19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–528 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

STREAMLINING PERMITTING OF AMERICAN ENERGY ACT 

OF 2012 

JUNE 15, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4383] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 4383) to streamline the application for permits to drill 

process and increase funds for energy project permit processing, 

and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 

amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Streamlining Permitting of American Energy Act 

of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title. 

Sec. 2. Table of contents. 

TITLE I—APPLICATION FOR PERMITS TO DRILL PROCESS REFORM 

Sec. 101. Permit to drill application timeline. 

Sec. 102. Solar and wind right-of-way rental reform. 

TITLE II—ADMINISTRATIVE PROTEST DOCUMENTATION REFORM 

Sec. 201. Administrative protest documentation reform. 

TITLE III—PERMIT STREAMLINING 

Sec. 301. Improve Federal energy permit coordination. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Sec. 302. Administration of current law. 

Sec. 303. Policies regarding buying, building, and working for America. 

TITLE IV—JUDICIAL REVIEW 

Sec. 401. Definitions. 

Sec. 402. Exclusive venue for certain civil actions relating to covered energy projects. 

Sec. 403. Timely filing. 

Sec. 404. Expedition in hearing and determining the action. 

Sec. 405. Standard of review. 

Sec. 406. Limitation on injunction and prospective relief. 

Sec. 407. Limitation on attorneys’ fees. 

Sec. 408. Legal standing. 

TITLE I—APPLICATION FOR PERMITS TO 

DRILL PROCESS REFORM 

SEC. 101. PERMIT TO DRILL APPLICATION TIMELINE. 

Section 17(p)(2) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(p)(2)) is amended to 

read as follows: 

‘‘(2) APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL REFORM AND PROCESS.— 

‘‘(A) TIMELINE.—The Secretary shall decide whether to issue a permit to 

drill within 30 days after receiving an application for the permit. The Secretary may extend such period for up to 2 periods of 15 days each, if the 

Secretary has given written notice of the delay to the applicant. The notice 

shall be in the form of a letter from the Secretary or a designee of the Secretary, and shall include the names and titles of the persons processing the 

application, the specific reasons for the delay, and a specific date a final decision on the application is expected. 

‘‘(B) NOTICE OF REASONS FOR DENIAL.—If the application is denied, the 

Secretary shall provide the applicant— 

‘‘(i) in writing, clear and comprehensive reasons why the application 

was not accepted and detailed information concerning any deficiencies; 

and 

‘‘(ii) an opportunity to remedy any deficiencies. 

‘‘(C) APPLICATION DEEMED APPROVED.—If the Secretary has not made a 

decision on the application by the end of the 60-day period beginning on the 

date the application is received by the Secretary, the application is deemed 

approved, except in cases in which existing reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or Endangered Species Act of 1973 are incomplete. 

‘‘(D) DENIAL OF PERMIT.—If the Secretary decides not to issue a permit 

to drill in accordance with subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall— 

‘‘(i) provide to the applicant a description of the reasons for the denial 

of the permit; 

‘‘(ii) allow the applicant to resubmit an application for a permit to 

drill during the 10-day period beginning on the date the applicant receives the description of the denial from the Secretary; and 

‘‘(iii) issue or deny any resubmitted application not later than 10 days 

after the date the application is submitted to the Secretary. 

‘‘(E) FEE.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary shall 

collect a single $6,500 permit processing fee per application from each 

applicant at the time the final decision is made whether to issue a permit under subparagraph (A). This fee shall not apply to any resubmitted application. 

‘‘(ii) TREATMENT OF PERMIT PROCESSING FEE.—Of all fees collected 

under this paragraph, 50 percent shall be transferred to the field office 

where they are collected and used to process protests, leases, and permits under this Act subject to appropriation.’’. 

SEC. 102. SOLAR AND WIND RIGHT-OF-WAY RENTAL REFORM. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each fiscal year, of fees collected as 

annual wind energy and solar energy right-of-way authorization fees required under 

section 504(g) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

1764(g)), 50 percent shall be retained by the Secretary of the Interior to be used, 

subject to appropriation, by the Bureau of Land Management to process permits, 

right-of-way applications, and other activities necessary for renewable development, 

and, at the discretion of the Secretary, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or 

other Federal agencies involved in wind and solar permitting reviews to facilitate 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

the processing of wind energy and solar energy permit applications on Bureau of 

Land Management lands. 

