79–006 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 115–955 

COMMON SENSE PERMITTING ACT 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2018.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 6106] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 6106) to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to clarify 

the authorized categorical exclusions and authorize additional categorical exclusions to streamline the oil and gas permitting process, 

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 ‘‘Common Sense Permitting Act’’. 

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005. 

Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, (42 U.S.C. 15942) is amended to 

read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 390. NEPA REVIEW. 

‘‘(a) NEPA REVIEW.—Action by the Secretary of the Interior in managing the public lands, or the Secretary of Agriculture in managing National Forest System 

Lands, with respect to any of the activities described in subsection (d) shall be categorically excluded from any further analysis and documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) if the activity is 

conducted pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) for the purpose of exploration or development of oil or gas. 

‘‘(b) CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION.—Use of a categorical exclusion created in this section— 

2 

1 40 CFR 1508.4. 

‘‘(1) shall not require a finding of no extraordinary circumstances; and 

‘‘(2) shall be effective for the full term of the authorized permit or approval. 

‘‘(c) APPLICATION.—This section shall not apply to an action of the Secretary of the 

Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture on Indian lands or resources managed in 

trust for the benefit of Indian Tribes. 

‘‘(d) ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED.—The activities referred to in subsection (a) are: 

‘‘(1) Reinstating a lease pursuant to section 31 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 

U.S.C. 188). 

‘‘(2) The following activities, provided that any new surface disturbance is 

contiguous with the footprint of the original authorization and does not exceed 

20 acres or the acreage evaluated in a document previously prepared under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C)) with respect to such activity, whichever is greater: 

‘‘(A) Drilling oil or gas wells at a well pad site at which drilling has occurred previously. 

‘‘(B) Expansion of an existing oil or gas well pad site to accommodate additional wells. 

‘‘(C) Expansion or modification of an existing oil or gas well pad site, 

road, pipeline, facilities, or utilities submitted in a sundry notice. 

‘‘(3) Drilling of oil and gas wells at new well pad sites, provided that the new 

surface disturbance does not exceed 20 acres or the acreage evaluated in a document previously prepared under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) with respect to such activity, 

whichever is greater. 

‘‘(4) Construction or realignment of a road, pipeline, or utilities within an existing right-of-way or within a right-of-way corridor established in a land use 

plan. 

‘‘(5) The following activities when conducted from non-Federal surface into 

federally owned minerals, provided that the operator submits to the Secretary 

concerned certification of a surface use agreement with the non-Federal landowner: 

‘‘(A) Drilling oil or gas wells at a well pad site at which drilling has occurred previously. 

‘‘(B) Expansion of an existing oil or gas well pad site to accommodate additional wells. 

‘‘(C) Expansion or modification of an existing oil or gas well pad site, 

road, pipeline, facilities or utilities submitted in a sundry notice. 

‘‘(6) Drilling of oil or gas wells from non-Federal surface and non-Federal subsurface into Federal mineral estate. 

‘‘(7) Construction of up to 1 mile of new road on Federal or non-Federal surface, not to exceed 2 miles in total. 

‘‘(8) Construction of up to 3 miles of individual pipelines or utilities, regardless of surface ownership.’’. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 6106 is to amend the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 to clarify the authorized categorical exclusions and authorize 

additional categorical exclusions to streamline the oil and gas permitting process. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines a categorical exclusion as ‘‘a category of actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment 

. . . and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement is required.’’ 1

Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized five categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for the exploration and develVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:29 Sep 21, 2018 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR955.XXX HR955
3 

2Public Law 109–58. 

opment of oil and gas.2 Specifically, these categorical exclusions are 

as follows: 

(1) Individual surface disturbances of less than 5 acres so 

long as the total surface disturbance on the lease is not greater 

than 150 acres and site-specific analysis in a document prepared pursuant to NEPA has been previously completed. 

(2) Drilling an oil or gas well at a location or well pad site 

at which drilling has occurred previously within 5 years prior 

to the date of spudding the well. 

(3) Drilling an oil or gas well within a developed field for 

which an approved land use plan or any environmental document prepared pursuant to NEPA analyzed such drilling as a 

reasonably foreseeable activity, so long as such plan or document was approved within 5 years prior to the date of spudding the well. 

