risk before
companies are allowed to purchase
leases; the rule should require up-front
payments to cover costs of damages due
to climate change, loss of habitat, spills
or accidents, and reclaiming
development sites; and the rule should
require all development activities to
have comprehensive plans for
reclamation and remediation.
Commenters requested that the
proposed rule revise leasing program
operations regarding water withdrawal
to address the concern that lake water
withdrawals for ice roads are leading to
low stream water levels.
BLM Response: The BLM’s oil and gas
leasing program for the Reserve is
governed by regulations at 43 CFR part
3130, which are not being revised in
this rule, and additional aspects of
operations are addressed in the current
IAP. Impacts from water withdrawals
for ice roads would be addressed as part
of the analysis to permit construction of
ice roads.
Comment: Commenters recommended
that traditional transportation corridors
be considered in the rule and requested
clarity on how the proposed rule might
affect local community winter access to
trail rights-of-way.
BLM Response: The rule would not
affect traditional transportation
corridors or local community access.
The BLM has clarified the definition of
infrastructure to limit it to oil and gas
activities and to include an exception

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

for community access and projects. In
addition, the rule requires consideration
of impacts on community access in the
development of management measures
to protect surface resources.
Comment: Commenters proposed
adding a legal mandate that allows the
BLM to refrain from authorizing new
leases in the Reserve if the U.S. is
projected to meet its energy needs as the
NPRPA’s mandate to meet the energy
needs of the nation is being fulfilled by
other sources.
BLM Response: This comment is not
within the regulatory framework of the
rule, which is focused on protecting
surface resources in the Reserve as the
BLM carries out its oil and gas program.
This regulation is not revising 43 CFR
part 3130, which are the regulations
governing the oil and gas program for
the Reserve.
Comment: The BLM received
comments regarding the proposal to
include two of the 2022 IAP maps in the
rule and require that oil and gas leasing
and authorization of new infrastructure
in Special Areas will conform to those
maps. Comments and responses follow.
• Commenters expressed concern that
the maps do not provide sufficient
information to the public to identify and
protect significant resource values, and
maps can be misinterpreted. The BLM
updated the maps for the final rule by
adding the boundaries of the existing
Special Areas to the maps from the 2022
IAP that show the current allocations for
oil and gas leasing and infrastructure.
We believe this addresses concerns that
the maps contained in the IAP do not
provide sufficient information to
identify significant resource values. The
maps included with this final rule
depict the exact data from the IAP ROD,
and do not change any designations or
allocations from the 2022 IAP. The BLM
believes including maps with the final
rule will assist with public
understanding of and agency
implementation of the regulations, and
we do not believe that benefit is
outweighed by potential
misinterpretation of maps.
• Commenters requested clarity on
whether reliance on the maps means the
ability to waive, except, and modify the
stipulations otherwise applicable under
the IAP would still apply. Inclusion of
the maps in the final rule does not
change the criteria for waivers,
exceptions, and modifications adopted
in the IAP.
• Commenters noted that maps 2 and
4 do not include the boundaries of the
Special Areas themselves and therefore
do not provide sufficient information.
Commenters recommended that the
BLM produce a map that shows the

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Special Areas along with the land
allocations and restrictions. We agree
with this comment. The BLM updated
the maps for the final rule by adding the
boundaries of the existing Special Areas
to the maps from the 2022 IAP that
show the current allocations for oil and
gas leasing and infrastructure. The maps
depict the exact data from the IAP ROD,
and do not change any designations or
allocations from the 2022 IAP.
• Commenters requested clarity on
whether the land use allocations and
restrictions in the IAP maps are being
considered as maximum protection
measures. The allocations and
restrictions in the 2022 IAP maps may
be considered maximum protection
measures, but they do not necessarily
represent the full extent of maximum
protection measures that may ultimately
be required as a result of this rule. The
final rule, in § 2361.30(b)(5), requires
the BLM to adopt measures to assure
maximum protection of significant
resource values when designating lands
as Special Areas or recognizing the
presence of additional significant
resource values in existing Special
Areas. Once adopted, these measures
become part of and supersede
inconsistent provisions of the IAP then
in effect for the Reserve. The final rule,
in § 2361.40(b), also directs the BLM to
update maximum protection measures
as appropriate thereafter, including in
the IAP, lease terms, and other
approvals to conduct oil and gas
activities.
• Commenters requested clarification
on why K–4 areas, such as lagoons,
inlets, and associated islands, that are
otherwise unavailable for new
infrastructure, allow essential pipeline
crossings. The IAP decision to allow for
essential pipeline crossings in these
areas was to ensure that the prohibition
on new infrastructure did not
completely block development on
neighboring Outer Continental Shelf or
State Lands. The BLM is not
reevaluating IAP decisions as part of
this rulemaking process.
• Commenters stated that the Colville
River Special Area is much larger than
the land use allocations and restricted
areas depicted on the maps, and it is not
apparent from the proposed rule what
maximum protections measures are
needed in addition to those depicted on
maps 2 and 4 to adequately protect the
entire Special Area. Commenters are
correct that there are additional

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

protection measures for the Colville
River Special Area which are in the
Colville River Special Area management
plan, which is a separate document
from the IAP. The BLM is not adopting
or changing management of Special
Areas through this rulemaking process.
Additional maximum protection
measures that may be needed for the
Colville River Special Area would be
considered and adopted through a
Special Area planning process, and/or
through a project-level NEPA process
for proposed development in the
Colville River Special Area.
• Commenters requested that the
BLM update the maps to show the level
of activities and infrastructure currently
in place in the NPR–A. Commenters
also suggested that the maps be updated
to explain why essential pipeline
corridors, which were suggested in the
2020 IAP, are not available. Commenters
further recommended the maps be
updated to state that the BLM welcomes
public participation to designate or
expand Special Areas. The BLM
declined to change the maps by showing
existing levels of activities and
infrastructure, discuss essential pipeline
corridors, or state that public
participation is welcome in Special
Area designation decisions because
those data are not germane to decisions
made in the rule. The BLM’s intention
with providing maps is to display and
help the public understand decisions
codified in the rule, which include
existing Special Area designations and
leasing and infrastructure allocations
adopted in the 2022 IAP. The rule does
not make decisions regarding existing
infrastructure, essential pipeline
corridors, or future Special Area
designation decisions.
Description of the Final Rule
Section 2361.40 affirms that the
management priority within Special
Areas is to assure maximum protection
of significant resource values, consistent
with the requirements of the NPRPA for
exploration and production of the
Reserve. The section sets forth
procedures for fulfilling this duty at
each stage in the decision-making
process for oil and gas activities in the
Reserve.
Section 2361.40(a) requires that the
BLM must, to the extent consistent with
the NPRPA, take such steps as are
necessary to avoid the adverse effects of
proposed oil and gas activities on
significant resource values in Special

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38745

Areas. Such steps may include
conditioning, delaying action on, or
denying proposals for activities.
Section 2361.40(b) directs the BLM to
identify and adopt maximum protection
measures for each significant resource
value that is present in a Special Area
when Special Areas are designated, and
to update maximum protection
measures as appropriate thereafter,
including in the IAP, lease terms, and
permits to conduct oil and gas activities.
Section 2361.40(c) specifies examples of
maximum protection measures,
including rescheduling activities and
use of alternative routes; limiting new
infrastructure and roads; limiting
extraction of sand and gravel or
withdrawal of water; limiting types of
vehicles and loadings; limiting types of
aircraft in combination with minimum
flight altitudes and distances from
identified places; and applying special
fuel handling procedures.
Section 2361.40(c) provides that oil
and gas leasing and authorization of
new infrastructure in Special Areas
must conform to the land use
allocations and restrictions identified on
the map published with the final rule,
until and unless those allocations are
revised by a Special Area designation,
amendment, or de-designation process
as set forth in § 2361.30. The map shows
Special Area designations and oil and
gas leasing and new infrastructure
allocations adopted in the 2022 IAP.
The BLM produced one consolidated
map for the final rule that includes
multiple data included in the 2022 IAP
maps but did not change any of the
designations or allocations depicted on
the 2022 IAP maps.
The map reflects that approximately
11.8 million acres of the Reserve are
open to leasing subject to the terms and
conditions detailed in the IAP, while
approximately 11 million acres are
closed, including most of the Teshekpuk
Lake and Utukok River Uplands Special
Areas. The map shows that new
infrastructure is prohibited on
approximately 8.3 million acres of the
Reserve, limited to ‘‘essential’’
infrastructure on approximately 3.3
million acres, and permitted on
approximately 10.8 million acres.
The restrictions identified on the map
that would apply to new oil and gas
leases and infrastructure are detailed in
the 2022 IAP ROD and summarized in
the following table.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

38746

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Stipulation

Objective

K–1—River Setbacks ..........................................

Minimize the disruption of natural flow patterns and changes to water quality; the loss of
spawning, rearing, and over-wintering habitat for fish; and impacts to subsistence cabins
and campsites, among other purposes.
Minimize the disruption of natural flow patterns and changes to water quality; the loss of
spawning, rearing or over-wintering habitat for fish; and the disruption of subsistence activities, among other purposes.
Protect fish and wildlife habitat; preserve air and water quality; and minimize impacts to subsistence activities and historic travel routes on the major coastal waterbodies.

K–2—Deep Water Lakes ....................................
K–4—Kogru River, Dease Inlet, Admiralty Bay,
Elson Lagoon, Peard Bay, Wainwright Inlet/
Kuk River, and Kasegaluk Lagoon, and their
associated islands.
K–5—Coastal Setback Areas .............................
K–6—Goose Molting Area ..................................
K–8—Brant Survey Area ....................................
K–9—Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area ....
K–10—Teshekpuk
Corridor.

Lake

Caribou

Movement

K–11—Southern Caribou Calving Area ..............
K–12—Colville River Special Area .....................
K–13—Pik Dunes ...............................................

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

K–14—Utukok River Uplands Special Area .......

