|
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
California |
|||
|
[Federal Register: July 20, 2004 (Volume
69, Number 138)] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule would modify the BLM's planning regulations for three reasons. It defines cooperating agency and cooperating agency status. It clarifies the responsibility of managers to offer this status to qualified agencies and governments and to respond to requests for this status. Finally, it makes clear the rule of cooperating agencies in the various steps of BLM's planning process. The rule is needed to emphasize the importance of working with federal and state agencies and local and tribal governments through cooperating agency relationships in developing, amending, and revising the Bureau's resource management plans. BLM's current planning regulations do not mention the cooperating agency relationship. DATES: You should submit your comments on or before September 20, 2004. The BLM may not necessarily consider comments postmarked or received by messenger or electronic mail after the above date in the decision- making process on the final rule. ADDRESSES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Comment Procedures I. Public Comment Procedures A. How Do I File Comments? You may submit your comments by
any one of several methods: B. May I Review Comments Others Submit? BLM intends to post all comments on the Internet. If you are requesting that your comment remain confidential, do not send us your comment at the direct internet address or the e-mail address because we immediately post all comments we receive on the internet. Also, comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under ADDRESSES: Personal or messenger delivery'' during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish to withhold your name and address, except for the city or town, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. II. Background Cooperative agency status provides
a formal framework for governmental units--local, state, tribal, or federal--to
engage in active collaboration with a lead federal agency to implement the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.
The goals of the cooperating agency relationship include: III. Why Are We Proposing This Rule? BLM's policy emphasizes the importance
of working with federal and state agencies and local and tribal governments
to develop the Bureau's resource management plans. BLM's current planning regulations
do not mention the cooperating agency relationship, an important tool for working
with other agencies and governments. The proposed rule: IV. Section-by-Section Analysis Section 1601.4 Responsibilities * * * * * Section 1601.0-5 Definitions We propose to amend this section by adding definitions of ``cooperating agency'' and ``cooperating agency status.'' The definition of cooperating agency is drawn directly from the cooperating agency definition in the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations in 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5. The definition of cooperating agency status makes clear that an agency becomes a cooperating agency only after it has entered into a written agreement with BLM. We are also adding a definition of Field Manager. The purpose of the definition is to update the regulations to reflect BLM's current organizational structure. In many cases, BLM has moved away from having district offices and subordinate area offices. BLM now has field offices that we formerly called area offices or district offices. However, in some instances, we maintain a district office with subordinate field offices. Therefore, to avoid having to use the term ``District Manager and/or Field Manager'' we are defining Field Manager to include both positions. Section 1610.1 Resource Management Planning Guidance The only changes proposed for this section are editorial, and would not affect the substance of the rule. Section 1610.2 Public Participation The only changes proposed for this section are editorial, and would not affect the substance of the rule. Section 1610.3-1 Coordination of Planning Efforts Changes to this section would provide direction that explicitly requires State Directors and Field Managers to utilize the cooperating agency relationship in their efforts to coordinate with other federal and state agencies and local and tribal governments, where possible and appropriate. We propose to include language instructing State Directors and Field Managers to invite qualifying federal agencies, state and local governments, and tribal governments to participate as cooperating agencies in the development, amendment, and revision of resource management plans. New language also would require Field Managers to consider requests for cooperating agency status from other federal and state agencies and local and tribal governments, and to inform the State Director if the Field Manager denies the request. These changes would provide a more consistent approach to the use of cooperating agencies by the BLM. Other changes proposed for this section are editorial, and would not affect the substance of the rule. Section 1610.4-1 Identification of Issues We propose revising this section to instruct Field Managers to collaborate with cooperating agencies throughout the scoping process. Other changes proposed for this section are editorial, and would not affect the substance of the rule. Section 1610.4-2 Development of Planning Criteria We propose revising the first sentence of this section to expressly include cooperating agencies among those the BLM will coordinate with in developing planning criteria for resource management plans and revisions. Section 1610.4-3 Inventory Data and Information Collection We propose revising the first sentence of this section to instruct Field Managers to collaborate with cooperating agencies in arranging for the collection of data and information. Other changes proposed for this section are editorial, and would not affect the substance of the rule. Section 1610.4-4 Analysis of the Management Situation We propose revising the first sentence of this section to instruct Field Managers to collaborate with cooperating agencies in preparing the analysis of the management situation. Section 1610.4-5 Formulation of Alternatives We propose revising the first sentence of this section to instruct BLM to collaborate with cooperating agencies in formulating alternatives. We also would emphasize that the decision to identify a preferred alternative remains the exclusive responsibility of the BLM. Section 1610.4-6 Estimation of Effects of Alternatives We propose revising this section to instruct Field Managers to collaborate with cooperating agencies in analyzing and displaying the effects of implementing each alternative. The second sentence would emphasize that the decision to identify a preferred alternative remains the exclusive responsibility of the BLM. Other changes proposed for this section are editorial, and would not affect the substance of the rule. Section 1610.4-7 Identification of Preferred Alternative We are changing the title of the section to be consistent with CEQ regulations that address the identification of a preferred alternative, not the selection of the preferred alternative. We propose rewriting the first sentence of this section into two sentences. The first sentence would instruct Field Managers to collaborate with cooperating agencies in evaluating the alternatives and identifying a preferred alternative. The second sentence would emphasize that the decision to identify a preferred alternative remains the exclusive responsibility of the BLM. Other changes proposed for this section are editorial, and would not affect the substance of the rule. Changing Titles We are proposing numerous changes throughout Part 1600 when referring to position titles. These changes would replace the title of District Manager and Area Manager with the term Field Manager to reflect the current BLM organization. V. Procedural Matters Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review This proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Order 12866. The effect of the rule is limited to governmental