(4) Placement of a pipeline in an approved right-of-way corridor, so long as the corridor was approved within 5 years prior 

to the date of placement of the pipeline. 

(5) Maintenance of a minor activity, other than any construction or major renovation or a building or facility. 

Under the Obama Administration, the Department of the Interior often chose not to grant categorical exclusions when processing 

applications for permits to drill or granting rights-of-way, even 

when the proposed drilling operations or pipeline placement would 

qualify for such designations under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Congress enacted these categorical exclusions to streamline the 

permitting process for certain activities that would modify or 

slightly expand existing approved operations. Authorizing such activities would have an insignificant impact on the environment; 

thus additional analysis under NEPA is not needed to evaluate the 

merits of the proposed action. 

While Congress intended to streamline the permitting process by 

excluding certain permit applications from higher thresholds of 

NEPA analysis, the previous Administration’s decision not to utilize these categorical exclusions exacerbated delays in the permitting process by requiring extensive NEPA analysis on each and 

every permit application submitted to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

This legislation would clarify the language in the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 to ensure that the Secretary of the Interior utilizes the 

authorized categorical exclusions in processing permit applications 

when applicable. If a proposed activity included in an application 

for permit to drill or right-of-way application qualifies for a categorical exclusion, BLM shall not conduct further analysis under NEPA 

before approving the application. 

This legislation would also modify the existing categorical exclusions and authorize additional categorical exclusions to further 

streamline the permitting process for oil and gas activities. This 

bill will authorize categorical exclusions for activities that modify 

or expand existing operations in a limited manner, activities that 

take place where drilling has already occurred, as well as new activities that were anticipated in previous analyses under NEPA or 

will result in minimal surface disturbance. 

4 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 6106 was introduced on June 14, 2018, by Congressman 

Stevan Pearce (R–NM). The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources. On June 20, 2018, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. Congressman Pearce offered an 

amendment designated #1; it was adopted by voice vote. Congresswoman Nanette Barraga ́n (D–CA) offered an amendment designated 042; it was not adopted by a roll call vote of 17 yeas and 

22 nays, as follows: 

5 


Insert offset folio 5 here HR955.001

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

I 15th Congress 

Date: 06.20.18 Recorded Vote #: 1 

Meeting on I Amendment on: FC Markup Barragan [042) to HR 6106 (Rep. Stevan Pearce) 

MEMBERS FxPres MEMBERS 

Mr. Bishop, UT, Chairman Mr.Cook,CA 

Mr. Grijalva, AZ, Ranking Member X Mr. McEachin, VA 

Mr. Young, AK, Chairman Emeritus X Mr. Westerman, AR 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X }vfr. Brown, MD 

Mr. Gobmert, TX, Vice Chairman X Mr. Graves, LA 

Ms. Bordal/o, Guam X Mr. Clay, MO 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr. Hice,GA 

Mr. Costa, CA X Mr. Gomez, CA 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mrs. Radewagen, AS 

Mr. Sablan, CNMI X Ms. Veliizquez, NY 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Webster, FL 

Ms. Tsongas, MA X Mr. Bergman, MI 

Mr. Pearce, NM X Ms. Cheney, WY 

Mr. Huffman, CA X Mr. Johnson, LA 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Ms. Gonzalez-Colon, PR 

IA1r. Lowenthal, CA X Mr. Gianforte, MT 

Mr. Gosar. AZ X Mr. Curtis, UT 

Mr. Beyer, VA X 

Mr. Labrador, ID 

Mr. Gallego, AZ X 

Mr. Tipton, CO X 

Ms. 1-lanabusa, HI X 

Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Ms. Barragim, CA X 

Mr. Denham, CA 

Mr. Soto, FL X TOTAL: 

Yes No Pres 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

17 22 
6 

Congressman Ruben Gallego (D–AZ) offered an amendment designated 001; it was not adopted by a roll call vote of 18 yeas and 

22 nays, as follows: 

7 


Insert offset folio 7 here HR955.002

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

!15th Congress 

Date: 06.20.18 Recorded Vote #:2 

Meeting on I Amendment on: FC Markup Gallego [00 1] to HR 6106 (Rep. Stevan Pearce) 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS 

Mr. Bishop, UT, Chairman X Mr.Cook,CA 

Mr. Grijalva, AZ, Ranking Member X Mr. McEachin, VA 

Mr. Young, AK, Chairman Emeritus X Mr. Westerman, AR 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X Mr. Brmvn, MD 

