77350 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 

comment period. USCIS did receive 27 

comments in connection with the 60- 

day notice. 

You may access the information 

collection instrument with instructions, 

or additional information by visiting the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: 

http://www.regulations.gov and enter 

USCIS–2008–0025 in the search box. 

The comments submitted to USCIS via 

this method are visible to the Office of 

Management and Budget and comply 

with the requirements of 5 CFR 

1320.12(c). All submissions will be 

posted, without change, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov, and will include 

any personal information you provide. 

Therefore, submitting this information 

makes it public. You may wish to 

consider limiting the amount of 

personal information that you provide 

in any voluntary submission you make 

to DHS. DHS may withhold information 

provided in comments from public 

viewing that it determines may impact 

the privacy of an individual or is 

offensive. For additional information, 

please read the Privacy Act notice that 

is available via the link in the footer of 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

should address one or more of the 

following four points: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Revision of a Currently Approved 

Collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Application for Naturalization. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the DHS 

sponsoring the collection: N–400; 

USCIS. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Individuals or 

households. Naturalization is the 

process by which U.S. citizenship is 

granted to a foreign citizen or national 

after he or she fulfills the requirements 

established by Congress in the INA. 

Form N–400, Application for 

Naturalization, allows USCIS to fulfill 

its mission of fairly adjudicating 

naturalization applications and only 

naturalizing statutorily eligible 

individuals. 

USCIS uses the data collected on this 

form to verify that the applicant is 

eligible for a reduced fee for the 

immigration benefit being requested. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: The estimated total number of 

respondents for the information 

collection N–400 (paper) is 454,850 and 

the estimated hour burden per response 

is 8.73 hours; the estimated total 

number of respondents for the 

information collection N–400 (e-file) is 

454,850 and the estimated hour burden 

per response is 3.92 hours; and the 

estimated total number of respondents 

for the information collection biometrics 

is 909,700 and the estimated hour 

burden per response is 1.17 hours. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The total estimated annual 

hour burden associated with this 

collection is 6,818,202 hours. 

(7) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in cost) associated with the 

collection: The estimated total annual 

cost burden associated with this 

collection of information is 

$423,351,638. 

Dated: November 3, 2023. 

Samantha L. Deshommes, 

Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 

Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24770 Filed 11–8–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[BLM_CO_FRN_MO4500174063] 

Notice of Availability of the Draft 

Resource Management Plan 

Amendment and Environmental Impact 

Statement for Big Game Habitat 

Conservation for Oil and Gas 

Management, Colorado 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA), and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976, as amended (FLMPA), the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 

prepared a Draft Resource Management 

Plan (RMP) Amendment and Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for Big Game Habitat Conservation for 

Oil and Gas Management and by this 

notice is providing information 

announcing the opening of the comment 

period on the Draft RMP Amendment/ 

EIS. 

DATES: This notice announces the 

opening of a 90-day comment period for 

the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS 

beginning with the date following the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) publication of its Notice of 

Availability (NOA) in the Federal 

Register. The EPA usually publishes its 

NOAs on Fridays. 

To afford the BLM the opportunity to 

consider comments in the Proposed 

RMP Amendment/Final EIS, please 

ensure your comments are received 

prior to the close of the 90-day comment 

period or 15 days after the last public 

meeting, whichever is later. 

ADDRESSES: The Draft RMP 

Amendment/EIS is available for review 

on the BLM ePlanning project website at 

https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY. 

Written comments related to Big 

Game Habitat Conservation for Oil and 

Gas Management may be submitted by 

any of the following methods: 

• Website: https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY. 

• Mail: BLM Colorado State Office, 

Attn: Big Game Habitat Conservation 

amendment/EIS, Denver Federal Center 

Building 40, Lakewood, CO 80225. 

Documents pertinent to this proposal 

may be examined online at https://

go.usa.gov/xzXxY and at the BLM 

Colorado State Office, Denver Federal 

Center, Building 1A, Lakewood, 

Colorado. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Bittner, Deputy State Director, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 77351 

Resources, telephone 303–239–3768; 

address BLM Colorado State Office, 

Attn: Big Game Corridor amendment/ 

EIS, Denver Federal Center Building 40, 

Lakewood, CO 80225; email BLM_CO_

corridors_planning@blm.gov. 