Section 2361.40(e) provides for
limited circumstances in which certain
uses may be authorized on lands within
Special Areas that are allocated as
closed to leasing or unavailable to new
infrastructure. The BLM may issue oil
and gas leases in areas closed to leasing
if drainage is occurring. The BLM may
authorize new roads, pipelines,
transmission lines, and other types of
infrastructure in unavailable areas if the
infrastructure will primarily be used by
and provide a benefit to local
communities or will support
subsistence activities. In those cases, the
BLM must adopt measures to assure
maximum protection of significant
resource values. These measures, which
are required by the NPRPA, would be
specific to oil and gas activities and
would be designed to limit potential
impacts on subsistence use. Consistent
with this approach, the BLM revised
§ 2361.50 to make clear that the BLM
will ensure reasonable access to and
within Special Areas for subsistence
uses. The BLM may authorize new
permanent infrastructure related to
existing oil and gas leases in unavailable
areas only if such infrastructure is
necessary to comport with the terms of
a valid existing lease.
Section 2361.40(f) directs that on
lands within Special Areas that are
allocated as available for future oil and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

Protect coastal waters and their value as fish and wildlife habitat; minimize hindrance or alteration of caribou movement within caribou coastal insect-relief areas; and prevent impacts to
subsistence resources and activities, among other purposes.
Minimize disturbance to molting geese and loss of goose molting habitat in and around lakes
in the Goose Molting Area.
Minimize the loss or alteration of habitat for, or disturbance of, nesting and brood rearing brant
in the Brant Survey Area.
Minimize disturbance and hindrance of caribou, or alteration of caribou movements through
portions of the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Habitat Area that are essential for all-season use,
including calving and rearing, insect-relief, and migration.
Minimize disturbance and hindrance of caribou, or alteration of caribou movements (that are
essential for all-season use, including calving and rearing, insect-relief, and migration) in the
area extending from the eastern shore of Teshekpuk Lake eastward to the Kogru River.
Minimize disturbance and hindrance of caribou, or alteration of caribou movements (that are
essential for all-season use, including calving and post calving, and insect-relief) in the area
south/southeast of Teshekpuk Lake.
Prevent or minimize loss of raptor foraging habitat.
Retain unique qualities of the Pik Dunes, including geologic and scenic uniqueness, insect-relief habitat for caribou, and habitat for several uncommon plant species.
Minimize disturbance and hindrance of caribou, or alteration of caribou movements through
the Utukok River Uplands Special Area that are essential for all-season use, including
calving and rearing, insect-relief, and migration.

gas leasing or new infrastructure, the
BLM will presume that proposed oil and
gas activities should not be permitted
unless it can be clearly demonstrated
that those activities can be conducted
with no or minimal adverse effects on
significant resource values, or unless
they are necessary to comport with the
terms of a valid existing lease. This
provision only applies to designated
Special Areas within the Reserve, and
implements the obligation placed on the
BLM by the NPRPA to assure the
maximum protection of surface values
to the extent consistent with the
requirements of the Act. The
presumption is based on the BLM’s
experience managing oil and gas
exploration and development in the
Reserve that all permitted oil and gas
activities within a Special Area will
result in significant adverse impacts to
surface resources. Therefore, absent the
need to honor the terms of a valid
existing lease or a demonstration by the
leaseholder that activities can be
conducted with no or minimal adverse
effect, the maximum protection mandate
in the NPRPA requires the BLM to adopt
this approach.
Section 2361.40(g) sets forth
procedures that must be followed when
the BLM prepares an environmental
analysis of proposed oil and gas leasing,
development, or new infrastructure

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

within Special Areas in the Reserve.
The BLM must provide meaningful
opportunities for public participation,
including responding to comments, and
consult with federally recognized Tribes
and Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act corporations that use the affected
Special Area for subsistence purposes or
have historic, cultural, or economic ties
to the Special Area. The BLM must
evaluate potential adverse effects on
significant resource values and consider
measures to avoid, minimize, or
otherwise mitigate adverse effects to
achieve maximum protection of
significant resource values. The BLM
must also document and consider
uncertainty about potential adverse
effects on significant resource values.
Actions taken to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate adverse effects must account
for any uncertainty. These procedures
are foundational to all NEPA processes
the agency undertakes, with increased
attention given to assuring maximum
protection and long-term resilience of
significant resource values, consistent
with the NPRPA.
If the proposed project is on lands in
a Special Area that are allocated as
closed to leasing or unavailable to new
infrastructure, then the BLM must
document how the proposal falls within
one of the exceptions provided for in
§ 2361.40(e). If the proposed project is

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
on lands in a Special Area that are
allocated as available for future oil and
gas leasing or new infrastructure, and
the BLM proposes to authorize the
project, then the BLM must document
the justification for overcoming the
presumption in § 2361.40(f). Section
2361.40(g)(4) provides examples of how
the presumption might be overcome,
such as if the proposed infrastructure is
necessary to comport with the terms of
a valid existing lease, or if it will
primarily be used by and provide a
benefit to communities located within
or in close proximity to the Reserve, and
the proposal has been conditioned to
avoid, minimize, or otherwise mitigate
adverse effects.
If the BLM determines through the
environmental analysis that the
proposal cannot avoid adverse effects on
significant resource values in a Special
Area, then the BLM must prepare a
Statement of Adverse Effect. The
Statement of Adverse Effect must
describe the significant resource values
that may be adversely affected; the
nature, scope, and duration of those
adverse effects; measures the BLM
evaluated to avoid the adverse effects,
including whether any practicable
alternatives exist that would have less
adverse impact on significant resource
values of the Special Area; justification
for not requiring those measures;
measures the BLM will require to
minimize adverse effects on significant
resource values of the Special Area; and
measures the BLM will require to
mitigate any residual adverse effects
that cannot be avoided or minimized.
The Statement of Adverse Effect would
be incorporated into the environmental
analysis and provided to the public for
review and comment.
Section 2361.40(h) requires that each
decision and authorization related to oil
and gas activity in the Reserve includes
terms and conditions that provide the
authorized officer with sufficient
authority to fully implement the
requirements of this section.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Section 2361.50—Management of
Subsistence Uses Within Special Areas
Existing and Proposed Regulations
The BLM proposed this new section
to require Special Areas to be managed
to protect and support fish and wildlife
and their habitats and the associated
subsistence use of those areas by rural
residents as defined in 50 CFR 100.4,
the Department of the Interior’s
subsistence management regulations for
public lands in Alaska. The proposed
rule also required the BLM to provide
appropriate access to and within Special
Areas for subsistence purposes, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

explicitly referenced assuring maximum
protection of the significant resource
values of the Special Areas in the
context of providing that access.
Public Comments on § 2361.50
Comment: Commenters expressed
concerns about the impacts of oil and
gas production in the Reserve on
subsistence values and requested the
BLM include more information on the
collaboration between regulatory
agencies, Alaska Native stakeholders,
and industry.
BLM Response: The BLM believes the
final rule provides meaningful and
necessary protections for subsistence
values from the impacts of oil and gas
production, consistent with the
Department of the Interior’s subsistence
management regulations for public
lands in Alaska. For example, the final
rule specifies that all Special Area
designation and amendment decisions
will rely on Indigenous Knowledge and
the best available information
concerning subsistence uses and
resources within the Reserve. It also
details procedures for the BLM to avoid
the adverse effects of proposed oil and
gas activities on the significant resource
values of Special Areas, which include
subsistence values. The final rule
requires the BLM to ensure that Special
Areas are managed to protect and
support fish and wildlife and fish and
wildlife habitat and associated
subsistence use, and to provide
appropriate access to and within Special
Areas for subsistence purposes.
Comment: Commenters recommended
the rule protect and enhance access for
subsistence activities for local
communities and ensure these activities
do not harm the fragile ecosystem.
BLM Response: The BLM believes the
regulations adequately address this
comment. The final rule requires the
BLM to ensure that Special Areas are
managed to protect and support
subsistence use of fish and wildlife and
their habitats. It further requires that the
BLM will provide appropriate access to
and within Special Areas for
subsistence purposes.
Comment: Comments noted that
ANILCA section 811 requires the BLM
to provide reasonable access to and
within Special Areas for subsistence use
of subsistence resources and
recommended the final rule reference
these provisions. Other commenters
recommended that the BLM eliminate
paragraph (b) because it is duplicative of
ANILCA section 811.
Commenters requested the BLM
clarify the differences between
‘‘appropriate access’’ as used in the
proposed rule versus ‘‘reasonable

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38747

access’’ under ANILCA section 811 and
ensure the rule is not inconsistent with
ANILCA. Commenters recommended
that the BLM clarify the type of access
anticipated by this provision.
Commenters requested the rule be
revised to clarify that the BLM’s
authority will never be used to restrict
access for local subsistence users.
BLM Response: The final rule retains
a separate section requiring
management of Special Areas to both
protect resources for subsistence and
protect access for subsistence activities,
in order to address these concerns. The
BLM has revised the language in this
section to refer to ‘‘reasonable access’’
instead of ‘‘appropriate access’’ for
consistency with the language in section
811 of ANILCA.
Comment: Commenters recommended
the BLM add language in the final rule
that expressly recognizes section 810 of
ANILCA mandates and ensures that the
final rule reinforces BLM’s duties to
reduce or eliminate the use of lands that
are needed for subsistence.
BLM Response: The BLM added
reference to ANILCA in the Authorities
section in the final rule, as discussed in
more detail in the Statutory Authority
section of this preamble.
Comment: Commenters recommended
this section include a statement
recognizing the ‘‘traditional and
ancestral cultural heritage of the Arctic
Indigenous people in and around the
NPR–A that continue to rely on critical
subsistence resources within the NPR–
A for their traditional, cultural, and
spiritual way of life.’’
BLM Response: The BLM believes this
comment is reflected in the preamble of
the proposed rule, which discussed in
detail: the manner in which subsistence
harvesting serves as the cornerstone of
the traditional relationship of the
In˜upiat people with their environment,
such that residents of communities in
and around the NPR–A rely on
subsistence harvests of plant and animal
resources for nutrition and their
cultural, economic, and social wellbeing; how activities associated with
subsistence provide a link between
contemporary Alaska Natives and their
ancestors; how traditional In˜upiaq
values, with an emphasis on sharing, are
embedded within all facets of In˜upiaq
society, including subsistence hunting
and harvesting traditions; and how the
ability to pass on these values through
the continuation of traditional
subsistence activities in traditional
places is essential to maintaining
cultural traditions, traditional
knowledge, and identity.
Including the recommended language
within the regulatory text is

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

38748

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

unnecessary as it does not direct
specific action the agency must take.
However, we appreciate the intent of the
comment, and we believe the regulation
will benefit subsistence use in the
Reserve.
Comment: Commenters requested that
the BLM assess Special Areas’
significant resource values in a manner
that assesses use for the intended
purpose, as subsistence harvest may
require more stringent impact
assessment valuation than public use.
For example, more stringent metrics
may need to be used to consider
consumption advisories and harmful
levels of contaminants for subsistence
users.
BLM Response: We appreciate that
subsistence harvest may require a
different management standard than
other uses and protection needs of
significant resource values. However,
this issue is best addressed in the IAP
or other process as provided for in
§ 2361.30 to address management of
Special Areas, so that the BLM can
consider and adopt site-specific
management decisions to adequately
protect subsistence use.

and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation
Relationships, January 26, 2021; Joint
Secretarial Order on Fulfilling the Trust
Responsibility to Indian Tribes in the
Stewardship of Federal Lands and
Waters, Order No. 3403, November 15,
2021.)
Public Comments on § 2361.60

Comment: Commenters generally
expressed support for the BLM to
maintain and strengthen co-stewardship
principles in the final rule.
BLM Response: The BLM appreciates
commenters’ support for the inclusion
of co-stewardship in the rule.
Comment: Commenters requested the
rule define co-stewardship more clearly.
BLM Response: The term costewardship includes a broad range of
cooperative efforts and is also defined in
BLM guidance. The BLM has
incorporated the definition that is used
in BLM Permanent Instruction
Memorandum No. 2022–011 (CoStewardship with Federally Recognized
Indian and Alaska Native Tribes
Pursuant to Secretary’s Order 3403).
Comment: Commenters recommended
that the rule make clear that it is the
Tribe or other partnering entity that
Description of the Final Rule
determines the appropriate mechanism,
such as co-management or coThe final rule adopts the proposed
stewardship.
rule but deletes from paragraph (b) the
BLM Response: The rule leaves it to
phrase ‘‘to the extent consistent with
the parties to determine the best coassuring maximum protection of all
stewardship approach based on their
significant resource values that are
collaborative efforts. There may be
found in such areas.’’ This phrase was
causing confusion and was unnecessary limitations on the types of agreements
that are available depending on
because § 2361.30 requires the BLM to
applicable law for specific situations.
adopt measures to assure maximum
Comment: Commenters recommended
protection of significant resource values
strengthening this section of the rule to
when designating Special Areas.
mandate co-stewardship and provide
Section 2361.60—Co-Stewardship
details on management models that may
Opportunities in Management of Special be adopted, rather than consider it as a
Areas and Subsistence
potential management approach.
Commenters recommended that
Existing and Proposed Regulations
meaningful requirements should
The BLM proposed this new section
include specificity and timelines for
to encourage the BLM to explore coactions by the BLM.
stewardship opportunities for Special
Commenters supported use of the
Areas, including co-management,
term ‘‘tribally led stewardship.’’
collaborative and cooperative
Commenters recommended
management, and tribally led
strengthening the provision to fully
stewardship. The title of this section in
support tribally led stewardship in
the proposed rule was ‘‘Co-stewardship
alignment with the Joint Secretarial
opportunities in Special Areas.’’ This
Order on Fulfilling the Trust
provision was designed to further the
Responsibility to Indian Tribes in the
Department of the Interior’s trust
Stewardship of Federal Lands and
relationship and obligation to protect
Waters Order 3403.
Tribal interests and further the NationBLM Response: The BLM is
to-Nation relationship with Tribes. It
committed to fulfilling our trust
also was designed to advance the
relationship and the directives in the
Federal Government’s commitment to
Joint Secretarial Order.9 We expanded
strengthening the role of Tribal
governments in Federal land
9 The Joint Secretarial Order on Fulfilling the
management. (Presidential
Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes in the
Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters Order
Memorandum on Tribal Consultation