Mr. Gohmert, TX, Vice Chairman X Mr. Graves, LA 

Ms. Bordal/o, Guam X Mr. Clay, MO 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr. Hice, GA 

Mr. Costa, CA X Mr. Gomez, CA 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mrs. Radewagen, AS 

Mr. Sablan, CNMI X I Ms. Velazquez, NY 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Webster, FL 

Ms. Tsongas, MA X Mr. Bergman, MI 

Mr. Pearce, NM X Ms. Cheney, WY 

Mr. HufJinan. CA X Mr. Johnson, LA 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Ms. Gonzalez-Colon, PR 

Mr. Lowenthal, CA X Mr. Gianfortc, MT 

Mr. Gosar, AZ X Mr. Curtis, UT 

Mr. Beyer, VA X 

Mr. Labrador, ID 

Mr. Gal/ezo, AZ X 

Mr. Tipton, CO X 

Afs. Hanabusa, HI X 

Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Ms. Barragim, CA X 

Mr. Denham, CA 

Mr. Soto, FL X TOTAL: 

Yes No Pres 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

lx X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

18 22 
8 

Congresswoman Nydia M. Vela ́zquez (D–NY) offered an amendment designated 002; it was not adopted by a roll call vote of 18 

yeas and 22 nays, as follows: 

9 


Insert offset folio 9 here HR955.003

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

115th Congress 

Date: 06.20.18 Recorded Vote #:3 

Meeting on I Amendment on: FC Markup Veh\zquez [002] to HR 6106 (Rep. Stcvan Pearce) 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS 

Mr. Bishop, UT, Chairman X Mr.Cook,CA 

Mr. Grijalva, AZ, Ranking Member X Mr. McEachin, VA 

Mr. Young, AK~ Chairman Emeritus X Mr. Westerman, AR 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X Mr. Brown, MD 

Mr. Gobmert, TX, Vice Chairman X Mr. Graves, LA 

Ms. Bordallo, Guam X Mr. Clay, MO 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr. Hice,GA 

Mr. Costa, C4 X Mr. Gomez, CA 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mrs. Radewagen, AS 

Mr. Sablan, CNMI X Ms. Velazquez, NY 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Webster, FL 

Mv. Tsongas, MA X Mr. Bergman, Ml 

Mr. Pearce, NM X Ms. Cheney, WY 

Mr. Hujjinan. CA X Mr. Johnson, LA 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Ms. Gonzalez-Colon, PR 

Mr. Lowenthal, CA X Mr. Gianforte, MT 

Mr. Gosar, AZ X Mr. Curtis, lJT 

Mr. Beyer, VA X 

Mr. Labrador, ID 

Mr. Gal!e>!o. AZ X 

Mr. Tipton, CO X 

Ms. Hanabusa, Ill X 

Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Ms. Barragan, CA X 

Mr. Denham, CA 

Mr. Soto. FL X TOTAL: 

Yes No Pres 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

18 22 
10 

No further amendments were offered and the bill, as amended, 

was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by 

a roll call vote of 22 yeas and 18 nays, as follows: 

11 


Insert offset folio 11 here HR955.004

Date: 06.20.18 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

!15th Congress 

Recorded Vote #:4 

Meeting on I Amendment on: FC Markup Favorably Report HR 6106 (Rep. Stevan Pearce) 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS 

Mr. Bishop, UT, Chairman X Mr.Cook,CA 

Mr. Grijalva, AZ, Ranking Member X Mr. McEachin, VA 

Mr. Young, AK, Chairman Emeritus X Mr. Westerman, AR 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X Mr. Brown, MD 

Mr. Gohmert, TX, Vice Chairman X Mr. Graves, LA 

Ms. Borda!lo, Guam X Mr. Clay, MO 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr. Hice,GA 

Mr. Costa, CA X Mr. Gomez, CA 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mrs. Radewagen, AS 

Mr. Sablan, CNMI X Ms. Vetazquez, NY 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Webster, FL 

Ms. Tsongas, MA X Mr. Bergman, Ml 

Mr. Pearce, NM X Ms. Cheney, WY 

Mr. Huffman, CA X Mr. Johnson, LA 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Ms. Gonzalez-Colon, PR 