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 for 

contacting Mr. Bittner. Individuals 

outside the United States should use the 

relay services offered within their 

country to make international calls to 

the point-of-contact in the United 

States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document provides notice that the BLM 

Colorado State Director has prepared a 

Draft RMP Amendment/EIS and 

provides information announcing the 

opening of the comment period on the 

Draft RMP Amendment/EIS. The RMP 

amendment addresses alternative 

approaches for oil and gas management 

in order to maintain, conserve, and 

protect big game high priority habitat 

that would require amending the 

following existing plans: 

• Northeast Resource Area RMP (1986) 

• Royal Gorge Resource Area RMP 

(1996) 

• San Luis Resource Area RMP (1991) 

• Gunnison Resource Area RMP (1993) 

• Uncompahgre Field Office RMP 

(2020) 

• Colorado River Valley Field Office 

RMP (2015) and Roan Plateau 

Amendment (2016) 

• Grand Junction Field Office RMP 

(2015) 

• Kremmling RMP (2015) 

• Little Snake RMP (2011) 

• White River Field Office RMP (1997) 

• Tres Rios Field Office RMP (2015) 

• Canyons of the Ancients National 

Monument RMP (2010) 

• Gunnison Gorge National 

Conservation Area RMP (2004) 

The planning area includes all 

counties in Colorado and encompasses 

approximately 8.3 million acres of 

public land and approximately 27 

million acres of Federal mineral estate. 

The decision area includes all 8.3 

million acres of BLM-administered 

surface land (except where Federal 

minerals have been withdrawn from 

mineral leasing) plus approximately 4.7 

million acres of Federal mineral split 

estate. 

Formal public scoping for the Draft 

RMP Amendment/EIS started with the 

publication of the notice of intent (NOI) 

in the Federal Register on July 19, 2022. 

The NOI contained information about 

the purpose and need, preliminary 

planning criteria, proposed alternatives, 

expected impacts, and information 

about how to comment. The BLM 

requested that the public submit 

scoping comments in response to the 

NOI by September 2, 2022. Comments 

were used to inform development of the 

management plan. Issues analyzed in 

detail in the EIS include air quality, 

geology, fluid minerals, climate, noise 

and the acoustic environment, lands 

and realty, soil resources, big game 

species and habitat, special status 

species and other wildlife, vegetation, 

Native American religious concerns, 

cultural and paleontological resources, 

socioeconomics and environmental 

justice, recreation, travel and 

transportation, and visual resources. 

Purpose and Need 

The purpose of this RMP amendment 

process is to evaluate alternative 

approaches for oil and gas planning 

decisions to maintain, conserve, and 

protect big game corridors and other big 

game high priority habitat on BLMadministered lands and Federal mineral 

estate in Colorado. Under the authority 

of Section 202 of FLPMA, the BLM also 

seeks to evaluate consistency with plans 

or policies and programs of other 

Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, and Tribes, to the extent 

consistent with Federal laws, 

regulations, policies, and programs 

applicable to BLM-administered lands. 

This RMP amendment process will 

consider current big game population 

and habitat data and evaluate planning 

alternatives’ consistency with the 

policies and programs of State agencies 

that manage big game populations and 

regulate oil and gas operations in 

Colorado: Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

(CPW) and the Colorado Energy and 

Carbon Management Commission 

(ECMC). CPW manages wildlife in 

Colorado, and the ECMC regulates oil 

and gas development. Colorado Senate 

Bill 19–181 Oil and Gas Act gives the 

ECMC the authority to promulgate 

regulations that are protective of human 

health, safety, welfare, the environment, 

and wildlife resources. The ECMC 1200 

series rules identify certain big game 

habitats where oil and gas operations 

are subject to specific ECMC 

requirements. CPW’s implementation of 

the ECMC requirements for high priority 

habitat is intended to avoid, minimize, 

and mitigate impacts to big game 

habitats. 