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the section to specify that costewardship may be used for
management of both Special Areas and
subsistence resources.
Comment: Commenters requested that
the BLM create a Governing
Commission with a role for Tribes in
decision-making over subsistence
harvests and other land use
management decisions throughout the
NPR–A, that gives Tribal delegates true
decision-making authority. Commenters
provided detailed recommendations for
such a Commission.
Commenters requested that the BLM
create Indigenous-led stewardship
groups that could perform activities
such as monitoring harvests and
ensuring permit compliance, collecting
data on climate change indicators,
invasive species control, collecting
Traditional Indigenous Knowledge, and
monitoring cultural sites.
Commenters recommended that the
BLM establish a ‘‘Western Arctic
Indigenous Knowledge (IK) Expert
Advisory Group’’ to aid with comanagement and co-stewardship.
BLM Response: This recommendation
is outside the scope of the rule as
written. These are very interesting
concepts for reaffirming the importance
of the Reserve to subsistence and the
role of Indigenous Knowledge in
management and would not require
changes to the rule if implemented. The
BLM is interested in further discussions
about these ideas as we implement the
rule.
Comment: Commenters requested the
rule distinguish Tribal interests from
those of ANCSA corporations.
Commenters also recommended that the
rule should not authorize costewardship with any non-native or
non-local organizations.
BLM Response: Co-stewardship is
only available to Tribes. Separately, the
Bureau may partner with ANCSA
corporations, local governments, or
organizations as provided by law, which
3403 directs the Interior and Agriculture
Departments, and their component Bureaus and
Offices, to manage Federal lands and waters in a
manner that seeks to protect the treaty, religious,
subsistence, and cultural interests of federally
recognized Indian Tribes; that such management is
consistent with the nation-to-nation relationship
between the United States and federally recognized
Indian Tribes; and, that such management fulfills
the United States’ unique trust obligation to
federally recognized Indian Tribes and their
citizens. The Order enumerates actions the
Departments must undertake, such as collaborating
with federally recognized Tribes in the costewardship of Federal lands and waters, and
principles of implementation. The Order is
available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/
doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3403-jointsecretarial-order-on-fulfilling-the-trustresponsibility-to-indian-tribes-in-the-stewardshipof-federal-lands-and-waters.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
would not be co-stewardship
arrangements but a different type of
partnership. The text of the rule has
been revised to make this distinction
clearer.
Comment: Commenters requested that
BLM consultation be more inclusive
than just federally recognized Tribes
and ANCSA corporations. Commenters
proposed a multi-tiered approach to
consultation that provides for additional
self-governing bodies or cooperatives to
be included in the first tier of
consultation alongside the narrower
categories of federally recognized Tribes
and ANCSA corporations. Second and
third tiers of consulting parties would
include environmental organizations
with close ties to the North Slope and
inviting the public to informally
comment at any time a consultation
occurs.
BLM Response: The BLM did not
propose a broader approach to
consultation in the proposed rule.
Rather, it relied on existing law,
regulations, and guidance regarding
consultation with Tribes and Alaska
Native Corporations. Changing those
obligations is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, and, because it was not
proposed, the final rule cannot adopt
such an approach. The BLM works
closely with local communities when
making management decisions for the
Reserve and will continue to engage and
communicate with local communities in
implementing the rule, independent of
formal Tribal consultation efforts.

Public Comments on § 2361.70
Commenters recommended that the
final rule specifically include trapping
as a use that does not require a use
authorization. Non-commercial trapping
would not require a use authorization
under the rule. The examples of
activities exempted in § 2361.70(b) are
not comprehensive, as indicated by
‘‘e.g.’’ preceding the lists. The BLM
declined to change the final rule, as
trapping for recreation and/or
subsistence use is already excepted from
requiring a use authorization by this
section of the rule.
Description of the Final Rule

Description of the Final Rule

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

authorized by the Act.’’ The proposed
rule omitted that exception. The NPRPA
of 1976 authorized the Federal
Government to conduct exploration
activities; those activities did not
require approval by an authorized
officer. Since the 1980 amendments
initiated a competitive oil and gas
leasing program, all oil and gas
activities are conducted by oil and gas
companies and require authorization
from a BLM authorized officer.
No substantive changes were
proposed to § 2361.70(b).
The proposed rule modified
§ 2361.70(c) for clarity purposes and
updated § 2361.70(d) to recognize the
BLM’s duties to protect surfaces
resources and assure maximum
protection of Special Areas’ significant
resource values in the NPR–A.

In the final rule, the title is revised to
read ‘‘Co-stewardship opportunities in
management of Special Areas and
subsistence.’’ The first sentence is also
revised to add ‘‘and subsistence
resources throughout the NPR–A.’’
Those revisions reflect that the BLM
will seek co-stewardship opportunities
not just in managing Special Areas, but
also in managing subsistence resources
more broadly. The first sentence is also
revised to add ‘‘federally recognized’’ to
clarify that the BLM engages in costewardship with federally recognized
Tribes. This section of the final rule
fulfills the special trust relationship that
the Department of the Interior has with
Tribes.

In paragraph (b), the phrase ‘‘pursuant
to §§ 2361.1 and 2361.2 or otherwise’’ is
deleted as unnecessary. Otherwise, the
final rule adopts the proposed rule
without changes.

Section 2361.70—Use Authorizations

Description of the Final Rule

Existing and Proposed Regulations

The final rule adopts the section as
proposed, which provides that any
person who violates or fails to comply
with regulations of this subpart is
subject to prosecution, including
trespass and liability for damages,
pursuant to the appropriate laws.

Existing § 2361.2 is redesignated to
§ 2361.70 in the final rule. Existing
paragraph (a) states that all use
authorizations require approval from the
authorized officer ‘‘[e]xcept for
petroleum exploration which has been

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

Section 2361.80—Unauthorized Use
and Occupancy
Existing and Proposed Regulations
Existing § 2361.3 is redesignated to
§ 2361.80 in the final rule. No
substantive changes were proposed to
this section.
Public Comments on § 2361.80
No substantive comments were
received specific to this section.

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38749

V. Procedural Matters
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866, 13563
and 14094)
E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O.
14094, provides that the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) within the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) will review all
significant regulatory actions. OIRA has
determined that this rule is significant.
E.O. 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
this rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
The rule revises the framework for
designating and assuring maximum
protection of Special Areas and
associated values and will protect and
enhance access for subsistence activities
throughout the NPR–A. It also
incorporates aspects of the 2022 IAP.
The rule will have no effect on currently
authorized oil and gas operations in the
NPR–A.
BLM’s economic analysis concludes
that most of the provisions of the final
rule are editorial, administrative, or
otherwise could have no quantifiable
economic cost or benefit. There are two
changes that may generate economic
costs or benefits. First, the change
requiring evaluation of the NPR–A for
new Special Areas and associated
values every 10 years (or sooner if the
authorized officer determines that
changing conditions warrant) could
generate time and real costs related to
public engagement. These can be
minimized by combining this process
with the existing process for revising the
IAP. Second, the rule establishes the
current management strategy governing
oil and gas activity in Special Areas of
the NPR–A in regulation. The current
management strategy is described in the
2022 IAP ROD and is the baseline for
the economic analysis. Compared to the
baseline, there is either no or minimal
change in oil and gas management.
Future changes to the framework and

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

38750

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

process for management of oil and gas
activities in relation to Special Areas
and surface resources will require
regulatory action; changes to
management of specific Special Areas or
other areas in the NPR–A will be
addressed in the process set out in the
rule or through an IAP planning
revision.
The BLM estimates the annual effect
on the economy of the regulatory
changes will be less than $200 million
and will not adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities. As such,
the rule is not significant under section
3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as amended by
E.O. 14094. Pursuant to E.O. 12866, the
BLM is required to conduct an
economic analysis in accordance with
section 6(a)(3)(B) of that Executive
order. The BLM has complied with that
directive.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Public Comments on Regulatory Review
Comment: The BLM received
comments that the proposed rule would
substantively change the BLM’s
management of the NPR–A, create
uncertainty that may lead to reduced
investment and economic opportunities,
and does not contain merely
administrative and procedural changes.
The comment suggests that the BLM
failed to comply with E.O. 12866, E.O.
13563, and E.O. 13132. The comment
requests a full economic analysis, a
federalism assessment, and an EIS.
BLM Response: As described in the
BLM’s economic analysis, this rule
incorporates aspects of the 2022 IAP,
which is the current management
framework for the NPR–A and forms the
baseline for the economic analysis.
Compared to the baseline, there is either
no or minimal change in oil and gas
management. The rule will not alter the
terms of existing leases and will have no
effect on currently authorized oil and
gas operations in the NPR–A. The rule
establishes a framework for future
decision-making processes that would
result in management changes, such as
requiring the BLM to maintain an IAP,
which guides on-the-ground
management and which could be
updated in the future through a NEPA
process, and establishing the process by
which Special Areas would be
designated, de-designated, and modified
in the future. The BLM conducted an
economic analysis for the rule
consistent with the requirements under
E.O. 12866. Comments requesting a
federalism assessment and an EIS are

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

responded to in the relevant areas that
follow.
Comment: The BLM received
comments stating: ‘‘A proposed
regulation is economically significant if
it will have an annual effect on the
economy of $200 million or more
(adjusted every 3 years by the
Administrator of OIRA for changes in
gross domestic product). For
economically significant rules, a more
rigorous cost-benefit analysis must be
prepared pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C).’’
Comments requested BLM provide more
background information on how a
conclusion of an economic impact of
less than $200 million per year was
reached and requested participation of
the NPR–A working group to provide a
more rigorous cost benefit analysis.
BLM Response: The BLM reviewed
the provisions of the rule and disclosed
the potential impacts of the action
relative to the existing management
framework for the NPR–A. BLM’s
economic analysis concludes that most
of the provisions of the final rule are
editorial, administrative, or otherwise
could have no quantifiable economic
cost or benefit.
Comment: The BLM received
comments expressing concern that
neither the 2022 NPR–A IAP ROD nor
the proposed rule’s economic analysis
accounted for the likely recoverable oil
within the NPR–A and therefore
potentially reduced the impact from the
rule on the economic outlook from the
NPR–A.
BLM Response: The 2022 NPR–A IAP
ROD incorporates the analysis in the
2020 Final Environmental Impact
Statement, which evaluated potential
development in detail. The rule’s use of
the IAP as a baseline did not affect the
economic analysis of potential impacts
and the overall conclusion that the rule
will not have substantial impacts on
expected levels of oil and gas
development in the NPR–A.
Comment: The BLM received
comments stating that the economic
analysis provided is ‘‘insufficient and
omits any analysis of the effects of
regulatory provisions that will have
economic impacts, such as the proposed
presumption against permitting
activities in Special Areas.’’ Comments
requested that if the BLM decides to
proceed with the proposed rule, it must
first prepare for public review and
comment the proper analysis under
section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866.
BLM Response: The BLM’s economic
analysis fulfills the requirements of E.O.
12866 as amended. It discusses the
incremental effect of the presumption
that new leasing and infrastructure
should not be permitted unless specific