entities, and merely clarifies within BLM's planning regulations the criteria
for cooperating agency relationships, and their application to BLM's planning
process. This rule does not create new opportunities or obligations for other
agencies beyond those already existing under the Council on Environmental Quality's
regulations, particularly 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5. Regulatory Flexibility Act Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The effect of the rule is limited to governmental entities, and merely clarifies within BLM's planning regulations the criteria for cooperating agency relationships, and their application to BLM's planning process. While state agencies and local and tribal governments may entail some expense in participating as cooperating agencies in BLM planning processes, their participation is entirely voluntary. Moreover, this rule does not alter their opportunities to participate as cooperating agencies, which is already provided for in the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500 et seq.) regulations. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It will not cause an increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. While state agencies and local and tribal governments may entail some expense in participating as cooperating agencies in BLM planning processes, their participation is voluntary. This rule does not alter their opportunities to participate as cooperating agencies. The rule does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act BLM has determined that this proposed rule is not significant under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, because it will not result in State, local, and tribal government, or private sector expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year. This proposed rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.). Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings) The proposed rule does not represent a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, the Department of the Interior has determined that the rule would not cause a taking of private property or require further discussion of takings implications under this Executive Order. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The rule only codifies existing policy that allows states and local government to participate in land use planning with BLM and neither adds nor removes these entities from a decision making role. Therefore, BLM has determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant BLM preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments The proposed rule does not include policies that have tribal implications as defined in Executive Order 13175. That is, it would not ``have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes''. The proposed rule would not alter the right of a federally recognized tribal government to serve as a cooperating agency in the BLM planning process. Moreover, tribal governments are sovereign dependent nations, standing in a government- to-government relationship with the U.S. government. This provides the primary basis for consultation with federal agencies, taking precedence over any consultation procedures established through regulation, including the rule proposed here. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this proposed rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed regulation does not contain any information collection requirements. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 BLM has determined that this proposed rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under the Department of the Interior Manual 516 DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 1, Sec. 1.10, this proposed rule qualifies as a categorical exclusion because it is procedural in nature and because its environmental effect is too broad, speculative or conjectural to analyze. Furthermore, the proposed rule does not meet any of the 10 criteria for exceptions to the categorical exclusions listed in 516 DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 2. Under Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department of the Interior, the term ``categorical exclusions'' means a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and that have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use In accordance with Executive Order 13211, BLM has determined that the proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the energy supply, distribution or use, including a shortfall in supply or price increase. Clarity of the Regulations Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write regulations
that are simple and easy to understand. We invite your comments on how
to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including
answers to questions such as the following: List of Subjects at 43 CFR Part 1600 Administrative practice and procedures, Environmental impact statements, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Public lands. Dated: July 7, 2004. For reasons set forth in the preamble
and under the authority of the FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1740), BLM proposes to amend
part 1600 of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
* * * * *
* * * * *
4. Amend Sec. 1610.1 by inserting
after ``resource areas''
wherever it appears, the term ``or field office.''
* * * * *
(a) In addition to the public involvement
prescribed by Sec.
1610.2 the following coordination is to be accomplished with other
Federal agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes. The
objectives of the coordination are for the State Directors and Field
Manager to:
* * * The Field Manager, in collaboration
with any participating
cooperating agencies, will analyze those suggestions and other
available data, such as records of resource conditions, trends, needs,
and problems, and select topics and determine the issues to be
addressed during the planning process. * * *
(a) The Field Manager will prepare
criteria to guide development of
the resource management plan or revision, to ensure:
(a) The Field Manager, in collaboration
with any participating
cooperating agencies, will arrange for resource, environmental, social,
economic and institutional data and information to be collected, or
assembled if already available. * * *
The Field Manager, in collaboration
with any participating cooperating agencies, will analyze the inventory data
and other information available to determine the ability of the resource area
to respond to identified issues and opportunities. * * * Sec. 1610.4-5 Formulation of alternatives. At the direction of the Field Manager,
in collaboration with any
participating cooperating agencies, BLM will consider all reasonable
resource management alternatives and develop several complete
alternatives for detailed study. Nonetheless, the decision to designate
alternatives for the further development and analysis remains the
exclusive responsibility of the BLM. * * *
The Field Manager, in collaboration
with any participating
cooperating agencies, will estimate and display the physical,
biological, economic, and social effects of implementing each
alternative considered in detail. * * *
The Field Manager, in collaboration
with any participating
cooperating agencies, will evaluate the alternatives, estimate their
effects according to the planning criteria, and identify a preferred
alternative that best meets Director and State Director guidance.
Nonetheless, the decision to identify a preferred alternative remains
the exclusive responsibility of the BLM. * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [FR Doc. 04-16224 Filed 7-19-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-M |
|||
| USA.gov | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® | |||
| Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home | |||