This RMP amendment process also 

complies with the terms of the 

settlement agreement in State of 

Colorado v. Bureau of Land 

Management (U.S. District Court for 

Colorado, 1:21–cv–00129). 

Alternatives Including the Preferred 

Alternative 

The BLM has analyzed four 

alternatives in detail, including the no 

action alternative. Alternative A is the 

No Action alternative and is based on 

existing approved RMPs, as amended, 

throughout Colorado. This alternative 

reflects the management decisions in 

the existing RMPs. The analysis 

considers how the BLM is currently 

managing big game habitat protection 

and oil and gas development across the 

state and provides a characterization of 

the existing environment for 

comparison with the action alternatives. 

Alternative B is based on management 

alignment with the ECMC rules for oil 

and gas development in elk, mule deer, 

pronghorn, and bighorn sheep high 

priority habitat (Rule 1202.c, d; Rule 

1203). Where lands are open to oil and 

gas leasing under existing RMPs, 

Alternative B prescribes measures 

consistent with the ECMC rules to 

conserve high priority habitat. 

Alternative B incorporates various oil 

and gas lease stipulations, including a 

controlled surface use density limitation 

of one well pad per square mile in big 

game high priority habitat subject to 

waivers, exceptions, and modifications 

in some circumstances. 

Alternative C, in addition to 

incorporating lease stipulations similar 

to alternative B, applies a three percent 

surface disturbance cap on oil and gas 

development within big game high 

priority habitat on BLM surface lands. 

This limit does not apply to private, 

local government, or State lands in the 

decision area. This alternative provides 

for waivers, exceptions, and 

modifications to the stipulations in 

some circumstances. 

Alternative D is similar to the other 

action alternatives in that it also 

incorporates lease stipulations that align 

the BLM’s oil and gas management with 

ECMC’s rules for big game high priority 

habitat in the decision area. Alternative 

D includes a three percent surface 

disturbance cap on oil and gas 

development within big game high 

priority habitat; however, the 

application of this cap is not limited to 

BLM surface lands as it is under 

Alternative C. Under this alternative, 

the disturbance threshold applies to big 

game high priority habitat on all lands 

in the decision area regardless of land 

ownership. Additionally, unlike 

Alternatives B and C, this alternative 

proposes to reduce the area open to 

leasing of oil and gas. Specifically, big 

game high priority habitat areas 

identified with low, moderate, or no 

known oil and gas development 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77352 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 

potential would be closed to new 

Federal oil and gas leasing. 

The BLM further considered five 

additional alternatives but dismissed 

these alternatives from detailed analysis 

as explained in the Draft RMP 

Amendment/EIS. 

The State Director has identified 

Alternative B as the preferred 

alternative because it conserves big 

game high priority habitat while 

balancing other resource uses. 

Mitigation 

Across all action alternatives, the 

BLM considers potential mitigation in 

compliance with Council on 

Environmental Quality, Department of 

the Interior, and BLM guidance. 

Mitigation can help provide a 

conservation benefit to big game species 

when impacts from oil and gas 

development activity are not avoidable. 

Consistent with valid existing rights and 

applicable law, when oil and gas 

development results in habitat loss or 

degradation within big game high 

priority habitat, the BLM will require 

and ensure mitigation that provides a 

conservation benefit to the species, 

including accounting for any 

uncertainty associated with the 

effectiveness of such mitigation. 

The action alternatives call for the 

BLM to consider alternative locations 

for oil and gas operations that either 

avoid big game high priority habitat 

altogether, or, where avoidance is not 

feasible, minimize adverse impacts to 

the maximum extent possible. The 

action alternatives include surface 

density limitations, as well as a density 

trigger that would require the operator 

to address indirect impacts through 

compensatory mitigation. The action 

alternatives call for the BLM to include 

avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation strategies in subsequent 

implementation-level NEPA analyses for 

proposed actions that may result in big 

game high priority habitat loss and 

degradation. 