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

information clearly demonstrates they
can be conducted with no or minimal
adverse effects on significant resource
values relative to the statutory mandate
to assure maximum protection of
Special Areas. Compared to the baseline
for the analysis, the rule will not affect
management of existing leases or areas
identified as closed to leasing or new
infrastructure. For a small portion of
existing Special Areas that are not
leased and are designated as open to
leasing or available for new
infrastructure, the rule will have a
nominal or minimal effect on
management of oil and gas activity. The
effect will be nominal if the same
leasing stipulations are imposed under
the rule that would be imposed under
the baseline. Even if the stipulations are
more restrictive, the effect is expected to
be minimal due to the low revealed
demand for leasing in these areas. In the
event there is a minimal change in
leasing stipulations of the areas
considered open for leasing, the welfare
effects include those associated with the
change in oil and gas production as well
as the increased protection of the
ecological, subsistence, cultural and
other significant resource values.
Comment: The BLM received
comments stating that the presumption
that no additional leasing, development,
and/or infrastructure within Special
Areas will be allowed, paired with the
proposed discretion of the authorized
officer to establish interim/emergency
protections on lands considered for
Special Areas, is a significant regulatory
action. As such, the economic analysis
is insufficient to determine a significant
regulatory action described in E.O.
12866 section 3(f)(1), as amended by
E.O. 14094. The commenter asserts that
the BLM’s economic analysis fails to
even acknowledge this fact.
BLM Response: The BLM’s economic
analysis discusses the incremental effect
of the presumption that new leasing and
infrastructure should not be permitted
unless specific information clearly
demonstrates that the resulting activities
can be conducted with no or minimal
adverse effects on significant resource
values relative to the statutory mandate
to assure maximum protection of
Special Areas. See the BLM’s response
to a similar comment immediately
preceding this one.
Comment: The BLM received
comments stating that the scale of
impacts could exceed the $200 million
threshold of E.O. 12866. Commenters
provided information supporting this
statement including comparisons to the
Greater Mooses Tooth 1 development
that they state would likely exceed $1
billion in today’s dollars. They provide

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
further information on costs for Willow
and Pikka and state those projects
would be in the multi-billion-dollar
range. They use these statements to
request that the BLM conduct a
thorough economic analysis.
BLM Response: The commenters did
not provide quantitative information
establishing that the rule would increase
costs more than $200 million beyond
the costs involved in complying with
the existing regulations. The rule will
have no effect on currently authorized
oil and gas operations in the NPR–A,
like Greater Mooses Tooth 1. In
addition, it does not affect operations on
non-BLM lands or on operations outside
of the NPR–A, like Pikka. Currently, the
NPR–A is managed according to the
2022 IAP ROD. The rule will alter the
procedural steps needed to change
management of oil and gas activity
within Special Areas in the future,
though it will still require a public
process, consultation, and appropriate
NEPA analysis. The BLM’s economic
analysis for the rule discusses that
incremental change.
Comment: The BLM received
comments stating: ‘‘It is unclear how
BLM economic analysis considered the
Reasonably Foreseeable Development
Scenario (Appendix B of the NPR–A
IAP). The proposed rule and continue[d]
expansion of Special Areas would not
allow for the scenarios described in the
IAP but does not discuss the economic
impacts from those changes/restrictions.
Is BLM assuming that under this
proposed rule that there would be no
change to the reasonably foreseeable
development scenario and that the
proposed rule would allow for each of
the development scenarios described in
NPR–A IAP appendix B? If not, then
potential impacts from each
development scenario should be fully
evaluated.’’ 10
BLM Response: We believe that the
commenter is referencing the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the
2020 NPR–A IAP, issued in June 2020,
which was the analysis used for the
BLM’s 2022 IAP ROD. This rule
incorporates aspects of the 2022 IAP
ROD. The economic analysis for this
rule concludes that most of the
provisions of the final rule are editorial,
administrative, or otherwise have no
economic cost or benefit. The BLM is
not required to analyze alternatives that
were posed and analyzed in previous
planning efforts.
10 The Reasonably Foreseeable Development
Scenario is defined in appendix B of the 2020 Final
IAP/EIS, available at https://eplanning.blm.gov/
public_projects/117408/200284263/20020421/
250026625/Volume%202_Appendices%20B-Y.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

BLM notes that public commenters
raised potential distributional impacts
to specific communities. BLM expects
limited impacts of this rule relative to
the 2022 IAP baseline. However, to
clarify the impacts to management of
these areas when considering future
leases or infrastructure, the economic
analysis refers to the EIS of the 2022 IAP
for a high-level summary of potential
impacts to those communities from the
broader scope of the IAP. That EIS
addressed potential incremental effects
to In˜upiat residents of the North Slope
Borough and other communities of the
North Slope.
Comment: The BLM received
comments stating the position that the
BLM should use the existing regulations
rather than the 2022 IAP ROD as the
baseline to compare to the proposed
rule. They state that ‘‘the appropriate
baseline for this new Proposed Rule is
the rule it replaces. The rule being
replaced does not presume that leases or
surface infrastructure in Special Areas
cannot be permitted. The appropriate
baseline for economic analysis is clear
when the difference between adopting
the Proposed Rule and not adopting the
Proposed Rule is considered.’’
BLM Response: Concerning the
commenter’s suggestion that the BLM
did not use the appropriate baseline,
OMB Circular A–4 (September 17, 2003)
states that a baseline ‘‘normally will be
a ‘no action’ baseline: what the world
will be like if the proposed rule is not
adopted.’’ If the BLM did not issue this
rule, the 2022 IAP ROD would be the
prevailing management framework for
the NPR–A.
Comment: The BLM received
comments stating that while the
proposed rule ‘‘argues that there is little
interest in leasing of the Special Areas,
BLM’s own Table 3 in the Economic
Analysis summarizes that, since 2011,
for 5 out of 9 years, there has been
greater leasing in the Special Areas than
the rest of the NPRA.’’ Commenters
asserted that a proposed rule that
presumes against development would
likely result in decreased oil and gas
activity, thereby causing economic
impacts that should be acknowledged in
the Economic Analysis.
BLM Response: There is no clear
evidence of large, unmet demand for oil
and gas leases inside current Special
Areas (SAs). Three Special Areas (Peard
Bay SA, Kasegaluk Lagoon SA, and
Utukok River Uplands SA) are of low oil
and gas potential and far away from
existing infrastructure. As a result, these
have been unaffected by past oil and gas
activity. No leases have ever been
offered or issued in the Kasegaluk
Lagoon SA. Lease sales in 2013 and

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38751

2017 offered parcels in the Utukok River
Uplands SA, but none were acquired. In
2004, one lease was acquired that
included a very small overlap with the
Peard Bay SA. That lease was
relinquished in 2010 with no oil and gas
activity recorded. In 2016, there were
933 acres inside the Peard Bay SA
offered for lease, none were acquired.
Meanwhile, two Special Areas (Colville
River SA and Teshekpuk Lake SA) have
seen substantial interest in oil and gas
development, but large portions of those
areas have already been leased or have
been offered for lease and not acquired.
Approximately 52.5 percent (1,282,050
acres) and 90.3 percent (3,292,338 acres)
of the Colville River SA and Teshekpuk
Lake SA, respectively, have already
been offered for lease at least once since
creation of the NPR–A. Since 2011,
approximately 12.8 percent (313,000
acres) and 9.9 percent (361,000 acres)
within the Colville River SA and the
Teshekpuk Lake SA, respectively, were
leased.
Comment: The BLM received
comments stating that the economic
analysis did not consider concepts that
commenters suggested should be
considered, such as: restricted
production; whether royalty receipts
would exceed the risks posed by
projected oil and gas development; and
what funds would be necessary if an oil
and gas company fails to plug the wells
or reclaim the land, or to clean up oil
spills. Comments also suggested that
IAPs should incorporate a cost-benefit
analysis for future oil and gas leasing.
BLM Response: As described in the
BLM’s economic analysis, this rule
incorporates aspects of the 2022 IAP,
which is the current management
framework for the NPR–A and forms the
baseline for the economic analysis.
Compared to the baseline, there is either
no or minimal change in oil and gas
management. The rule will alter the
procedural steps needed to change
management of oil and gas activity
within Special Areas in the future,
though it will still require a public
process, consultation, and appropriate
NEPA analysis. The rule will not alter
the terms of existing leases and will
have no effect on currently authorized
oil and gas operations in the NPR–A.
Regarding the comments that IAPs
should incorporate a cost-benefit
analysis, the NEPA process that will
occur when changes are made to an IAP
does not require formal cost-benefit
analysis, but it may examine socioeconomic effects of the action, as
appropriate. In addition, any future
changes to management that require
regulatory action are subject to

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

38752

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

analytical requirements under E.O.
12866.
Comment: The BLM received
comments stating: ‘‘While the SCC
[social cost of carbon] was excluded
deliberately from the 2020 IAP/EIS, the
proposed rule should explicitly
implement SCC into its present and
future analysis to promote informed,
accurate decision making in the NPR–
A.’’ Commenters stated that the 2020
IAP/EIS correctly states that NEPA does
not require a cost-benefit analysis and
only requires a consideration of
economic and social effects but that
they ‘‘believe both the public and future
agency decision makers lack the
information that could be provided by a
robust cost-benefit analysis to make
wise choices in this particularly
pristine, remote, and vulnerable region.
For instance, because the proposed rule
does not require the inclusion of SCC in
future environmental documents within
the NPR–A, it will be difficult to
determine the true break-even point of
investment. Instead, agency decision
makers and the public may miss
opportunities to consider how
renewable energy alternatives, either in
the [NPR–A] or elsewhere, could
outcompete the energy output of an oil
project, all with minimal SCC.’’
BLM Response: As discussed in
section III(E) of this preamble above, the
rule is focused on addressing impacts to
surface values of the Reserve and
consolidating and implementing the
BLM’s statutory obligations, primarily
those in the NPRPA, to protect those
values when authorizing oil and gas
leasing and production. Thus, this rule
does not analyze or specifically consider
the climate impacts of oil and gas
development in the Reserve, which is
more appropriately addressed in the IAP
or when conducting NEPA analysis for
oil and gas leasing and production
activities.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary of the Interior certifies
that this final rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The BLM is not
required to prepare a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis with this final rule.
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) has developed size standards to
carry out the purposes of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act. The size
standards can be found in 13 CFR
121.201. For a specific industry
identified by the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS),