TITLE II—ADMINISTRATIVE PROTEST 

DOCUMENTATION REFORM 

SEC. 201. ADMINISTRATIVE PROTEST DOCUMENTATION REFORM. 

Section 17(p) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(p)) is further amended 

by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(4) PROTEST FEE.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall collect a $5,000 documentation fee 

to accompany each protest for a lease, right of way, or application for permit to drill. 

‘‘(B) TREATMENT OF FEES.—Of all fees collected under this paragraph, 50 

percent shall remain in the field office where they are collected and used 

to process protests subject to appropriation.’’. 

TITLE III—PERMIT STREAMLINING 

SEC. 301. IMPROVE FEDERAL ENERGY PERMIT COORDINATION. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this section as 

the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall establish a Federal Permit Streamlining Project (referred to 

in this section as the ‘‘Project’’) in every Bureau of Land Management field office 

with responsibility for permitting energy projects on Federal land. 

(b) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary shall enter into a memorandum of understanding for purposes of this section with— 

(A) the Secretary of Agriculture; 

(B) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and 

(C) the Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

(2) STATE PARTICIPATION.—The Secretary may request that the Governor of 

any State with energy projects on Federal lands to be a signatory to the memorandum of understanding. 

(c) DESIGNATION OF QUALIFIED STAFF.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the date of the signing of the 

memorandum of understanding under subsection (b), all Federal signatory parties shall, if appropriate, assign to each of the Bureau of Land Management 

field offices an employee who has expertise in the regulatory issues relating to 

the office in which the employee is employed, including, as applicable, particular expertise in— 

(A) the consultations and the preparation of biological opinions under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536); 

(B) permits under section 404 of Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 

U.S.C. 1344); 

(C) regulatory matters under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); 

(D) planning under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 

U.S.C. 472a et seq.); and 

(E) the preparation of analyses under the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

(2) DUTIES.—Each employee assigned under paragraph (1) shall— 

(A) not later than 90 days after the date of assignment, report to the Bureau of Land Management Field Managers in the office to which the employee is assigned; 

(B) be responsible for all issues relating to the energy projects that arise 

under the authorities of the employee’s home agency; and 

(C) participate as part of the team of personnel working on proposed energy projects, planning, and environmental analyses on Federal lands. 

(d) ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL.—The Secretary shall assign to each Bureau of Land 

Management field office identified in subsection (a) any additional personnel that 

are necessary to ensure the effective approval and implementation of energy projects 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management field offices, including inspection 

and enforcement relating to energy development on Federal land, in accordance with 

the multiple use mandate of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

(e) FUNDING.—Funding for the additional personnel shall come from the Department of the Interior reforms identified in sections 101, 102, and 201. 

(f) SAVINGS PROVISION.—Nothing in this section affects— 

(1) the operation of any Federal or State law; or 

(2) any delegation of authority made by the head of a Federal agency whose 

employees are participating in the Project. 

(g) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section the term ‘‘energy projects’’ includes 

oil, natural gas, coal, and other energy projects as defined by the Secretary. 

SEC. 302. ADMINISTRATION OF CURRENT LAW. 

Notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not require a 

finding of extraordinary circumstances in administering section 390 of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. 

SEC. 303. POLICIES REGARDING BUYING, BUILDING, AND WORKING FOR AMERICA. 

(a) CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.—It is the intent of Congress that— 

(1) this Act will support a healthy and growing United States domestic energy 

sector that, in turn, helps to reinvigorate American manufacturing, transportation, and service sectors by employing the vast talents of United States workers to assist in the development of energy from domestic sources; and 

(2) Congress will monitor the deployment of personnel and material onshore 

under this Act to encourage the development of American technology and manufacturing to enable United States workers to benefit from this Act through good 

jobs and careers, as well as the establishment of important industrial facilities 

to support expanded access to American energy resources. 

(b) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of the Interior shall, when possible and practicable, encourage the use of United States workers and equipment manufactured 

in the United States in all construction related to mineral resource development 

under this Act. 