Subsequent implementation-level 

mitigation could limit the duration and 

extent of development activities in big 

game high priority habitat through all 

phases of development by avoiding 

activities in high priority habitat, 

applying a surface density limitation, 

and mitigating impacts. Mitigation plans 

would address cumulative effects of oil 

and gas activities across a given 

landscape. 

The BLM may also require 

compensatory mitigation to offset 

disturbance or density limitation 

exceedances and direct and unavoidable 

adverse indirect impacts that result in 

the functional loss of habitat from oil 

and gas development in big game high 

priority habitat. Direct impacts to big 

game occur from disturbance or habitat 

fragmentation during construction, 

drilling, and/or completion activities 

and habitat conversion to oil and gas 

facilities. Indirect impacts to big game 

occur over time from big game 

avoidance of disturbance and the 

cumulative functional habitat loss from 

fragmentation and modified habitat use 

as development density increases. 

Indirect impacts may be avoided or 

minimized through the application of 

alternative siting and operating 

requirements. The BLM, after 

coordination with CPW, will determine 

whether compensatory mitigation 

proposed by the operator is sufficient to 

protect big game high priority habitat 

from direct and unavoidable adverse 

indirect impacts. 

The BLM has the discretion to require 

an operator to modify surface operations 

to change or add specific mitigation 

measures when supported by scientific 

analysis and consistent with existing 

rights. Potential mitigation/conservation 

measures not already required as 

stipulations would be analyzed in a sitespecific NEPA document, and 

incorporated, as appropriate, as 

conditions of approval of the permit, 

plan of development, or other use 

authorization. In discussing surface use 

rights, 43 CFR 3101.1–2 states that the 

lessee has the right, ‘‘to use so much of 

the leased lands as is necessary to 

explore for, drill for, mine, extract, 

remove and dispose of all the leased 

resource.’’ However, lessees are subject 

to lease stipulations, nondiscretionary 

statutes, and as identified in 43 CFR 

3101.1–2, ‘‘such reasonable measures as 

may be required by the authorized 

officer to minimize adverse impacts to 

other resource values, land uses or users 

not addressed in the lease stipulations 

at the time operations are proposed.’’ 

Schedule for the Decision-Making 

Process 

The BLM will provide additional 

opportunities for public participation 

consistent with the NEPA and land use 

planning processes, including a 30-day 

public protest period and a 60-day 

Governor’s consistency review on the 

Proposed RMP. The Proposed RMP 

Amendment/Final EIS is anticipated to 

be available for public protest starting 

August 2024, with an Approved RMP 

and Record of Decision in November 

2024. 

The BLM will be holding public 

meetings on the Draft RMP 

Amendment/EIS. The specific date(s) 

and location(s) of these meetings will be 

announced at least 15 days in advance 

through local media and the ePlanning 

project page (see ADDRESSES). 

The BLM will continue to consult 

with Indian Tribal Nations on a 

government-to-government basis in 

accordance with Executive Order 13175, 

BLM Manual 1780, and other 

Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, 

including impacts on Indian trust assets 

and potential impacts to cultural 

resources, will be given due 

consideration. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

(Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 

43 CFR 1610.2) 

Douglas J. Vilsack, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24552 Filed 11–8–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4331–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[BLM_UT_FRN_MO4500170480] 

Notice of Proposed Class II 

Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and 

Gas Leases UTU88835 and UTU88838, 

San Juan County, Utah 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 

amended, ST Oil Company, LLC, Moore 

Energy LLC, Shoreline Company LLC, 

and Leaf River Resources LLC, filed a 

timely petition for reinstatement of oil 

and gas leases UTU88835 and 

UTU88838 for lands in San Juan 

County, Utah. The petition was 

accompanied by all required rentals and 

royalties accruing from April 1, 2018, 

the date of termination. No leases were 

issued that affect these lands. The 

Bureau of Land Management proposes 

to reinstate these leases. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angela Wadman, Branch Chief, Fluid 

Minerals, Utah State Office, Bureau of 

Land Management, 440 West 200 South, 

Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101, 

phone: 801–539–4052, email: 

awadman@blm.gov. Individuals in the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1