34730 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 42.1 Policy.

(a) It is the policy of the Department

of Justice to seek to eliminate

discrimination on the basis of race,

color, religion, sex, sexual orientation,

national origin, marital status, political

affiliation, age, or physical or mental

handicap in employment within the

Department and to assure equal

employment opportunity for all

employees and applicants for

employment.

(b) No person shall be subject to

retaliation for opposing any practical

prohibited by the above policy or for

participating in any stage of

administrative or judicial proceedings

related to this policy.

Dated: June 26, 1996.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 96–16888 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 256

RIN 1010–AC18

Leasing of Sulphur or Oil and Gas in

the Outer Continental Shelf

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service

(MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule amends the

regulations of MMS to allow the

authorized officer to extend the 90-day

time period within which we must

accept or reject the high bids received

on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) tracts

offered for sale. Unforeseen

circumstances including a flood, a

furlough, and an extremely high bid

response may create a need for more

time to evaluate bids. The rule gives the

authorized officer authority to extend

the time period for 15 working days or

longer, beyond 90 days after the date on

which the bids are opened, when

circumstances warrant.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

July 18, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Marshall Rose, Chief, Economic

Evaluation Branch, telephone (703)

787–1536.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The time

to accept or reject bids is established

under the regulations at 30 CFR 256.47.

The authorized officer must accept or

reject the high bids within 90 days after

the bid opening, except for tracts or

blocks identified by the Secretary of the

Interior as subject to:

(1) Another nations’s claims of

jurisdiction and control which conflict

with the claims of the United States, or

(2) Defense-related activities that may

be incompatible with mineral

exploration/development activities. Any

bid not accepted within that period is

deemed rejected.

In the Central Gulf of Mexico Sale

157, held April 24, 1996, we received

1,381 bids on 924 tracts, 632 of which

passed to Phase 2 for detailed reviews.

This unprecedented response by

industry in Sale 157 resulted from the

enactment of the Outer Continental

Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act

(Pub. L. 104–58, DWRRA) and other

factors, such as higher natural gas and

oil prices. Consequently, MMS is unable

to conduct and complete the entire bid

review process within the 90 days, i.e.,

by July 22, 1996. If we do not modify

the timing restriction before the 90 days

expire for Sale 157, dozens of high bids

received on tracts offered in that sale

may be rejected because of our inability

to complete the statutorily mandated

review for fair market value. Therefore,

in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(3)(B), this rule is effective July

18, 1996. It is in the public interest to

ensure that adequate time is available to

give all high bids a full and appropriate

review and to ensure the receipt of fair

market value.

The 90-day period was established in

1982 because of the change from

nomination to areawide sales and from

presale to postsale evaluations. Since

then, MMS has held mainly areawide

sales. The DWRRA amended the Outer

Continental Shelf Lands Act and

defined a new bidding system which

provides for royalty suspensions. The

deep water incentive law did not amend

the requirement that we receive fair

market value for tracts leased. Any lease

sale held before November 28, 2000,

must use the new bidding system for all

tracts located in water depths of 200

meters or more in the Gulf of Mexico

west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes west

longitude. The large number of bids

received in response to the new

statutory requirements resulted in an

increased workload which we expect

will exceed our ability to complete the

bid review process within 90 days as

required by 30 CFR 256.47(e)(2).

This rule allows the authorized officer

authority to extend the time period for

15 working days or longer when

circumstances warrant. Recent examples

include floods and furloughs; however,

other circumstances such as an

excessive unanticipated workload may

arise which could warrant the need for

a longer time for bid evaluation.

This rule addresses a housekeeping

issue and will enable us to adjust the

bid acceptance/rejection time period to

meet changing conditions. It recognizes

that 90 days may not be enough time to

complete the review process, which

would result in the rejection of the high

bids which we fail to evaluate within 90

days. This would result in fewer leases

being issued because of failure to

complete the bid review process within

time and resource constraints. The

Government may receive less bonus and

rental monies.