A1r. Lowenthal. C A X Mr. Gianforte, MT 

!\1r. Gosar, AZ X Mr. Curtis, UT 

Mr. Beyer, VA X 

Mr. Labrador, ID 

Mr. Gallego, AZ X 

Mr. Tipton, CO X 

Ms. Hanabusa, HI X 

Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Ms. Barragim, CA X 

Mr. Denham, CA 

Mr. Soto, FL X TOTAL: 

Yes No Pres 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

22 18 = 
12 

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 AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

ACT

1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and sections 308(a) and 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 

received the following estimate for the bill from the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, September 12, 2018. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6106, the Common Sense 

Permitting Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kim Cawley. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 6106—Common Sense Permitting Act 

Summary: H.R. 6106 would allow the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to expedite the approval of applications for permits to 

drill (APDs) for oil and gas on federal lands by excluding certain 

environmental analyses currently required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from the application process. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6106 would accelerate oil and gas production on federal lands and increase royalty payments to the 

BLM. However, using information provided by the BLM and the 

Energy Information Administration (EIA), CBO estimates that enacting the bill would have no significant net effect on the federal 

budget over the 2019–2028 period. 

Enacting H.R. 6106 would affect direct spending; therefore, payas-you-go procedures apply. The bill would not affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6106 would not increase net 

direct spending by more than $2.5 billion or on-budget deficits by 

more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods 

beginning in 2029. 

H.R. 6106 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 effect of H.R. 6106 is shown in the following table. The costs 

13 

of the legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 

14 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2019–2023 2019–2028 

INCREASES OR DECREASES (¥) IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Oil and Gas Royalties: 

Estimated Budget Authority ............................................................... 0 ¥35 ¥60 ¥95 ¥120 ¥30 35 90 125 60 30 ¥340 0 

Estimated Outlays .............................................................................. 0 ¥35 ¥60 ¥95 ¥120 ¥30 35 90 125 60 30 ¥340 0 

Payments to States: 

Estimated Budget Authority ............................................................... 0 17 29 47 59 15 ¥17 ¥44 ¥61 ¥29 ¥15 167 0 

Estimated Outlays .............................................................................. 0 17 29 47 59 15 ¥17 ¥44 ¥61 ¥29 ¥15 167 0 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Budget Authority ...................................................... 0 ¥18 ¥31 ¥48 ¥61 ¥15 18 46 64 31 15 ¥173 0 

Estimated Outlays ..................................................................... 0 ¥18 ¥31 ¥48 ¥61 ¥15 18 46 64 31 15 ¥173 0 

Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

15 

1 In 2017, the BLM’s APD approval process required about 120 days, on average: Drilling operators spent about 70 days on preparation, and review and approval took about 50 days. 2 CBO estimates that gross royalty payments to the Department of the Interior will total 

about $10 billion over the 2019–2023 period and $11.5 billion over the 2024–2028 period. Most 

of those royalties will come from production from wells drilled before 2019. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted near the end of 2018. 

Direct Spending 

H.R. 6106 would authorize the BLM to approve APDs for oil and 

gas development on federal lands without requiring producers to 

undertake certain environmental analyses listed in NEPA. Using 

information provided by the BLM, CBO estimates that forgoing 

those analyses would reduce the time required to approve APDs by 

about 25 days, which CBO expects would accelerate oil and gas 

production on federal lands.1

Using information from the BLM and EIA, CBO estimates that 

at the beginning of 2019, the BLM will have about 2,300 pending 

APDs. CBO expects that under current law the BLM would reduce 

the backlog of APDs carried over each year to about 600 by the end 

of 2026, mostly for anticipated submissions of APDs late in fiscal 

year 2025. Under the bill, CBO expects that expediting the process 

would allow the agency to reduce the backlog to roughly 600 APDs 

by 2023, thus reaching the same backlog in about half the time. 