TITLE IV—JUDICIAL REVIEW 

SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act— 

(1) the term ‘‘covered civil action’’ means a civil action containing a claim 

under section 702 of title 5, United States Code, regarding agency action (as defined for the purposes of that section) affecting a covered energy project on Federal lands of the United States; and 

(2) the term ‘‘covered energy project’’ means the leasing of Federal lands of 

the United States for the exploration, development, production, processing, or 

transmission of oil, natural gas, wind, or any other source of energy, and any 

action under such a lease, except that the term does not include any disputes 

between the parties to a lease regarding the obligations under such lease, including regarding any alleged breach of the lease. 

SEC. 402. EXCLUSIVE VENUE FOR CERTAIN CIVIL ACTIONS RELATING TO COVERED ENERGY 

PROJECTS. 

Venue for any covered civil action shall lie in the district court where the project 

or leases exist or are proposed. 

SEC. 403. TIMELY FILING. 

To ensure timely redress by the courts, a covered civil action must be filed no 

later than the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the final Federal 

agency action to which it relates. 

SEC. 404. EXPEDITION IN HEARING AND DETERMINING THE ACTION. 

The court shall endeavor to hear and determine any covered civil action as expeditiously as possible. 

SEC. 405. STANDARD OF REVIEW. 

In any judicial review of a covered civil action, administrative findings and conclusions relating to the challenged Federal action or decision shall be presumed to be 

correct, and the presumption may be rebutted only by the preponderance of the evidence contained in the administrative record. 

SEC. 406. LIMITATION ON INJUNCTION AND PROSPECTIVE RELIEF. 

In a covered civil action, the court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further 

than necessary to correct the violation of a legal requirement, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct that violation. In addition, courts shall limit the duVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:22 Jun 16, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR528P1.XXX HR528P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

ration of preliminary injunctions to halt covered energy projects to no more than 60 

days, unless the court finds clear reasons to extend the injunction. In such cases 

of extensions, such extensions shall only be in 30-day increments and shall require 

action by the court to renew the injunction. 

SEC. 407. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES. 

Sections 504 of title 5, United States Code, and 2412 of title 28, United States 

Code, (together commonly called the Equal Access to Justice Act) do not apply to 

a covered civil action, nor shall any party in such a covered civil action receive payment from the Federal Government for their attorneys’ fees, expenses, and other 

court costs. 

SEC. 408. LEGAL STANDING. 

Challengers filing appeals with the Department of the Interior Board of Land Appeals shall meet the same standing requirements as challengers before a United 

States district court. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 4383, as ordered reported, is to streamline 

the application for permits to drill process and increase funds for 

energy project permit processing. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Since taking office, the Obama Administration has made energy 

and mineral development on federal lands so burdensome and undesirable that companies consistently seek out state and private 

lands for development rather than deal with the lengthy and uncertain federal regulatory process. The Administration has taken 

historically devastating steps to delay and halt production on federal lands—such as delaying the issuing of a permit by months or 

even years, removing swaths of land from previously announced 

lease sales and restricting areas prospective for future solar and 

wind energy development. 

Burdensome and duplicative environmental restrictions and legal 

challenges greatly stifle energy projects and job creation, sometimes for years. A recent SWCA Environmental Consultant report 

reviewed the economic impacts of all outstanding oil and natural 

gas projects proposed on federal lands in the West. SWCA determined that 44,329 wells were proposed in 22 NEPA documents currently under development. These wells, mostly located in Utah and 

Wyoming, would create over an estimated 120,000 jobs, $139 billion in government revenue, and $27.5 billion in economic activity. 

Many of these wells have been tied up in the environmental review 

process for over five years. The study concluded that if these wells 

were permitted to go forward by 2020, the West could produce as 

much oil and natural gas on a daily basis as the U.S. imports from 

Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Algeria, Nigeria, 

and Colombia combined. 

Delays and energy permitting backlogs plague the Department of 

the Interior and U.S. Forest Service. Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) field offices suffer from lengthy permitting backlogs partially due to underfunding and understaffing. Since 2008, the yearly Interior appropriations bill has levied a fee on oil and natural 

gas companies for submitting and processing Applications for Permit to Drill (APD). This fee has increased annually in the appropriations bill, and the current cost per APD is $6,500. The companies are then left waiting months, sometimes years to have their 

permit(s) approved. The federal government waiting times are sigVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:22 Jun 16, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR528P1.XXX HR528P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

nificantly longer than state waiting times. The federal government 

often takes over 200 days to process a permit; the average state 

processing time is 45 days. Companies pay the $6,500 APD fee 

upon submission regardless of how long it takes the application to 

be reviewed. This fee is entirely directed to the general treasury— 

the BLM field offices with the greatest APD workloads receive no 

additional funding to expedite the processing of permits. 