Today, without authority to extend

the bid review period, the 1982 90-day

rule is arbitrarily too rigid and may not

allow sufficient time given the current

complexities inherent in evaluating

certain tracts. It is in the public interest

to ensure that adequate time is available

to give all high bids a full and

appropriate review, to ensure the receipt

of fair market value, and ultimately to

increase natural gas and oil supplies.

This rulemaking finalizes the rule,

with one substantive modification, as

originally proposed and published in

the Federal Register (61 FR 24466, May

15, 1996). Seven respondents—a trade

organization and six companies—

submitted comments on the proposed

rule during the public comment period.

The MMS reviewed and analyzed the

comments. The following is a

discussion of the comments received

and our response.

Narrative Responses to Comments

Comment: Although MMS now pays

interest on the one-fifth bonus held

during the evaluation period, industry

must set aside the four-fifths of the

bonus and first year rental to pay for the

lease when and if awarded. Delays in

rejecting a lease may cause a company

to miss participating in a significant

opportunity elsewhere. Delays in

awarding leases can cause delays in

planning further seismic evaluation,

hazard surveys, rig commitment, and

budgeting of wells. On the other hand,

industry does not want the retention of

the 90-day period to result in the

rejection of the high bids because MMS

does not have sufficient time to evaluate

them.

Response: We realize that any

extension beyond the 90 days could

result in some missed opportunities and

impact exploration and development

activities, but MMS must fulfill its duty

to obtain fair market value for offshore

leased tracts. Because we accept tracts

sequentially during the bid review

period, on only a small portion of tracts

will MMS require more than 90 days to
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 34731

complete the evaluation. We plan to

extend the bid review period only when

circumstances beyond our control arise,

such as weather conditions, furloughs,

or an unusually large number of

unanticipated tracts receiving bids

causing disruptions in our workload.

We would rather ensure that adequate

time is available to give all high bids a

full and appropriate review, than have

to reject high bids for insufficient time

to evaluate, which could be the case

without this rule. To accommodate the

concern to keep the review time

extension as short as possible, MMS has

reduced the minimum extension time

from 30 days as proposed to 15 working

days in the final rule.

Comment: The ‘‘authorized officer’’

should not be allowed authority to

extend the time period for more than 30

days. This extension of time should

only apply to the evaluation of Sale 157

bids and should not be for additional

time caused by a change in the bid

adequacy procedures, for example,

elimination of the 3-bid rule.

Response: Our recent experience with

floods and furloughs, which resulted in

extensions of the bid review period for

14 and 9 days each, would indicate that

it is unlikely that the authorized officer

will extend the time period for more

than 15 working days. As a result, we

have modified the proposed 30 days to

15 working days. However, in those rare

circumstances that may arise which

could warrant a longer time for bid

evaluation, this rule gives the

authorized officer the flexibility to

respond appropriately and in the public

interest. With respect to Sale 157, more

than three times the normal number of

tracts went to Phase 2 for further

evaluation, only a small percentage of

which was attributable to the

elimination of the 3-bid rule. The

excessive workload burden is a result

primarily of industry competition and

bidding in Sale 157 and not a change in

the bid adequacy procedures.

Comment: The fact that a tract is

covered by the DWRRA should not be

a factor in evaluating the high bid on

that tract.

Response: The MMS must fulfill its

duty to obtain fair market value for

offshore leased tracts. The fact that a

tract may benefit from the DWRRA will

normally cause the bidders to adjust

their bids accordingly. Therefore, any

bid review procedure should take this

effect into consideration as well.

Comment: The regulation and the

notice granting the extension should

make clear the event or circumstances

which require the extension.

Response: Based on past experience,

the rule does not list all possible

reasons, or combination of reasons, that

could trigger an extension. Examples of

circumstances that might apply are:

Inclement weather that results in

closing the office; damage to the

building (e.g., explosion, fire, or water);

lack of electrical power; etc. Any

announcement of an extension beyond

the 90-day period will include the

reasons warranting the extension.

Comment: An extension to accept or

reject the high bids is acceptable

provided the additional time is

warranted, and the sale schedule in the

Central and Western Gulf of Mexico is

not seriously affected. The alternative of

rejecting high bids not evaluated

because of insufficient time does not

serve the best interest of the companies

or the Government.