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

small entities are defined by the SBA as
an individual, limited partnership, or
small company considered at ‘‘arm’s
length’’ from the control of any parent
company, which meet certain size
standards.
The final rule is most likely to affect
business currently operating in the oil
and gas sector in the NPR–A. There are
eight active lessees in NPR–A. These
eight companies (and information about
the companies obtained from the public
domain) include: The Aklaq Company,
Alaska (an Alaska-registered company);
Borealis Alaska Oil, Inc (acquired by
Pantheon Resources, a United Kingdombased oil and gas company); Oil Search
Alaska, LLC (a subsidiary of Santos
Limited, a large Australian oil
company); Armstrong Oil and Gas, Inc
(a Colorado-based exploration
company); North Slope Exploration,
LLC (managed by Armstrong Oil and
Gas, Inc.); Repsol E&P USA Inc (a
subsidiary of Repsol, a large Spanish oil
company); ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc (a
subsidiary of ConocoPhillips, a large
American multinational corporation);
and Emerald House LLC (owned by XCD
Energy Ltd, an Australian-based oil
company).
SBA size standards identify small
business in the crude petroleum
extraction (NAICS 211120) and natural
gas extraction (NAICS 211130)
industries to be those with 1,250 or
fewer employees. Of the companies
identified, based on information that
BLM was able to obtain from the public
domain, the BLM believes that the
Aklaq Company Alaska, Borealis Alaska
Oil Inc, Armstrong and North Slope
Exploration, and Emerald House LLC
meet the SBA’s criteria of a small
business. The BLM has determined that
this is less than a substantial number of
small entities potentially affected.
In addition to small business, the RFA
also requires consideration of impacts
on small governmental jurisdictions.
There are four communities within the
Reserve that are likely considered small
government jurisdictions: Wainwright,
Utqiagvik, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut.
However, this rule will not override the
terms or status of existing leases, will
not affect authorized operations, and
does not impose direct regulatory cost
on any business or community.
Further, this rule does not change
management decisions regarding future
leasing and oil and gas development in
areas outside Special Areas, or within
Special Areas where leasing or
infrastructure is already restricted. In
the remaining areas, the impact on
future leasing is uncertain but expected
to be nominal or minimal for the
reasons identified above. Therefore, this

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

rule will not have significant economic
impact on small businesses holding
these leases or small government
jurisdictions in the Reserve.
Comment: The BLM received
comments expressing the concern that
development of the NPR–A provides a
direct economic benefit to the regional
government, local villages, and the State
of Alaska and that a reduction in
production from the NPR–A would
mean less revenue to provide services to
Alaskans. Commenters stated that the
economic analysis fails to consider the
impact to local communities of losing
future revenues and that they perceive
that the analysis does not consider the
‘‘social implications of eliminating or
dramatically restricting future
development in the NPR–A that would
remove jobs and a substantial portion of
the tax base’’.
BLM Response: The approval of
existing development and the terms of
existing leases are not affected by the
final rule, nor does the rule eliminate or
drastically restrict future development
in the NPR–A. As discussed in more
detail above and in the economic
analysis, the BLM does not anticipate
substantial impacts on leasing and
development. Future development is
already subject to conditions in the IAP,
the BLM has not received significant
interest in new leasing in response to
lands offered in sales, and the costs
associated with additional protective
measures consistent with current lease
terms would not impose a significant
new cost on operators.
Comment: The BLM received
comments expressing the opinion that
the BLM constrained the economic
analysis to eight active lessees in the
NPR–A and did not include ‘‘small
government jurisdictions’’ or other
small entities that operate within the
NPR–A. Commenters stated that the
North Slope Borough and the four
villages located within the NPR–A
(Utqiagvik, Wainwright, Atqasuk, and
Nuiqsut), and the Inupiat Community of
the Arctic Slope all qualify as small
government jurisdictions, and they
requested these entities be included in
the economic analysis. Several of these
comments also referenced the benefits it
perceives these entities receive from
development of the NPR–A, including
payments to the Mitigation Grant
program, employment opportunities,
and development of infrastructure.
BLM Response: The BLM recognizes
the government jurisdictions should
also be considered under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and has updated the
economic analysis accordingly.
However, while these small entities
exist, the rule does not affect existing

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
leases and does not prevent future oil
and gas development in the NPR–A. As
such, the rule is not expected to
significantly affect these communities
any differently that the current
management of the NPR–A.
Congressional Review Act
Based upon the economic analysis,
this final rule does not meet the criteria
under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Congressional
Review Act. This rule will not:
(a) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more.
(b) Cause a major increase in costs or
prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local
government agencies, or geographic
regions.
(c) Have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of U.S. based enterprises to compete
with foreign based enterprises.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
The final rule will not have a
significant or unique effect on State,
local, or Tribal governments or the
private sector. The final rule contains no
requirements that will apply to State,
local, or Tribal governments. The costs
that the final rule will impose on the
private sector are below the monetary
threshold established at 2 U.S.C.
1532(a). A statement containing the
information required by UMRA (2
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is therefore not
required for the final rule. This final
rule is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
because it contains no requirements that
apply to such governments, nor does it
impose obligations upon them.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
This rule does not affect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under E.O. 12630.
Section 2(a) of E.O. 12630 identifies
policies that do not have takings
implications, such as those that abolish
regulations, discontinue governmental
programs, or modify regulations in a
manner that lessens interference with
the use of private property. The rule
will not interfere with private property.
A takings implication assessment is not
required.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
Under the criteria in section 3 of E.O.
13132, this final rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

summary impact statement. A
federalism impact statement is not
required.
The final rule does not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the levels of
government. It does not apply to States
or local governments or State or local
governmental entities. The final rule
will affect the relationship between
operators, lessees, and the BLM, but it
does not directly impact the States.
Therefore, in accordance with E.O.
13132, the BLM has determined that
this final rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant
preparation of a federalism assessment.
Comment: Commenters question the
BLM’s statement that the rule does not
apply to States or local governments and
clarifies that the rule only ‘‘affects the
relationship between operators and
lessees in the NPR–A and their
relationships with the BLM.’’
Commenters further believe that the
area should be managed in a ‘‘joint
comprehensive management plan’’
under the authority granted to Alaska.
The commenter stated that Alaska’s
resource and regulatory agencies should
be ‘‘considered superior to any
proposed Federal process and have final
authority on any changes or rulemaking
that would conflict with existing state
programs.’’ Commenters suggest that
local counties and cities should have
the ultimate decision on what happens
on the land. The BLM and other
stakeholders should provide input, but
the State of Alaska and the residents
should make the final decision.
BLM Response: While commenters
take issue with the management
framework Congress established for the
Reserve, this is beyond the BLM’s
authority to address. Further, as
discussed in the section III(C) above, the
BLM did meet with the State of Alaska
regarding the rule and will engage with
State and local government agencies in
the implementation of this rule,
particularly during the development of
future IAP and project-specific NEPA
processes.
Comment: The BLM received
comments that stated the position the
proposed rule warrants preparation of a
federalism assessment. The commenter
recommended that the BLM undertake a
federalism assessment to evaluate the
impact of the proposed rule on the
State’s powers. For example,
§ 2361.50(a) of the proposed rule stated
that the BLM ‘‘will ensure that Special
Areas are managed to protect and
support fish and wildlife.’’ The

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38753

commenter argued that this ‘‘direction
conflicts with the State’s broad trustee
and police powers over fish and wildlife
within [its] borders.’’ The commenter
opined that the BLM therefore needs to
prepare a federalism assessment
consistent with E.O. 13132. The
commenter disagrees with the BLM’s
assertion that the proposed rule ‘‘would
not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ Rather, the
commenter argued that because the
Federal Government is required to pay
50 percent of all receipts from ‘‘sales,
rentals, bonuses, and royalties on
leases’’ in the NPR–A to the State of
Alaska, by revising and creating
procedures and requirements for
exploration, development, and
production in the NPR–A, ‘‘the
Proposed Rule has a direct impact on
these revenues and, thus, the interests of
the State and North Slope Borough.
Neither the State nor the North Slope
Borough were consulted on the
Proposed Rule as E.O. 13132 requires.
BLM should conduct the necessary
consultation with States and local
governments before proceeding with a
revised version of the Proposed Rule.’’
BLM Response: E.O. 13132 generally
prohibits Federal agencies from
promulgating rules that might have a
substantial direct effect on States or
local governments, on the relationship
between Federal and State governments,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, without meeting
certain conditions, such as consulting
with elected State and local government
officials early in the process to the
extent practicable. In particular,
administrative rules may not create
substantial direct compliance costs for
State or local governments that are not
otherwise required by statute, and may
not expressly or impliedly preempt
State law, without Federal agencies
undertaking additional processes. While
this rule does modify the management
approach the BLM will take in the
Reserve, the regulations only affect oil
and gas activity on Federal public lands;
nothing in the rule preempts State law
or requires State or local governments to
comply with specific provisions. As a
result, a federalism summary impact
statement is not required. Further, as
discussed in the section III(c) above, the
BLM did engage with the State of Alaska
and the North Slope Borough during the
rulemaking process.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

38754

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
This final rule complies with the
requirements of E.O. 12988. More
specifically, this final rule:
a. Meets the criteria of section 3(a),
which requires agencies to review all
regulations to eliminate errors and
ambiguity and to write all regulations to
minimize litigation; and
b. Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2),
which requires agencies to write all
regulations in clear language with clear
legal standards.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O.
13175 and Departmental Policy)
The BLM endeavors to maintain and
strengthen its government-togovernment relationship with Indian
Tribes through a commitment to
consultation with Indian Tribes and
recognition of their right to selfgovernance and Tribal sovereignty. The
BLM evaluated possible effects of the
rule on federally recognized Indian
Tribes under E.O. 13175, the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), and 512
Departmental Manual 2, as part of this
rulemaking process and determined that
the rule has tribal implications.
In conformance with the Secretary’s
policy on tribal consultation and 512
Departmental Manual 4–7, on August
25, 2023, the BLM invited via mail 45
Tribes and 30 Alaska Native
Corporations to engage in consultation
regarding the proposed NPR–A rule.
The BLM engaged in Tribal consultation
on the decisions and resulting actions
related to the IAP, including the 2022
IAP ROD. This regulation incorporates
those IAP decisions and also updates a
50-year-old framework to reflect the IAP
and lessons learned through preparing
IAPs. Prior consultation on the specific
procedural changes that were being
proposed provided the BLM with
valuable feedback on how the regulatory
language, in particular, might be
improved to better reflect Tribal
interests. The BLM felt that it would be
more productive to seek new feedback
after providing the proposal in the form
of a proposed regulation, which
necessarily differs from the process,
content, and form of a management
plan.
The BLM has continued to offer
consultation to Tribes and Alaska
Native Corporations that it determined
would be most likely to have substantial
direct effects from the rule, including
the Native Village of Atqasuk, Atqasuk
Corporation, Village of Wainwright,
Olgoonik Corporation, Native Village of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

Nuiqsut, Kuupik Corporation, Native
Village of Barrow, UIC, ICAS, and
ASRC. BLM Leadership and State and
Field Office staff met with the Mayor of
Atqasuk on October 31, Native Village
of Nuiqsut on November 1, ICAS on
November 3 and February 6, Village of
Wainwright on November 21, Olgoonik
Corporation on December 19, ASRC on
December 21, and Kuukpik Corporation
on February 1. In addition, staff met and
discussed the proposed rule with the
NPR–A Working Group (consisting of
representatives from North Slope local
governments, Native corporations, and
tribal entities, https://www.blm.gov/
programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-andgas/about/alaska/NPR-A/npr-a_
working_group) on September 26,
October 17, and December 1. We also
held in-person public meetings in
Nuiqsut, Utqiagvik, and Wainwright
where verbal comment was recorded,
along with three informational
sessions—one in Anchorage and two
virtual. The BLM will continue to
engage in consultation with Tribes and
Alaska Native Corporations after the
final rule is published.
As detailed in the public engagement
section above, the BLM received
requests, including from Tribes and
Alaska Native Corporations, to extend
the 60-day public comment period for
the proposed rule for an additional 90
days, which would have resulted in a
150-day (5-month) comment period. A
5-month comment period far exceeds
the typical duration for rulemaking
comment periods. While the BLM was
unable to grant the requested extension,
we did extend the comment period for
an additional 30 days, resulting in a 90day comment period for the proposed
rule. While the comment period for the
proposed rule overlapped with the
comment period on the Draft
Supplemental EIS for the Coastal Plain,
the Coastal Plain comment period was
60 days and ended one month before the
close of the comment period on the
proposed rule.
During consultation, the Tribes and
Alaska Native Corporations raised
similar concerns as they submitted
during the comment period of the rule,
which are addressed in the responses to
comment above. Notable concerns
raised during consultation include the
potential for loss of revenue from oil
and gas development, the need for
protections to sustain tribal members’
subsistence way of life, ensuring
adequate consultation going forward,
and ensuring that the rule allows access
for communities and continued
economic development opportunities
for community members. Changes made
in response to this input, include:

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

revising sections of the rule that relate
to consultation to clarify that an
economic tie to a Special Area is a basis
for consultation; ensuring consultation
is consistently required throughout the
processes for designating, dedesignating and modifying Special
Areas and evaluating proposed oil and
gas activities in Special Areas; adding
subsistence as an area for costewardship across the Reserve,
broadening the language in the section
on co-stewardship beyond opportunities
in Special Areas; and revising the
language in the section on subsistence
to provide for reasonable access, to be
consistent with ANILCA, rather than
using the term ‘‘appropriate’’ access.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
(44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3521) generally
provides that an agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and not
withstanding any other provision of law
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 final rule contains an
information-collection requirement that
is subject to review by OMB under the
PRA. This information-collection is
located in § 2361.30(a)(4). One of the
key principles of the final rule is the
inclusion of stakeholder and the public
notice and participation in the
designation and removal of lands to be
included in an SA. To help ensure that
the BLM receives the information
needed to inform its decision to include
lands in an SA, § 2361.30(a)(4) includes
a list of criteria that should be addressed
when a member of the public
recommends lands for such a
designation. This information includes
the following:
• The size and location of the
recommended lands;
• The significant subsistence,
recreational, fish and wildlife,
historical, or scenic resource values that
are present within or supported by the
recommended lands;
• Measures that may be necessary to
assure maximum protection of those
values; and
• Any other pertinent information.
The BLM has submitted a request to
OMB for the information-collection
requirement contained in this final rule.
The estimated burden associated with
this information-collection is outlined
below.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
OMB Control Number: 1004–0221.
Title of Collection: Management and
Protection of the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska—Recommendations
for Special Reserve Areas (§ 2361.30).
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: New collection
(Request for new OMB Control
Number).
Respondents/Affected Public:
Person(s) who wish to recommend lands
to be designated as a Special Area in the
NPR–A.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion;
every 5 years.
Number of Respondents: 100.
Annual Responses: 100.
Estimated Average Response time: 15
hours.
Annual Burden Hours: 1,500.
Annual Burden Cost: None.
If you want to comment on the
information-collection requirements in
this final rule, please send your
comments and suggestions on this
information-collection request within 30
days of publication of this final rule in
the Federal Register to OMB by going to
www.reginfo.gov. Click on the link,
‘‘Currently under Review—Open for
Public Comments.’’

applies because the final rule sets out a
framework for managing oil and gas
activity in the Reserve, but is not selfexecuting, meaning that it does not itself
make substantive changes on the ground
and does not restrict the BLM’s
discretion to undertake or authorize
future on-the-ground action without
new future decisions that implement the
rule. As such, the rule fits within the
categorical exclusion for rules,
regulations, or policies to establish
bureau-wide administrative procedures,
program processes, or instructions. This
final rule does not authorize any project
or other on-the-ground activity and
therefore will have no significant
individual or cumulative effects on the
quality of the human environment. The
environmental effects of future actions
undertaken to implement this rule are
too speculative or conjectural to be
meaningfully evaluated at this time but
will be subject to the appropriate level
of NEPA review prior to making a
decision. The BLM has also determined
that none of the extraordinary
circumstances identified at 43 CFR
46.215 apply to this rulemaking. This
categorical exclusion documentation is
provided in docket BLM–2023–0006 on
regulations.gov.

National Environmental Policy Act

Effects on the Nation’s Energy Supply
(E.O. 13211)
Under E.O. 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 on
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 E.O. 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 E.O. 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 OIRA as a
significant energy action.’’
This final rule will not have a
significant effect on the Nation’s energy
supply. It restates existing statutory
standards and establishes a procedural
framework for ensuring that the BLM
meets those standards. It also codifies
land use restrictions that already are

This final rule meets the criteria set
forth at 43 CFR 46.210(i) for a
Departmental categorical exclusion in
that this final rule is ‘‘of an
administrative, financial, legal,
technical, or procedural nature.’’ They
do not involve any of the extraordinary
circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215.
Public Comments on NEPA: The BLM
received a number of comments
objected to the BLM’s intent to rely on
a categorical exclusion to comply with
NEPA and requested that the BLM
prepare an environmental analysis,
including a range of alternatives for
certain aspects of the rule, in order to
comply with NEPA.
BLM Response: The BLM disagrees
with comments that environmental
analysis under NEPA is required, or that
extraordinary circumstances apply to
this rulemaking. The BLM has
determined that the categorical
exclusion set out at 43 CFR 46.210(i)
applies to this rulemaking. That
provision excludes from NEPA analysis
and review actions that are ‘‘of an
administrative, financial, legal,
technical, or procedural nature; or
whose environmental effects are too
broad, speculative, or conjectural to
lend themselves to meaningful analysis
and will later be subject to the NEPA
process, either collectively or case-bycase.’’ That categorical exclusion

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38755

legally binding in the 2022 IAP ROD.
Further, the final rule presumes, in final
§ 2361.40(c), that oil and gas leasing or
infrastructure on lands allocated as
available for such activities ‘‘should not
be permitted unless specific information
available to the Bureau clearly
demonstrates that those activities can be
conducted with no or minimal adverse
effects on significant resource values.’’
That presumption merely implements
the BLM’s existing statutory duty to
assure maximum protection of the
significant resource values in Special
Areas to the extent consistent with the
requirements of this Act for the
exploration and production of the
Reserve. 42 U.S.C. 6504(a). The
presumption is consistent with this
statutory direction and limited by it,
such that the actions that the BLM may
take under this framework to assure
maximum protection are within the
same scope as those that could have
been taken without the framework set
out in the rule. As discussed in more
detail in the regulatory impact analysis
(RIA), based on the status of existing
leases, most recent lease sales, and the
fact that the rule will not alter the terms
of approved leases or approved
development, the BLM does not expect
the rule to have a substantial impact on
exploration and production from the
Reserve. Therefore, the final rule will
not change the supply, distribution, or
use of energy.
Public Comments on E.O. 13211
The BLM received comments that the
proposed rule constitutes a significant
energy action as it would affect the
supply, distribution, and use of energy,
and thereby fails to comply with E.O.
13211. One commenter specified that
‘‘actions taken to restrict and limit oil
and gas development, access to the
NPR–A for oil and gas development,
and codification of BLM’s authority to
restrict, deny, and minimize oil and gas
development in the NPR–A would
logically have an impact on the Nation’s
energy supply.’’ Commenters also
asserted that oil production from the
NPR–A will extend the economic
lifetime of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
and enable domestic oil to reach the rest
of the United States. For the reasons
stated above, the rule will not change
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
Other commenters cited an estimate
from the U.S. Geological Survey that
there are 8.7 billion barrels of
undiscovered oil in the NPR–A, an
important reserve created specifically by
Congress for energy production.
Commenters added that ‘‘ . . . by
denying development in the region,

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

38756

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

BLM is denying the State of Alaska, and
the U.S., billions of dollars in revenue.’’
Furthermore, comments stated that
BLM’s proposed plan will also deny
American consumers affordable and
reliable energy at a time of persistently
high fuel prices; the rule ‘‘undermines
the reality that oil produced from the
NPR–A can displace imports and will
increase the likelihood of imports from
less environmentally regulated regions
of the world.’’
These comments misunderstand the
rule; it does not prohibit exploration for
and development of oil and gas in the
Reserve. Rather, it allows oil- and gasrelated activities to continue consistent
with the NPRPA by establishing
procedures for the BLM to mitigate
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects of proposed oil and gas
activities on the surface resources of the
Reserve and to provide maximum
protection for surface values within
Special Areas for proposed oil and gas
activities.
The BLM received comments
discussing the Russian invasion of
Ukraine and the importance of energy
security and strengthening the supply
chain for the U.S. and its allies.
Commenters indicated that ‘‘as one of
the largest exporters of petroleum in the
world, the United States’ ability to
facilitate global diversification from
Russian energy can only be enhanced by
NPR–A development.’’ Again, these
comments misunderstand the rule; it
does not prohibit exploration for and
development of oil and gas in the
Reserve.
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2360
Alaska, Oil and gas activity,
Protection of surface resources, Special
areas, Tribes.
Delegation of Signing Authority
This action by the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary is taken pursuant to
an existing delegation of authority.
Steven H. Feldgus,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land
and Minerals Management.

For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Bureau of Land
Management revises 43 CFR part 2360
to read as follows:

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

■

PART 2360—NATIONAL PETROLEUM
RESERVE IN ALASKA
Subpart 2361—Management and Protection
of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
Sec.
2361.1 Purpose.
2361.3 Authority.
2361.4 Responsibility.
2361.5 Definitions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

2361.6 Effect of law.
2361.7 Severability.
2361.10 Protection of surface resources.
2361.20 Existing Special Areas.
2361.30 Special Areas designation and
amendment process.
2361.40 Management of oil and gas
activities in Special Areas.
2361.50 Management of subsistence uses
within Special Areas.
2361.60 Co-stewardship opportunities in
management of Special Areas and
subsistence.
2361.70 Use authorizations.
2361.80 Unauthorized use and occupancy.
Subpart 2362 [Reserved]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6501 et seq. and 43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.

PART 2360—NATIONAL PETROLEUM
RESERVE IN ALASKA
Subpart 2361—Management and
Protection of the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska
§ 2361.1

Purpose.

The purpose of the regulations in this
subpart is to provide procedures for
protection and control of the
environmental, fish and wildlife, and
historical and scenic values of the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
from significantly adverse effects of oil
and gas activities on the surface
resources of the Reserve and assuring
maximum protection of significant
resource values in Special Areas
pursuant to and consistent with the
provisions of the Naval Petroleum
Reserves Production Act of 1976 (90
Stat. 303; 42 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (94 Stat. 2371, 16 U.S.C. 3101 et
seq.), and other applicable authorities.
§ 2361.3

Authority.

The primary statutory authority for
this subpart is the Naval Petroleum
Reserves Production Act of 1976, as
amended by the Department of the
Interior Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year
1981 (Pub. L. 96–514). Additional
authority is provided by the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)—other than the land
use planning and wilderness study
requirements, which do not apply to the
Reserve under 42 U.S.C. 6506a(c)—and
the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et
seq.).
§ 2361.4

Responsibility.

The Bureau of Land Management is
responsible for the surface and
subsurface management of the Reserve,
including protecting surface resources
from environmental degradation and
assuring maximum protection of

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

significant resource values in Special
Areas. The Act authorizes the Bureau to
prepare rules and regulations necessary
to carry out surface management and
protection duties.
§ 2361.5

Definitions.