In addition to bureaucratic delays, energy projects—whether conventional or renewable—are challenged at nearly every step of the 

development process by lengthy, burdensome lawsuits that can go 

so far as to completely halt the project’s development. Most recently, an environmental group sued the U.S. Forest Service claiming that a proper Environmental Impact Statement was not completed under the National Environmental Policy Act and that a 

planned wind project in the Green Mountain National Forest would 

lead to a decrease in the bat population. Additionally, an environmental lawsuit was filed against the BLM, and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service claiming that the 4,000 acre Calico Solar project in 

California would pose a threat to endangered species. 

Aside from halting energy production and job creation, these lawsuits are essentially funded by taxpayer dollars. Often, environmental groups are able to obtain reimbursement for all or part of 

their legal costs, while the companies and federal government must 

bear the cost of defending itself. Lawsuits can remain in the court 

system for years, which ties up companies’ capital investments and 

ties up taxpayer dollars in the court system. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 4383 was introduced on April 18, 2012, by Congressman 

Doug Lamborn (R–CO). The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. The bill was also 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On April 26, 2012, the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a hearing on 

the bill. On May 16, 2012, the Full Natural Resources Committee 

met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 

Resources was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman 

Lamborn offered amendment designated #1 to the bill; the amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congresswoman Colleen 

Hanabusa (D–HI) offered amendment designated .004 to the bill; 

the amendment was not adopted by a bipartisan rollcall vote of 17 

to 24, as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 8 here HR528P1.001
8 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 9 here HR528P1.002
9 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 10 here HR528P1.003
10 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 11 here HR528P1.004
11 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 12 here HR528P1.005
12 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 13 here HR528P1.006
13 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 14 here HR528P1.007
14 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

The title of the bill is the ‘‘Streamlining Permitting for American 

Energy Act of 2012.’’ 

Section 2. Table of contents 

TITLE I. APPLICATION FOR PERMITS TO DRILL PROCESS REFORM

Section 101. Permit to drill application timeline 

Section 101 requires the Secretary of the Interior to approve or 

deny an application for a permit to drill within no later than 60 

days. If a decision is not made in 60 days, the application is 

deemed approved. The Secretary shall collect a single $6,500 permit processing fee per application at the time the decision is made. 

Half of the fee remains in the field office that process the permit. 

Section 102. Solar and wind right-of-way rentals 

This section provides that half of solar and wind right-of-way 

rental fees will remain with the Secretary of the Interior to direct 

to BLM field offices, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or other 

federal agencies that review and process renewable energy projects 

on BLM land. 

TITLE II. ADMINISTRATIVE PROTEST DOCUMENTATION REFORM

Section 201. Administrative protest documentation fee 

Section 201 provides that a $5,000 fee will be collected with each 

protest for a lease, right of way, or application for permit to drill. 

Half of the fee will remain in the field office that processes the protest. 

TITLE III. PERMIT STREAMLINING

Section 301. Improve federal energy permit coordination 

Section 301 establishes a pilot project to staff BLM field offices 

with staff to specialize in the permitting process to expedite permitting decisions. 

Section 302. Administration of current law 

This section provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall administer Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 without requiring a finding of ‘‘extraordinary circumstances.’’ 

Section 303. Policies regarding buying, building, and working for 

America 

Section 303 specifies that through this Act, Congress intends to 

support a healthy and growing energy sector that creates jobs for 

Americans. When possible, the Secretary of the Interior will encourage the use of United States workers and equipment. 

TITLE IV. JUDICIAL REVIEW

Section 401. Definitions 

This section provides definitions for terms used in the bill. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

Section 402. Exclusive venue for certain civil actions relating to covered energy projects 

Section 402 provides that the district court where the challenged 

project or leases exists will be the venue for legal action. 

Section 403. Timely filing 

This section specifies that a civil action must be filed no later 

than the end of a 90 day period after final agency action. 

Section 404. Expedition in hearing and determining 

Section 404 provides that the court will endeavor to hear civil actions as expeditiously as possible. 

Section 405. Standard of review 

This section provides that administrative findings and conclusions relating to Federal actions will be presumed correct, and provides a standard for rebuttal. 