Response: We, like the companies, do

not want to extend the bid review

period any more than absolutely

necessary because MMS wants to

continue to meet our sales schedule. We

also realize that companies might delay

exploration and development decisions

because considerable amounts of

financial resources, which could be

better employed elsewhere, are tied up

during this period. Any extensions

should be for the minimum time

warranted and affect a small number of

tracts.

Comment: The 90-day period would

be sufficient if MMS limited its

evaluation efforts in Phase 2 to those

tracts where there is current activity or

new production offsetting a tract

receiving bids.

Response: Because we are required to

receive fair value for all tracts leased,

the existing bid adequacy procedures do

not limit Phase 2 evaluation efforts only

to those tracts where there is current

activity or new production offsetting a

tract receiving bids. The rule recognizes

that more than 90 days may be needed

to complete the process. We will

continue to review our procedures and,

based on knowledge gained from

experience in lease sales, may identify

modifications which might reduce the

length of the bid review period.

Author: This document was prepared

by Mary Vavrina, Offshore Resource

Evaluation Division, MMS.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

This rule does not meet the criteria for

a significant rule requiring review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under E.O. 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior (DOI)

has determined that this rule will not

have a significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities.

Any direct effects of this rulemaking

will primarily affect the lessees and

operators—entities that are not, by

definition, small due to the technical

complexities and financial resources

necessary to conduct OCS activities.

Small entities are more likely to operate

onshore or in State waters—areas not

covered by this rule. The indirect effect

of this rulemaking on small entities that

provide support for offshore activities

has also been determined to be small.

When small entities work on the OCS,

they are more likely to be contractors

rather than lessees. While these

contractors must follow the rules

governing OCS operations, we are not

changing the rules that govern actual

operations on a lease. We are only

modifying the rules governing the actual

acceptance or rejection of a high bid for

a lease.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The rule has been examined under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and

has been found to contain no new

reporting and information collection

requirements.

Takings Implication Assessment

The DOI certifies that this rule does

not represent a governmental action

capable of interference with

constitutionally protected property

rights. A Takings Implication

Assessment prepared under E.O. 12630,

Government Action and Interference

with Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights, is not required.

E.O. 12988

The DOI has certified to OMB that the

rule meets the applicable reform

standards provided in Section 3(b)(2) of

E.O. 12988.

National Environmental Policy Act

The DOI has determined that this rule

does not constitute a major Federal

action significantly affecting the quality

of the human environment; therefore, an

environmental impact statement is not

required.

Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995

The DOI has determined and certifies

according to the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that

this rule will not impose a cost of $100

million or more in any given year on

local, tribal, or State governments or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 256

Administrative practices and

procedures, Continental shelf,

Government contracts, Incorporation by

reference, Oil and gas exploration,
34732 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Public lands—mineral resources,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Surety bonds.

Dated: June 27, 1996.

Sylvia V. Baca,

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals

Management.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, we amend 30 CFR part 256 as

follows:

PART 256—LEASING OF SULPHUR OR

OIL AND GAS IN THE OUTER

CONTINENTAL SHELF

1. The Authority citation for part 256

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.

2. Section 256.47(e)(2) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 256.47 Award of leases.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) The authorized officer must accept

or reject the bid within 90 days. The

authorized officer may extend the time

period for acceptance or rejection of a

bid for 15 working days or longer, if

circumstances warrant. Any bid not

accepted within the prescribed time

period, including any extension thereof,

is deemed rejected.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–17013 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers

33 CFR Part 334

Chesapeake Bay Off Fort Monroe, VA,

and Canaveral Harbor Adjacent to the

Navy Pier at Port Canaveral, FL;

Restricted Areas, and Pacific Ocean,

Hawaii, Danger Zones

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

DOD.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Corps is amending the

regulations which establish a restricted

area in the waters off of Fort Monroe,

Virginia, which is located at Hampton

Roads in the Chesapeake Bay. The

purpose of the amendment is to increase

the size of the restricted area to protect

sensitive test equipment operated by the

Navy in that area. The equipment is

susceptible to damage by commercial

fishing vessels, anchoring and dragging.

