60212 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

External Affairs Divisions of the Office 

of Pesticide Programs. The proposed 

revisions are directed at antimicrobial 

pesticides, not conventional pesticides, 

biochemical and microbial pesticides or 

product performance data requirements. 

Nonetheless, all interested parties are 

welcome and may benefit from the 

discussions since two areas not 

addressed in the conventional pesticide 

(72 FR 60934), or biochemical and 

microbial pesticide (72 FR 60988) data 

requirements final rules are addressed 

in the antimicrobial data requirements 

proposed rule. These two areas are: 

down-the-drain data requirements and 

the Program’s use of structure-activityrelationship (SAR). 

During the workshop, persons in 

attendance will be able to ask questions 

regarding the proposed rule and/or 

material being presented and seek any 

clarification they believe may assist 

them in submitting comments to the 

docket for the proposed rule. Any 

person wishing to comment on the 

proposed rule must submit any 

comments to the docket within the 

timeframe set forth in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking for the proposed 

rule. 

The proposed revisions were issued 

in the Federal Register of October 8, 

2008. A 90–day comment period will 

end on January 6, 2009. A limited 

number of copies of the proposed rule 

will be available at the workshop. 

Attendees are encouraged to access the 

electronic version of the proposed rule 

from the regulations.gov website under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPP–2008– 

0110. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 158 and 

161 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

Debra Edwards, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. E8–24025 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Part 2300 

[WO–350–08 1430 PN] 

RIN 1004–AE05 

Land Withdrawals; Removal of 

Regulations Covering Emergency 

Withdrawals 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

remove regulations that provide for 

emergency withdrawals. These 

regulations are redundant, since public 

lands can be protected without 

substantial delay via conventional 

withdrawal procedures, without 

recourse to the regulations providing for 

emergency withdrawals. Moreover, 

constitutional issues may arise 

whenever a Congressional committee 

directs the Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary) to withdraw lands 

immediately. 

DATES: Send your comments on this 

proposed rule to the BLM on or before 

October 27, 2008. Comments received or 

postmarked after this date may not be 

considered in the decision-making 

process on the issuance of the proposed 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail written 

comments to the Director (630), Bureau 

of Land Management, 1620 L Street, 

NW., Room 401, Washington, DC 20036, 

Attention: RIN 1004–AE05; or handdeliver written comments to the Bureau 

of Land Management, Administrative 

Record, Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20036. Comments will 

be available for public review at the L 

Street address from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 

p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on the substance of the 

proposed rule, please contact Jeff 

Holdren at 202–452–7779 or Vanessa 

Engle at 202–452–7776. For information 

on procedural matters, please contact 

Jean Sonneman at 202–785–6577. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the 

above individuals during business 

hours. FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 

7 days a week, to leave a message or 

question with the above individuals. 

You will receive a reply during normal 

business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Comment Procedures 

II. Background 

A. Case Law 

B. 1991 Rulemaking 

III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule 

A. The Two Processes 

B. The Constitutional Issue 

IV. Procedural Matters 

I. Public Comment Procedures 

Electronic Access and Filing Address: 

You may view an electronic version of 

this proposed rule at the BLM’s Internet 

home page at http://www.blm.gov or at 

http://www.regulations.gov. You may 

comment via the Internet at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you submit your 

comments electronically, please include 

your name and return address in your 

Internet message. 

Written Comments: You may mail 

your comments to: Director (630), 

Bureau of Land Management, 1620 L 

Street, NW., Room 401, Washington, DC 

20036, Attention: RIN 1004–AE05. You 

may deliver comments to: 1620 L Street, 

NW., Room 401, Washington, DC 20036. 

Please make your comments as 

specific as possible, confine them to 

issues pertinent to the proposed rule, 

and explain the reason for any changes 

you recommend. Where possible, your 

comments should reference the specific 

section or paragraph of the proposed 

rule that you are addressing. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, be advised 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 from public review your 

personal identifying information, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

The Department of the Interior (DOI) 

may not necessarily consider or include 

in the Administrative Record for the 

proposed rule comments that we receive 

after the close of the comments period 

(see DATES) or comments delivered to an 

address other than those listed above 

(see ADDRESSES). 

II. Background 

This proposed rule would remove 

regulations that provide for emergency 

withdrawals. These regulations, 

including 43 CFR 2310.5, provide that 

the Secretary of the Interior shall 

withdraw lands immediately upon 

determining that an emergency exists 

and that extraordinary measures need to 

be taken to protect natural resources or 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60213 

resource values that otherwise would be 

lost. Section 2310.5 also requires an 

immediate withdrawal when either of 

two committees of the Congress notifies 

the Secretary that it has made the same 

determination that would support an 

emergency withdrawal initiated by the 

Secretary. 43 CFR 2310.5(a). Section 

204(e) of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) provides that 

this authority may be exercised by the 

Committee on Natural Resources of the 

House of Representatives or by the 

Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources of the Senate. 43 U.S.C. 