As used in this subpart, the term:
Act means the Naval Petroleum
Reserves Production Act of 1976 (as
amended and codified at 42 U.S.C.
6501–6508).
Authorized officer means any
employee of the Bureau of Land
Management who has been delegated
the authority to perform the duties of
this subpart.
Bureau means the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM).
Co-Stewardship broadly refers to
cooperative and collaborative
engagements of Bureau land managers
and Tribes related to shared interests in
managing, conserving, and preserving
natural and cultural resources under the
primary responsibility of Federal land
managers. Such cooperative and
collaborative engagements can take a
wide variety of forms based on the
circumstances and applicable
authorities in each case. Forms of costewardship may include, among other
forms, sharing of technical expertise;
combining Tribal and Bureau
capabilities to improve resource
management and advance the
responsibilities and interests of each;
and making Tribal knowledge,
experience, and perspectives integral to
the public’s experience of Federal lands.
Exploration means activities
conducted on the Reserve for the
purpose of evaluating petroleum
resources, including crude oil, gases
(including natural gas), natural gasoline,
and other related hydrocarbons, oil
shale, and the products of any such
resources.
Indigenous Knowledge (IK) means a
body of observations, oral and written
knowledge, practices, and beliefs
developed by Tribes and Indigenous
Peoples through interaction and
experience with the environment. It is
applied to phenomena across biological,
physical, social, and cultural systems.
IK can be developed over millennia,
continues to develop, and includes
understanding based on evidence
acquired through direct contact with the
environment and long-term experiences,
as well as extensive observations,
lessons, and skills passed from
generation to generation. IK is
developed by Indigenous Peoples
including, but not limited to, Tribal
Nations, American Indians, and Alaska
Natives.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Infrastructure means a permanent or
semi-permanent structure or
improvement on BLM-administered
lands within the Reserve that is built to
support commercial oil and gas
activities, such as pipelines, gravel
drilling pads, man camps, and other
structures or improvements.
Infrastructure does not include
exploratory wells that are drilled in a
single season; or construction,
renovation, or replacement of facilities
on existing gravel pads at previously
disturbed sites where the facilities will
promote safety and environmental
protection. Additionally, infrastructure
does not include: structures or
improvements intended for use by
subsistence hunters, trappers, fishers,
berry-pickers, and other subsistence
users to facilitate subsistence activities;
construction that is ephemeral (such as
snow or ice roads); infrastructure
constructed in support of science or
public safety; or infrastructure that will
primarily be used by and provide a
benefit to communities located within
or in close proximity to the Reserve.
Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) means a
land use management plan that governs
the management of all BLMadministered lands and minerals
throughout the Reserve.
Reserve means those lands within the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
(prior to June 1, 1977, designated Naval
Petroleum Reserve No. 4) which was
established by Executive order, dated
February 27, 1923, except for tract
Numbered 1 as described in Public Land
Order 2344 (the Naval Arctic Research–
Laboratory—surface estate only) dated
April 24, 1961.
Secretary means the Secretary of the
Interior.
Significant resource value means any
surface value, including subsistence,
recreational, fish and wildlife,
historical, scenic, or other surface value
that the Bureau identifies as significant
and supports the designation of a
Special Area.
Special Areas means areas within the
Reserve identified by the Secretary or by
statute as having significant resource
values and that are managed to assure
maximum protection of such surface
values, to the extent consistent with the
requirements of the Act for the
exploration and production of the
Reserve.
Use authorization means a written
approval of a request for use of land or
resources.
§ 2361.6

Effect of law.

(a) Subject to valid existing rights, and
except as provided by the Department of
the Interior Appropriations Act, Fiscal

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

Year 1981 (Pub. L. 96–514), all lands
within the exterior boundaries of the
Reserve are reserved and withdrawn
from all forms of entry and disposition
under the public land laws, including
the mining and mineral leasing laws,
and all other acts.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (a) of this section, the
Secretary is authorized to:
(1) Make dispositions of mineral
materials pursuant to the Act of July 31,
1947 (61 Stat. 681), as amended (30
U.S.C. 601), for appropriate use by
Alaska Natives and the North Slope
Borough.
(2) Make such dispositions of mineral
materials and grant such rights-of-way,
licenses, and permits as may be
necessary to carry out the Secretary’s
responsibilities under the Act.
(3) Convey the surface of lands
properly selected on or before December
18, 1975, by Native village corporations
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act, as amended (43 U.S.C.
1601, et seq.).
(4) Grant such rights-of-way to the
North Slope Borough, under the
provisions of title V of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1761 et seq.) or section 28 of the
Mineral Leasing Act, as amended (30
U.S.C. 185), as may be necessary to
permit the North Slope Borough to
provide energy supplies to villages on
the North Slope.
(c) All other provisions of law
heretofore enacted and actions
heretofore taken reserving such lands as
a Reserve shall remain in full force and
effect to the extent not inconsistent with
the Act.
(d) To the extent not inconsistent with
the Act, all other public land laws are
applicable.
§ 2361.7

Severability.

If a court holds any provision of the
regulations in this part or their
applicability to any person or
circumstances invalid, the remainder of
the regulations in this part and their
applicability to other people or
circumstances will remain unaffected.
§ 2361.10

Protection of surface resources.

(a) In administering the Reserve, the
Bureau must protect surface resources
by adopting whatever conditions,
restrictions, and prohibitions it deems
necessary or appropriate to mitigate
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects of proposed oil and gas
activities. Such conditions, restrictions,
or prohibitions may involve
conditioning, delaying action on, or
denying some or all aspects of proposed
oil and gas activities, and will fully

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38757

consider community access and other
infrastructure needs, after consultation
with the North Slope Borough and
consistent with § 2361.6.
(b) The Bureau will use the following
procedures to protect surface resources
from the reasonably foreseeable and
significantly adverse effects of proposed
oil and gas activities:
(1) The Bureau will maintain an
Integrated Activity Plan (IAP)
addressing management of all BLMadministered lands and minerals
throughout the Reserve. When issuing a
use authorization, the authorization
must conform to the IAP and this
subpart, including any subsequent
designation or modifications of Special
Areas. To the extent there is any
inconsistency between the IAP and this
subpart, this subpart governs;
(2) In each decision concerning
proposed activity in the Reserve, the
authorized officer will document
consideration of, and adopt measures to
mitigate, reasonably foreseeable and
significantly adverse effects on fish and
wildlife, water, cultural,
paleontological, scenic, and any other
surface resource. The authorized officer
will take particular care to account for,
and mitigate adverse effects on, surface
resources that support subsistence uses
and needs; and
(3) In assessing effects of a decision
concerning proposed activity in the
Reserve, the authorized officer will
document consideration of any
uncertainty concerning the nature,
scope, and duration of potential effects
on surface resources of the Reserve and
shall ensure that any conditions,
restrictions, or prohibitions on proposed
oil and gas activities account for and
reflect any such uncertainty.
(c) When affected surface resources
are located in a Special Area, the
authorized officer must comply with the
procedures and requirements of
§§ 2361.20 through 2361.60.
(d) The authorized officer must
include in each decision and
authorization related to proposed oil
and gas activity in the Reserve such
terms and conditions that provide the
Bureau with sufficient ability to fully
implement the requirements of this
subpart.
(e)(1) To the extent consistent with
the requirements of the Act, other
applicable law, and the terms of any
applicable existing authorization, and
after consultation with appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies,
federally recognized Tribes, and Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act
corporations, the authorized officer may
limit, restrict, or prohibit the use of or
access to lands within the Reserve,

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

38758

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

including Special Areas. Upon proper
notice, as determined by the authorized
officer, such actions may be taken to
protect fish and wildlife breeding,
nesting, spawning, lambing or calving,
or migrations; subsistence uses and
resources; and other environmental,
scenic, or historic values.
(2) The consultation requirement in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section is not
required when the authorized officer
determines that emergency measures are
required.
(f) No site, structure, object, or other
values of historical, cultural, or
paleontological character, including, but
not limited to, historic and prehistoric
remains, fossils, and artifacts, shall be
injured, altered, destroyed, or collected
without authorization under an
appropriate Federal permit and without
compliance with applicable law
governing cultural items, archaeological
resources, and historic properties.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

§ 2361.20

Existing Special Areas.

Any lands within the Reserve
designated as a Special Area as of June
6, 2024, will continue to be managed as
a Special Area except as modified
pursuant to § 2361.30, including:
(a) Colville River Special Area. The
Colville River Special Area
encompasses the area within the
boundaries depicted on maps that are
published as of June 6, 2024, and
available for public inspection at the
Arctic District Office. The Colville River
Special Area shall be managed to assure
maximum protection of the following
significant resource values, as well as
additional values identified through the
process set forth in § 2361.30:
(1) Important habitat for raptor
species, including, but not limited to,
the Arctic peregrine falcon;
(2) Important habitat for other bird
species, including, but not limited to,
neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds,
loons, waterfowl, inland dwelling sea
birds, and passerines;
(3) Important habitat for moose;
(4) Important habitat for fish;
(5) Important subsistence activities;
(6) Important recreational activities;
(7) World-class paleontological
deposits; and
(8) Significant cultural resources,
including numerous sites from the
prehistoric and historic eras.
(b) Kasegaluk Lagoon Special Area.
The Kasegaluk Lagoon Special Area
encompasses the area within the
boundaries depicted on maps that are
published as of June 6, 2024, and
available for public inspection at the
Arctic District Office. The Kasegaluk
Lagoon Special Area shall be managed
to assure maximum protection of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

following significant resource values, as
well as additional values identified
through the process set forth in
§ 2361.30:
(1) Important habitat for marine
mammals;
(2) Unique ecosystem for the Arctic
Coast;
(3) Opportunities for primitive
recreational experiences;
(4) Important habitat for migratory
birds; and
(5) Important subsistence activities.
(c) Peard Bay Special Area. The Peard
Bay Special Area encompasses the area
within the boundaries depicted on maps
that are published as of June 6, 2024,
and available for public inspection at
the Arctic District Office. The Peard Bay
Special Area shall be managed to assure
maximum protection of the following
significant resource values, as well as
additional values identified through the
process set forth in § 2361.30:
(1) Haul-out areas and nearshore
waters for marine mammals; and
(2) High-use staging and migration
areas for shorebirds and waterbirds.
(d) Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. The
Teshekpuk Lake Special Area
encompasses the area within the
boundaries depicted on maps that are
published as of June 6, 2024, and
available for public inspection at the
Arctic District Office. The Teshekpuk
Lake Special Area shall be managed to
assure maximum protection of the
following significant resource values, as
well as additional values identified
through the process set forth in
§ 2361.30:
(1) Important nesting, staging, and
molting habitat for a large number of
migratory and other waterbirds;
(2) Important caribou habitat;
(3) Important shorebird habitat;
(4) Subsistence hunting and fishing
activities;
(5) Pik Dunes; and
(6) Overwintering habitat for fish.
(e) Utukok River Uplands Special
Area. The Utukok River Uplands
Special Area encompasses the area
within the boundaries depicted on maps
that are published as of June 6, 2024,
and available for public inspection at
the Arctic District Office. The Utukok
River Uplands Special Area shall be
managed to assure maximum protection
of the following significant resource
values, as well as additional values
identified through the process set forth
in § 2361.30:
(1) Important habitat for the Western
Arctic Caribou Herd;
(2) Subsistence hunting activities;
(3) Grizzly bear habitat; and
(4) Important wilderness values.

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

§ 2361.30 Special Areas designation and
amendment process.