The Corps is amending the regulations

which establish a restricted area in

Canaveral Harbor in the waters adjacent

to the Navy pier at Port Canaveral,

Florida. This amendment concerns the

replacement of a warning light system

in the Canaveral area. The change is

necessary because the existing rules

refer to the display of a nonexistent red

ball and the Port Canaveral water tower

which has been dismantled. The marker

light has been relocated. The Corps is

also making several editorial changes to

the regulations which establish danger

zones in the waters offshore of Hawaii.

The amendments reflect a change in the

use of a danger zone and the identity of

the Agency responsible for enforcement

of the regulations. The changes are

being made as a result of an ongoing

review of the regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: HQUSACE, CECW–OR,

Washington, D.C. 20314–1000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Ralph Eppard, Regulatory Branch,

CECW–OR at (202) 761–1783, or

questions concerning the Fort Monroe

restricted area may be directed to Ms.

Alice G. Riley of the Norfolk District at

(804) 441–7389, and questions

concerning the Port Canaveral restricted

area may be directed to Ms. Shirley

Stokes of the Jacksonville District at

(904) 232–1668.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to its authorities in Section 7 of the

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat.

266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the

Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40

Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps is

amending the regulations in 33 CFR Part

334.360, 334.530 and 334.1340.

The Commanding Officer, Naval

Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren

Detachment, Fort Monroe, Virginia has

requested an amendment to the

regulations in 33 CFR 334.360, which

establish a restricted area in the

Chesapeake Bay off Fort Monroe,

Virginia. In addition, the Commanding

Officer, Naval Ordnance Test Unit, Cape

Canaveral, Florida, has requested an

amendment to the restricted area

regulations in 33 CFR 334.530 to delete

a reference to a red warning light on a

water tower and refer in its place to a

new warning light system. We

published these proposed amendments

to the regulations in the notice of

proposed rulemaking section of the

Federal Register on February 27, 1996,

with the comment period expiring on

April 12, 1996 (61 FR 7231–7132). We

received no comments in response to

the proposed rule. The Commander,

Naval Base, Pearl Harbor has requested

that minor editorial changes be made to

the regulations which establish several

danger zones in the waters offshore of

Hawaii to remove obsolete material. The

title of the danger zone in 33 CFR

1340(a)(4) is changed from ‘‘Aerial

bombing and naval shore bombardment

area, Kahoolawe Island Hawaii’’ to

‘‘Submerged unexploded ordnance

danger zone, Kahoolawe Island,

Hawaii’’ and the enforcing authority in

paragraph (c) is changed from

‘‘Commander, Third Fleet, Pearl

Harbor’’ to ‘‘Commander, Naval Base,

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860–5020.’’

These amendments to the danger zones

in 33 CFR 334.1340 are being

promulgated without being published as

proposed rules with opportunity for

public comment because the changes

are editorial in nature and since the

revisions do not change the boundaries

or increase or decrease the restrictions

on the public’s use or entry into the

designated danger zones, the changes

will have practically no effect on the

public, and accordingly, public

comment is unnecessary and

impractical.

Economic Assessment and Certification

This final rule is issued with respect

to a military function of the Defense

Department and the provisions of

Executive Order 12866 do not apply.

This final rule has been reviewed under

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L.

96–354), which requires the preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis for

any regulation that will have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

(i.e., small businesses and small

governments). The Corps expects that

the economic impact of the changes to

the restricted areas will have practically

no impact on the public, no anticipated

navigational hazard or interference with

existing waterway traffic and

accordingly, certifies that this final rule

will have no significant economic

impact on small entities.

National Environmental Policy Act

Certification

An environmental assessment has

been prepared for each of these actions.

We have concluded, based on the minor

nature of these amendments, that these

amendments to danger zones and

restricted areas will not have a

significant impact to the human

environment, and preparation of an

environmental impact statement is not

required. Copies of the environmental

assessment may be reviewed at the

District Offices listed at the end of

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, above.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334

Navigation (water), Transportation,

Danger Zones.