Section 406. Limitation on injunction and prospective relief 

Section 406 limits the duration of injunctions to halt energy 

projects to 60 days and limits prospective relief. 

Section 407. Limitations on attorneys’ fees 

This section limits attorneys’ fees and expenses. 

Section 408. Legal standing 

Section 408 provides that challengers filing with the Department 

of the Interior Board of Land Appeals shall meet the same requirements as challengers before a district court. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 4383—Streamlining Permitting of American Energy Act of 

2012 

Summary: H.R. 4383 would require the Secretary of the Interior 

to establish certain fees for activities related to the development of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

oil and gas on federal lands. Half of the amounts collected from 

those fees along with half of all receipts from renewable energy 

projects on federal lands would be available to the Secretary, subject to appropriation, to cover the costs of administering a program 

aimed at streamlining the approval process for energy projects. The 

bill also would exempt lawsuits that affect activities related to energy production on federal lands from the Equal Access to Justice 

Act (EAJA), which requires the federal government to pay attorneys’ fees for plaintiffs that prevail in lawsuits against the United 

States. 

Based on information provided by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and certain environmental groups, CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would increase offsetting receipts (a credit against direct 

spending) by $384 million over the 2013–2022 period; therefore, 

pay-as-you-go procedures apply. In addition, CBO estimates that 

implementing the legislation would cost $156 million over the 

2013–2017 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 

amounts. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

H.R. 4383 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 4383 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013–2017 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING a

Application for Permit to Drill Fees 

Estimated Budget Authority ...................................................... ¥33 ¥36 ¥36 ¥36 ¥36 ¥176 

Estimated Outlays ..................................................................... ¥33 ¥36 ¥36 ¥36 ¥36 ¥176 

Protest Fees 

Estimated Budget Authority ...................................................... ¥3 ¥3 ¥3 ¥3 ¥3 ¥15 

Estimated Outlays ..................................................................... ¥3 ¥3 ¥3 ¥3 ¥3 ¥15 

Total Changes 

Estimated Budget Authority ............................................. ¥36 ¥39 ¥39 ¥39 ¥39 ¥191 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ ¥36 ¥39 ¥39 ¥39 ¥39 ¥191 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Oil and Gas Administrative Costs 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................................... 18 19 19 19 19 95 

Estimated Outlays ..................................................................... 17 19 19 19 19 94 

Renewable Energy Administrative Costs 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................................... 6 9 13 17 19 64 

Estimated Outlays ..................................................................... 6 9 12 16 19 62 

Total Changes 

Estimated Authorization Level .......................................... 24 28 32 36 38 158 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 23 28 32 36 38 156 

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

a CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase offsetting receipts by $39 million a year over the 2018–2022 period, for a total in- crease of $384 million over the 2013–2022 period. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted near the end of 2012 and that the necessary 

amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal year. 

Direct spending: CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4383 would 

increase offsetting receipts by a total of $384 million over the 

2013–2022 period. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

Application for permit to drill (APD) fees. Title I would require 

firms to pay a $6,500 fee each time they apply for a permit to drill 

on federal oil and gas leases. In 2011, when BLM was authorized 

to assess a similar fee, the agency processed roughly 5,000 permits 

and collected about $31 million. Based on information provided by 

BLM, CBO expects that the agency will process 5,000 APDs in 

2013 and an average of 5,500 APDs each year over the 2014–2022 

period. Thus, CBO estimates that enacting title I would increase 

offsetting receipts by $354 million over the 2013–2022 period. 

Protest fees. Title II would require any entity that files a protest 

(a formal objection to a BLM decision) against a lease, right of way, 

or APD, to pay a $5,000 fee. A protest may result in BLM reversing 

a decision or delaying the issuance of a decision. Under current 

law, any entity can file a protest without paying a fee. Based on 

information provided by BLM regarding the number of protests 

filed in each of the past five years, CBO expects that, under current law, about 1,200 protests would be filed each year. We expect 

that the fee required under the bill would deter some and raise additional receipts. CBO estimates that enacting title II would increase offsetting receipts by $3 million a year over the 2013–2022 

period. 