(a) In designating, de-designating, or
otherwise changing boundaries or
management of Special Areas, the
authorized officer must:
(1) Rely on the best available
scientific information, including
Indigenous Knowledge, as well as the
best available information concerning
subsistence uses and resources within
the Reserve;
(2) Provide the public and interested
stakeholders with notice of, and
meaningful opportunities to participate
in, the evaluation process;
(3) Consult with any federally
recognized Tribes and Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act corporations that
use the affected Special Area for
subsistence purposes or have historic,
cultural, or economic ties to the Special
Area; and
(4) In designating, de-designating, or
otherwise changing boundaries of
Special Areas, base their decisions
solely on the presence or absence of
significant resource values and not the
existence of measures that have been or
may be adopted to protect or otherwise
administer those values.
(b) The Bureau must evaluate lands
within the Reserve for the presence of
significant subsistence, recreational, fish
and wildlife, historical, or scenic values
and shall designate lands as Special
Areas containing such values in
accordance with the following
procedures:
(1) Every 10 years, or sooner if the
authorized officer determines that
changing conditions warrant, the
authorized officer must evaluate and
determine whether to:
(i) Designate new Special Areas;
(ii) Expand existing Special Areas;
(iii) Recognize the presence of
additional significant resource values in
existing Special Areas; or
(iv) Require additional measures or
strengthen existing measures to assure
maximum protection of significant
resource values within existing Special
Areas.
(2) The authorized officer may, but is
not required to, conduct the evaluation
and otherwise designate and amend
Special Areas through amendment of
the IAP.
(3) The authorized officer must
provide the public and interested
stakeholders with the opportunity to
recommend lands that should be
considered for designation as a Special
Area, significant resource values that
the authorized officer should consider
recognizing for existing Special Areas,
and measures that the authorized officer
should consider requiring to assure

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
maximum protection of significant
resource values within Special Areas.
The authorized officer will evaluate and
respond to recommendations that are
made in completing its evaluation. Such
recommendations should identify and
describe:
(i) The size and location of the
recommended lands;
(ii) The significant resource values
that are present within or supported by
the recommended lands;
(iii) Measures that may be necessary
to assure maximum protection of those
values; and
(iv) Any other pertinent information.
(4) If, at any point after receipt of an
internal or external recommendation,
the authorized officer determines that
interim measures are required to assure
maximum protection of significant
resource values in lands under
consideration for designation as a new
or modified Special Area, the
authorized officer may implement such
measures that are consistent with the
governing management prescriptions in
the IAP during the period for which the
lands remain under consideration;
provided, however, that the authorized
officer will provide public notice that
interim measures are in place and such
measures will be reassessed to
determine if they are still needed if they
remain in place for more than 5 years.
(5) When the authorized officer
designates lands as Special Areas or
recognizes the presence of additional
significant resource values in existing
Special Areas, the authorized officer
must adopt measures to assure
maximum protection of significant
resource values. Such measures are not
constrained by the provisions of the
current IAP. Once adopted, these
measures supersede inconsistent
provisions of the IAP then in effect for
the Reserve and will be incorporated
into the IAP during the next revision or
amendment.
(6) For any lands designated as a
Special Area, the authorized officer will
publish a legal description of those
lands in the Federal Register, along
with a concise summary of the
significant resource values that support
the designation. The Bureau will also
maintain a map of the Special Area on
its website and available for public
inspection at the Arctic District Office.
(c) The Bureau may not remove lands
from the Teshekpuk Lake and Utukok
River Uplands Special Areas unless
directed to do so by statute. The Bureau
may remove lands within other Special
Areas only when all of the significant
resource values that support the
designation are no longer present. When
determining whether to remove lands

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

from a Special Area designation, the
authorized officer must:
(1) Prepare a summary of its proposed
determination, including the underlying
factual findings;
(2) Provide the public and interested
stakeholders with the opportunity to
review and comment on the proposed
determination; and
(3) Issue a determination that
documents how the views and
information provided by the public,
federally recognized Tribes, Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act
corporations, federally qualified
subsistence users, and other interested
stakeholders have been considered.
§ 2361.40 Management of oil and gas
activities in Special Areas.

The management priority within
Special Areas is to assure maximum
protection of significant resource values,
consistent with the requirements of the
Act for exploration and production of
the Reserve. The Bureau must fulfill this
duty at each stage in the decisionmaking process for oil and gas activities
in the Reserve, and in accordance with
the following procedures:
(a) The authorized officer must, to the
extent consistent with the Act, take such
steps as are necessary to avoid the
adverse effects of proposed oil and gas
activities on the significant resource
values of Special Areas. This includes,
but is not limited to, conditioning,
delaying action on, or denying
proposals for activities, either in whole
or in part, and ensuring that leasing and
production is approved only subject to
the provisions of this section.
(b) The authorized officer will
identify and adopt maximum protection
measures for each significant resource
value that is present in a Special Area
when Special Areas are designated. The
authorized officer will update maximum
protection measures as appropriate
thereafter, including in the IAP, lease
terms, and permits to conduct oil and
gas activities.
(c) Maximum protection may include,
but is not limited to, requirements for:
(1) Rescheduling activities, including
specifying rates of development, and
requiring use of alternative routes;
(2) Limiting new infrastructure and
roads;
(3) Limiting extraction of sand and
gravel or withdrawal of water;
(4) Limiting types of vehicles and
loadings;
(5) Limiting types of aircraft in
combination with minimum flight
altitudes and distances from identified
places; and
(6) Applying special fuel handling
procedures.

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

38759

(d) Subject to any revisions made
pursuant to § 2361.30, oil and gas
leasing and authorization of new
infrastructure in Special Areas will
conform to the land use allocations and
restrictions identified on the maps
published as of June 6, 2024, and
available for public inspection at the
Arctic District Office.
(e) On lands within Special Areas that
are allocated as closed to leasing or
unavailable to new infrastructure,
certain uses may be authorized under
limited circumstances:
(1) The authorized officer may issue
oil and gas leases in Special Areas if
drainage is occurring. Any lease issued
for drainage purposes will include
provisions that prohibit surfacedisturbing oil and gas activities on the
entire lease tract.
(2) The authorized officer may
approve new roads, pipelines,
transmission lines, and other types of
infrastructure in Special Areas provided
that:
(i) The infrastructure will primarily be
used by and provide a benefit to
communities located within or in close
proximity to the Reserve or will support
subsistence activities; and
(ii) Appropriate measures are adopted
to assure maximum protection of
significant resource values.
(3) The authorized officer may
approve new permanent infrastructure
related to existing oil and gas leases
only if such infrastructure is necessary
to comport with the terms of a valid
existing lease.
(f) On lands within Special Areas that
are allocated as available for future oil
and gas leasing or new infrastructure,
the authorized officer will presume that
proposed oil and gas activities should
not be permitted unless specific
information available to the authorized
officer clearly demonstrates that those
activities can be conducted with no or
minimal adverse effects on significant
resource values or unless they are
necessary to comport with the terms of
a valid existing lease.
(g) When preparing an environmental
analysis of proposed leasing,
exploration, development, or new
infrastructure in Special Areas, and
reaching a final decision, the authorized
officer will:
(1) Provide the public with a
meaningful opportunity to review and
comment, and consider and respond to
any relevant comment they receive;
(2) Consult with federally recognized
Tribes and Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act corporations that use the
affected Special Area for subsistence
purposes or have historic, cultural, or
economic ties to the Special Area;

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7

38760

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Rules and Regulations

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES7

(3) Evaluate potential adverse effects
and measures to avoid, minimize, or
otherwise mitigate such effects to
achieve maximum protection of
significant resource values;
(4) Document how the proposal falls
within one of the exceptions in
paragraph (e) of this section or the
justification for overcoming the
presumption in paragraph (f) of this
section, such as if the proposed
infrastructure is necessary to comport
with the terms of a valid existing lease,
or if it will primarily be used by and
provide a benefit to communities
located within or in close proximity to
the Reserve, and the proposal has been
conditioned to avoid, minimize, or
otherwise mitigate adverse effects;
(5) Document and consider any
uncertainty concerning the nature,
scope, and duration of potential adverse
effects on significant resource values of
Special Areas and ensure that any
actions taken to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate such effects account for and
reflect any such uncertainty; and
(6) Prepare a Statement of Adverse
Effect, if the authorized officer
determines that the proposal cannot
avoid adverse effects on significant
resource values in a Special Area. The
Statement of Adverse Effect will
describe the:
(i) Significant resource values that
may be adversely affected;
(ii) Nature, scope, and duration of
those adverse effects;
(iii) Measures the Bureau evaluated to
avoid the adverse effects, including
whether any practicable alternatives
exist that would have less adverse
impact on significant resource values of
the Special Area;
(iv) Justification for not requiring
those measures;
(v) Measures the authorized officer
will require to minimize, to the
maximum extent possible, adverse
effects on significant resource values of
the Special Area; and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:27 May 06, 2024

Jkt 256001

(vi) Measures the authorized officer
will require to mitigate any residual
adverse effects that cannot be avoided or
minimized, including compensatory
mitigation, along with an explanation of
how those measures will assure
maximum protection of significant
resource values.
(h) The authorized officer must
include in each decision and
authorization related to oil and gas
activity in the Reserve terms and
conditions that provide the authorized
officer with sufficient authority to fully
implement the requirements of this
section.
§ 2361.50 Management of subsistence
uses within Special Areas.

(a) The Bureau will ensure that
Special Areas are managed to protect
and support fish and wildlife and fish
and wildlife habitat and associated
subsistence use of such areas by rural
residents as defined in 50 CFR 100.4.
(b) The Bureau will provide
reasonable access to and within Special
Areas for subsistence purposes.
§ 2361.60 Co-stewardship opportunities in
management of Special Areas and
subsistence.

In accordance with the Bureau’s costewardship guidance, the Bureau will
seek opportunities to engage federally
recognized Tribes in co-stewardship for
management of Special Areas and
subsistence resources throughout the
Reserve. Co-stewardship opportunities
may include co-management,
collaborative and cooperative
management, and tribally led
stewardship, and can be implemented
through cooperative agreements,
memoranda of understanding, selfgovernance agreements, and other
mechanisms. The Bureau may also
partner with Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act corporations, local
governments, or organizations as
provided by law.

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

§ 2361.70

Use authorizations.

(a) Use authorizations must be
obtained from the authorized officer
prior to any use within the Reserve.
Only uses that are consistent with the
purposes and objectives of the Act and
this subpart will be authorized.
(b) Except as may be limited,
restricted, or prohibited by the
authorized officer, use authorizations
are not required for:
(1) Subsistence uses (e.g., hunting,
fishing, and berry-picking); and
(2) Non-commercial recreational uses
(e.g., hunting, fishing, backpacking, and
wildlife observation).
(c) Applications for use authorizations
shall be filed in accordance with
applicable regulations in this chapter. In
the absence of such regulations, the
authorized officer may consider and act
upon applications for uses allowed
under the Act.
(d) In addition to other statutory or
regulatory requirements, approval of
applications for use authorizations shall
be subject to such terms and conditions
as the authorized officer determines to
be necessary to protect the
environmental, subsistence,
recreational, fish and wildlife,
historical, and scenic values of the
Reserve and to assure maximum
protection of significant resource values
within Special Areas.
§ 2361.80 Unauthorized use and
occupancy.

Any person who violates or fails to
comply with regulations of this subpart
is subject to prosecution, including
trespass and liability for damages,
pursuant to the appropriate laws.
Subpart 2362 [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2024–08585 Filed 5–6–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331–29–P

E:\FR\FM\07MYR7.SGM

07MYR7