CBO estimates that accelerating the production of oil and gas by 

expediting APDs would result in a small net loss of royalty receipts 

to the government because production would shift from later years, 

when oil and gas prices are projected to be higher, to an earlier period, when lower prices are anticipated. As a result, CBO expects 

that oil and gas production would accelerate, thus increasing payments of associated royalties to the federal government by $335 

million over the 2019–2023 period; royalties would decline by $340 

million over the 2024–2028 period.2

However, CBO expects that the small loss would be offset by 

shifting more receipts into 2019. CBO estimates that reducing the 

time required for the BLM to approve APDs by 25 days would accelerate production of oil and gas under APDs submitted each year 

by as many as 10 days. Because for the purposes of this estimate 

CBO expects that each year a roughly equal amount of production 

would be shifted into the previous fiscal year, the federal government would receive a net increase in royalties in 2019. Based on 

its estimates of about $800 per day in royalties from the 1,350 new 

wells expected to begin production in 2019, CBO anticipates that 

enacting H.R. 6106 would increase royalties to the federal government by about $5 million for the year. 

Uncertainty 

CBO aims to produce estimates that generally reflect the middle 

of a range of the most likely budgetary outcomes that would result 

if legislation was enacted. In estimating that range of effects, CBO 

had to account for two major sources of uncertainty. 

First, although CBO cannot predict future oil and gas prices precisely, this estimate relies on a projected path for the 2019–2028 

period that is part of the agency’s economic forecast. If prices fall, 

the forward shift in the timing of oil and gas production would reVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:29 Sep 21, 2018 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR955.XXX HR955
16 

sult in a net increase in royalties because production volume would 

be higher when prices were higher and lower when prices were 

lower. Conversely, if prices increase faster or reach higher amounts 

than CBO projects, accelerating oil and gas production would result 

in a net reduction in royalties. Because APD submissions are generally correlated with oil and gas prices, prices that are significantly higher or lower than CBO projects would affect the number 

of applications the BLM received, which would affect how quickly 

it could reduce the backlog of pending APDs. 

A second source of uncertainty concerns the lack of information 

on the timing and quantity of oil and gas production from particular wells in many states where such drilling occurs on federal 

lands. CBO drew on production data from certain other states 

along with information on royalties from those states and others to 

estimate the bill’s total effect on royalties. Although obtaining more 

precise information could have strengthened CBO’s estimates of 

royalties under H.R. 6106, CBO does not expect that the information would have significantly changed its estimate of the net budgetary effect of enacting H.R. 6106, given the same projected price 

paths for oil and gas. 

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 outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 6106, THE COMMON SENSE PERMITTING 

ACT, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ON JUNE 

20, 2018 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2018– 

2023 

2018– 

2028 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-YouGo Effect .............. 0 ¥18 ¥31 ¥48 ¥61 ¥15 18 46 64 31 15 ¥173 0 

Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6106 would not increase net direct spending by more than $2.5 billion or on-budget deficits by more than 

$5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning 

in 2029. 

Mandates: H.R. 6106 contains no intergovernmental or privatesector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Kim Cawley; Mandates: Jon 

Sperl. 

Estimate reviewed by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis; Theresa A. Gullo, Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

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

of this bill is to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to clarify the 

authorized categorical exclusions and authorize additional categorical exclusions to streamline the oil and gas permitting process. 

17 

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. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5 

Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any directed 

rule makings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

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, 

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

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—OIL AND GAS 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle G—Miscellaneous 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 390. NEPA REVIEW. 

ø(a) NEPA REVIEW.—Action by the Secretary of the Interior in 

managing the public lands, or the Secretary of Agriculture in managing National Forest System Lands, with respect to any of the activities described in subsection (b) shall be subject to a rebuttable 

presumption that the use of a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) would apply if the 

activity is conducted pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act for the 

purpose of exploration or development of oil or gas. 

18 

ø(b) ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED.—The activities referred to in subsection (a) are the following: 

ø(1) Individual surface disturbances of less than 5 acres so 

long as the total surface disturbance on the lease is not greater 

than 150 acres and site-specific analysis in a document prepared pursuant to NEPA has been previously completed. 

ø(2) Drilling an oil or gas well at a location or well pad site 

at which drilling has occurred previously within 5 years prior 

to the date of spudding the well. 

ø(3) Drilling an oil or gas well within a developed field for 

which an approved land use plan or any environmental document prepared pursuant to NEPA analyzed such drilling as a 

reasonably foreseeable activity, so long as such plan or document was approved within 5 years prior to the date of spudding the well. 

ø(4) Placement of a pipeline in an approved right-of-way corridor, so long as the corridor was approved within 5 years prior 

to the date of placement of the pipeline. 