Limitation on attorneys’ fees. Title IV would exempt lawsuits 

that affect energy production on federal lands from EAJA. Based 

on information from GAO, CBO estimates that over the next 10 

years, the U.S. Treasury will make payments totaling less than 

$50,000 a year on behalf of the Department of the Interior and the 

Forest Service as a result of such lawsuits. Thus, we estimate that 

enacting the bill would result in a small decrease in direct spending from lost attorneys’ fees over the 2013–2022 period. 

Spending subject to appropriation: Title III would establish a 

Federal Permit Streamlining Project aimed at expediting the approval of new energy projects (including oil and gas drilling and renewable energy development) on federal lands. The bill would authorize the appropriation of 50 percent of all receipts generated 

under titles I and II of the bill and 50 percent of gross receipts 

from renewable energy development on federal lands available to 

the Secretary to administer the project. Most of those funds would 

be used to hire additional employees to guide new energy projects 

through the federal approval process. In total, CBO estimates that 

implementing title III would cost $156 million over the 2013–2017 

period, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. 

Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in direct spending that are subject to those pay-as-you-go 

procedures are shown in the following table. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 4383, THE STREAMLINING PERMITTING OF 

AMERICAN ENERGY ACT OF 2012, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES ON MAY 16, 2012 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2012– 

2017 

2012– 

2022 

NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-AsYou-Go Impact 0 ¥36 ¥39 ¥39 ¥39 ¥39 ¥39 ¥39 ¥39 ¥39 ¥39 ¥191 ¥384 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 4383 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Jeff LaFave; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on 

the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

Based on information provided by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and certain 

environmental groups, CBO estimates that enacting the legislation 

would increase offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending) 

by $384 million over the 2013–2022 period; therefore, pay-as-yougo procedures apply. In addition, CBO estimates that implementing 

the legislation would cost $156 million over the 2013–2017 period, 

assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting the bill 

would not affect revenues. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill, as ordered reported, is to streamline the application for 

permits to drill process and increase funds for energy project permit processing. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

MINERAL LEASING ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 17. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(p) DEADLINES FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR PER- MITS.— 

(1) * * * 

ø(2) ISSUANCE OR DEFERRAL.—Not later than 30 days after 

the applicant for a permit has submitted a complete application, the Secretary shall— 

ø(A) issue the permit, if the requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other applicable law have been completed within such timeframe; or 

ø(B) defer the decision on the permit and provide to the 

applicant a notice— 

ø(i) that specifies any steps that the applicant could 

take for the permit to be issued; and 

ø(ii) a list of actions that need to be taken by the 

agency to complete compliance with applicable law together with timelines and deadlines for completing 

such actions.¿ 

(2) APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL REFORM AND PROC- ESS.— 

(A) TIMELINE.—The Secretary shall decide whether to 

issue a permit to drill within 30 days after receiving an application for the permit. The Secretary may extend such period for up to 2 periods of 15 days each, if the Secretary 

has given written notice of the delay to the applicant. The 

notice shall be in the form of a letter from the Secretary or 

a designee of the Secretary, and shall include the names 

and titles of the persons processing the application, the specific reasons for the delay, and a specific date a final decision on the application is expected. 

(B) NOTICE OF REASONS FOR DENIAL.—If the application 

is denied, the Secretary shall provide the applicant— 

(i) in writing, clear and comprehensive reasons why 

the application was not accepted and detailed information concerning any deficiencies; and 

(ii) an opportunity to remedy any deficiencies. 

(C) APPLICATION DEEMED APPROVED.—If the Secretary 

has not made a decision on the application by the end of 

the 60-day period beginning on the date the application is 

received by the Secretary, the application is deemed approved, except in cases in which existing reviews under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 are incomplete. 

(D) DENIAL OF PERMIT.—If the Secretary decides not to 

issue a permit to drill in accordance with subparagraph 

(A), the Secretary shall— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

(i) provide to the applicant a description of the reasons for the denial of the permit; 

(ii) allow the applicant to resubmit an application 

for a permit to drill during the 10-day period beginning on the date the applicant receives the description 

of the denial from the Secretary; and 

(iii) issue or deny any resubmitted application not 

later than 10 days after the date the application is submitted to the Secretary. 

(E) FEE.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary shall collect a single $6,500 permit processing fee per application from each applicant at the 

time the final decision is made whether to issue a permit under subparagraph (A). This fee shall not apply 

to any resubmitted application. 