ø(5) Maintenance of a minor activity, other than any construction or major renovation or a building or facility.¿ 

SEC. 390. NEPA REVIEW. 

(a) NEPA REVIEW.—Action by the Secretary of the Interior in 

managing the public lands, or the Secretary of Agriculture in managing National Forest System Lands, with respect to any of the activities described in subsection (d) shall be categorically excluded 

from any further analysis and documentation under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) if the activity is conducted pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 

181 et seq.) for the purpose of exploration or development of oil or 

gas. 

(b) CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION.—Use of a categorical exclusion created in this section— 

(1) shall not require a finding of no extraordinary circumstances; and 

(2) shall be effective for the full term of the authorized permit 

or approval. 

(c) APPLICATION.—This section shall not apply to an action of the 

Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture on Indian 

lands or resources managed in trust for the benefit of Indian Tribes. 

(d) ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED.—The activities referred to in subsection (a) are: 

(1) Reinstating a lease pursuant to section 31 of the Mineral 

Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 188). 

(2) The following activities, provided that any new surface 

disturbance is contiguous with the footprint of the original authorization and does not exceed 20 acres or the acreage evaluated in a document previously prepared under section 102(2)(C) 

of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C)) with respect to such activity, whichever is greater: 

(A) Drilling oil or gas wells at a well pad site at which 

drilling has occurred previously. 

(B) Expansion of an existing oil or gas well pad site to 

accommodate additional wells. 

19 

(C) Expansion or modification of an existing oil or gas 

well pad site, road, pipeline, facilities, or utilities submitted 

in a sundry notice. 

(3) Drilling of oil and gas wells at new well pad sites, provided that the new surface disturbance does not exceed 20 acres 

or the acreage evaluated in a document previously prepared 

under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) with respect to such activity, 

whichever is greater. 

(4) Construction or realignment of a road, pipeline, or utilities within an existing right-of-way or within a right-of-way 

corridor established in a land use plan. 

(5) The following activities when conducted from non-Federal 

surface into federally owned minerals, provided that the operator submits to the Secretary concerned certification of a surface 

use agreement with the non-Federal landowner: 

(A) Drilling oil or gas wells at a well pad site at which 

drilling has occurred previously. 

(B) Expansion of an existing oil or gas well pad site to 

accommodate additional wells. 

(C) Expansion or modification of an existing oil or gas 

well pad site, road, pipeline, facilities or utilities submitted 

in a sundry notice. 

(6) Drilling of oil or gas wells from non-Federal surface and 

non-Federal subsurface into Federal mineral estate. 

(7) Construction of up to 1 mile of new road on Federal or 

non-Federal surface, not to exceed 2 miles in total. 

(8) Construction of up to 3 miles of individual pipelines or 

utilities, regardless of surface ownership. 

* * * * * * * 

(20) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We oppose H.R. 6016 because it provides reckless environmental 

waivers for the benefit of an industry that does not need them at 

all. 

Under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, 

federal actions that are categorically excluded from further review 

are subject to a screen for extraordinary circumstances that would 

require a harder look at the impacts of that action. The idea behind 

this is simple: even seemingly harmless actions may, in certain situations, actually have the potential to cause real harm, and commonsense precautions should be taken to ensure that this does not 

occur through federal actions that otherwise would be performed 

without a second thought. 

This legislation would eliminate the ability to perform such basic 

checks for an activity that generally does have significant environmental impacts: the drilling of an oil or gas well. It is bad enough 

that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created inappropriate categorical exclusions for oil and gas drilling in the first place. Eliminating 

even the most cursory review of the public health and environmental impacts of oil and gas drilling is foolhardy and unnecessary. 

Two Democratic Members, Mr. Gallego and Ms. Vela ́zquez, offered amendments that would have reinstated several of the most 

basic extraordinary circumstances: checking for risks to public 

health or safety, highly uncertain or potentially significant environmental effects, highly controversial environmental effects, unresolved conflicts with the use of other resources, and disproportionately high and adverse effects on low income or minority populations. Both amendments were taken straight from existing federal regulations at 43 C.F.R. 46.215, yet during debate on the 

amendments the Majority argued that the language was too vague 

and could never be used effectively. It is clear that the Majority is 

not aware of what extraordinary circumstances are, or how they 

are used under the law, which makes it even more unfortunate 

that they would report a bill that would do away with them for 

drilling oil and gas wells. 

Another Democratic amendment, offered by Ms. Barraga ́n, would 

have exempted from the bill wells that would be drilled within one 

mile of homes, schools, or other buildings that would require special protection. Despite the fact that this would not actually block 

any wells from being drilled, and would only ensure that additional 

scrutiny was paid to wells that would be close to homes and 

schools, even this was deemed too burdensome for the oil and gas 

industry by the Majority and voted down. 

One particularly concerning talking point that the Majority used 

repeatedly during the markup was the idea that the categorical exclusions would only be available for areas where there had already 

been NEPA review performed twice. While technically true, this is 

21 

1 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Energy Policy Act of 2005: Greater Clarity Needed 

to Address Concerns with Categorical Exclusions for Oil and Gas Development under Section 

390 of the Act, GAO–09,872, September 2009. 2M.K. Capone and J.C. Ruple, NEPA and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Statutory Categorical 

Exclusions: What Are the Environmental Costs of Expedited Oil and Gas Development?, 18 Vt. 

J. Envtl. L. 371 

exceptionally misleading and potentially betrays a deep misunderstanding of how NEPA works. The first NEPA review is for a Resource Management Plan (RMP), which typically covers millions of 

acres and looks only at broad cumulative impacts of potential oil 

and gas development scenarios. The second NEPA review is for the 

lease sale, which is all too often (particularly under this administration) treated as a purely administrative action that causes no 

actual on-the-ground impacts. The Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) will invariably issue a Finding of No Significant Impact, or, 

more likely, a ‘‘Determination of NEPA Adequacy,’’ which is a finding that NEPA was already sufficiently performed at the RMP 

stage, and is peppered with phrases like, ‘‘additional site-specific 

analysis would be conducted prior to the development of these parcels.’’ Only at the drilling permit stage does BLM actually consider 

the conditions on the ground at the site where a company wants 

to drill, but this legislation would mean that in a huge number of 

cases, those conditions would never and could never be considered. 

We find it ironic that Members who decry ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ management in favor of more local control and taking into account specific conditions on the ground would support legislation that forbids 

land managers from actually taking into account specific conditions 

on the ground. 

Performing site-specific environmental analyses is far more than 

the redundant paperwork exercise that the Majority makes it out 

to be. First of all, NEPA is often the only way that communities 

living near proposed drill sites learn anything about drilling plans 

and have any way to comment on them. By categorically excluding 

drilling applications, families will be left in the dark and unable to 

have their voices heard on issues that impact the health of their 

communities and the level of pollution in their air, water, and soil. 

Second, there are demonstrable environmental benefits to performing site-specific reviews. The Government Accountability Office 

found in 2010 that the use of categorical exclusions provides incentives for companies to do piecemeal development that could lead to 

larger and more damaging impacts on the surface.1 A recent review 

of wells in one Wyoming field office found that wells approved 

using a categorical exclusion created 87 percent more surface disturbance than wells approved using an environmental assessment, 

and three times the amount of surface disturbance than wells approved using an environmental impact statement.2

Finally, there is no compelling reason to pass a bill to try to 

speed federal permitting by eliminating environmental reviews. Recently the Committee was informed that companies hold over 7,200 

approved permits to drill that they haven’t used, and that BLM has 

gotten permit processing time down to under sixty days. While the 

Majority and hearing witnesses from right-wing think tanks have 

claimed that production on federal lands has been stagnant or declining, the facts show otherwise. From 2008 through 2016, oil production on federal onshore lands went up nearly 60 percent; in 

22 

New Mexico, production growth on federal lands far outpaced nonfederal lands in that same time period. 

The arguments made on behalf of this legislation by the Majority 

are based on the idea that the importance of U.S. public lands is 

limited to the number of oil and gas rigs that are currently drilling 

on them. Making things cheaper and easier for the oil and gas industry is, therefore, their only goal. We believe that public lands 

belong to all Americans, and should be managed in a balanced and 

responsible way to support recreation, wildlife habitat, grazing, 

conservation, and other uses in addition to energy development. 

For those reasons and more, we strongly oppose H.R. 6106. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, 

Ranking Member, Committee on 

Natural Resources. 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. 

JARED HUFFMAN. 

A. DONALD MCEACHIN. 

Æ