(ii) TREATMENT OF PERMIT PROCESSING FEE.—Of all 

fees collected under this paragraph, 50 percent shall be 

transferred to the field office where they are collected 

and used to process protests, leases, and permits under 

this Act subject to appropriation. 

* * * * * * * 

(4) PROTEST FEE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall collect a $5,000 

documentation fee to accompany each protest for a lease, 

right of way, or application for permit to drill. 

(B) TREATMENT OF FEES.—Of all fees collected under this 

paragraph, 50 percent shall remain in the field office where 

they are collected and used to process protests subject to appropriation. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(21) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We oppose H.R. 4383 because it would unnecessarily tie the 

hands of the Interior Department in reviewing drilling operations 

on public lands and make drilling less safe. This legislation would 

impose arbitrary deadlines on the Interior Department’s review of 

applications for permits to drill onshore. Just as the Majority tried 

to do for offshore drilling, drilling permits would be automatically 

‘‘deemed approved’’ after 60 days if the Interior Department had 

not finished its review. 

While the Majority has acknowledged the important role that 

NEPA and the Endangered Species Act play in properly reviewing 

drilling permits and has now included language to prevent permits 

from being deemed approved after 60 days in cases where reviews 

under those laws are ongoing, there is no requirement in the bill 

that would prevent permits from being deemed approved if safety 

reviews were incomplete. This provision is especially dangerous 

given that a Natural Resources Democratic staff review of drilling 

safety violations on public lands found that between 1998 and 

2011, one-fifth of the drilling violations on public lands were related to blowout preventers or other well control equipment. Furthermore, there were more than 50 instances where an operator 

began drilling on federal lands without an approved permit to drill 

from the BLM. We should be seeking to ensure that oil companies 

are drilling on our public lands with the highest level of safety, not 

truncating the review of drilling applications. 

The BLM submitted testimony stating that H.R. 4383 ‘‘would essentially strip from the BLM its ability to issue [applications for 

permits to drill] on important reviews and clearances—including 

cultural surveys and necessary tribal consultation.’’ We oppose 

rushing to limit proper review of drilling permits, especially when 

oil companies are warehousing roughly 6,700 drilling permits that 

have already been approved by the Interior Department where they 

could be drilling immediately. In addition, oil production on federal 

lands onshore is higher that it was under the Bush Administration, 

according to an EIA review of production going back to 2003. 

H.R. 4383 also includes a likely unconstitutional provision requiring any American citizen seeking to protest an oil and gas 

lease, drilling permit or right of way to post a nonrefundable 

$5,000 ‘‘documentation fee.’’ This is a blatant attempt to deny ordinary American citizens the ability to contest decisions by the federal government. This section would seek to prevent people from 

contesting oil and gas development in areas where it may harm 

hunting, fishing, recreation or the other uses of our public lands. 

The legislation also contains provisions designed to close the 

doors of the courthouse to citizens who believe the federal government is not complying with the law. While these provisions are no 

doubt aimed at environmental plaintiffs they would almost cerVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:22 Jun 16, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR528P1.XXX HR528P1

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

tainly impair the legal rights of many other potential plaintiffs, including oil and gas companies. 

The Majority rejected an amendment from Representative 

Hanabusa (D–HI) that sought to maximize the development of renewable energy on public lands to achieve a goal of 25 percent of 

the electricity consumed by the federal government coming from renewable sources by the year 2025. The Majority also voted down 

an amendment from Representative Hanabusa that would have ensured that the bill’s requirement that citizens post a nonrefundable, $5,000 ‘‘documentation fee’’ would not abridge the right of the 

people to petition for the redress of grievances afforded by the First 

amendment to the Constitution. Finally, the Majority rejected an 

amendment from Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee 

Ranking Member Holt (D–NJ) that would have struck the language 

from the H.R. 4383 that would require drilling permits to be 

deemed approved after 60 days, which could make public lands less 

safe. 

H.R. 4383 takes an approach that is neither warranted nor wise. 

We should not be seeking to limit public involvement and proper 

review of drilling permits, as the legislation would do, when oil production from public lands onshore has increased under the Obama 

Administration and the oil industry is sitting on thousands of approved permits to drill. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY. RUSH HOLT. PAUL TONKO. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. BEN R. LUJA ́ N. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 28 here HR528P1.008
24 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 29 here HR528P1.009
25 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 30 here HR528P1.010