1714(e). (Before 1994, Section 204(e) 

referred to the House and Senate 

Committees on Interior and Insular 

Affairs.) 

A. Case Law 

In the years since the enactment of 

section 204(e) in 1976, the emergency 

withdrawal provisions, whether by 

initiation of the Secretary or 

Congressional committee, have been 

used sparingly. Two previous 

committee notices (both from the House 

Committee on Interior and Insular 

Affairs) led to litigation in which the 

constitutionality of section 204(e) was 

challenged. See Pacific Legal 

Foundation v. Watt, 529 F. Supp. 982 

(D. Montana 1981); National Wildlife 

Federation v. Watt, 571 F. Supp. 1145 

(D.D.C. 1983) (granting preliminary 

injunction); National Wildlife 

Federation v. Clark, 577 F. Supp. 825 

(D.D.C. 1984) (granting summary 

judgment). 

In Pacific Legal Foundation, the 

Secretary and other parties argued that 

FLPMA Section 204(e) was 

unconstitutional because its application 

through unilateral action by the 

committee: (a) Violated the separation of 

powers doctrine, (b) delegated executive 

power to the committee, (c) violated the 

requirement of bicameralism (i.e., 

legislation must be approved by both 

Houses of Congress), and (d) deprived 

the President of his veto power (known 

as the presentment requirement). At the 

time of that case, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had set 

aside, as unconstitutional, a statutory 

provision that authorized either House 

of Congress to execute a legislative veto 

over decisions made by the Attorney 

General. Chadha v. Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, 634 F.2d 408 

(9th Cir. 1980). Relying in part on that 

decision, the Federal district court in 

Montana held that, but for one 

distinguishing feature of section 204(e), 

the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Chadha 

would have ‘‘compelled’’ the district 

court to declare Section 204(e) 

unconstitutional. Pacific Legal 

Foundation v. Watt, 529 F. Supp. 982, 

1002 (D. Montana 1981). According to 

the district court, the saving feature of 

Section 204(e) was Secretarial discretion 

to determine the scope and duration of 

an emergency withdrawal. Id. at 1000. 

Subsequently, the Supreme Court 

affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 

v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). The 

breadth of the Supreme Court’s ruling 

casts doubt on the validity of the 

Montana court’s reasoning that the 

Secretary’s discretion to set the scope 

and duration of the withdrawal saves 

the statute. For example, the Court 

stated, ‘‘Congress’ authority to delegate 

portions of its power to administrative 

agencies provides no support for the 

argument that Congress can 

constitutionally control administration 

of the laws by way of a congressional 

veto.’’ 462 U.S. at 953 n.16. 

The second case in which the 

constitutionality of FLPMA section 

204(e) was at issue, National Wildlife 

Federation v. Watt, began when 

environmental organizations brought 

suit against the Secretary, seeking 

review of a notice to receive and accept 

bids for the sale of coal leases. The 

plaintiffs argued that the notice was in 

contravention of a resolution adopted by 

the Interior and Insular Affairs 

Committee of the House of 

Representatives, directing the Secretary 

to withdraw certain lands from coal 

leasing temporarily. The court held that 

a forced withdrawal, like the legislative 

veto that was invalidated by the 

Supreme Court in Chadha, would 

probably be held to be legislative in 

character, since it alters the legal rights 

and duties of the Secretary of the 

Interior. Accordingly, the court found 

that the plaintiffs’ attempt to distinguish 

Section 204(e) from an invalid 

legislative-veto provision, on the 

grounds that the withdrawal was 

temporary, was unlikely to succeed. 

National Wildlife Federation v. Watt, 

571 F. Supp. 1145, 1155 (D.D.C. 1983). 

However, the court found that the 

plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the 

merits of their claim that the primary 

emergency-withdrawal regulation (43 

CFR 2310.5) was binding on the 

Secretary irrespective of the validity of 

section 204(e), since no action had been 

taken to remove the regulation through 

notice-and-comment procedures. 571 F. 

Supp. at 1158. In a subsequent decision 

granting the plaintiffs’ motion for 

summary judgment, the court found that 

it was unnecessary to reach the 

constitutional question, and instead 

required that the Secretary ‘‘honor his 

own regulation unless and until he has 

rescinded or amended it after an 

appropriate rulemaking proceeding, or 

until the Committee has vacated its 

Resolution.’’ National Wildlife 

Federation v. Clark, 577 F. Supp. 825, 

828–29 (D.D.C. 1984). 

B. 1991 Rulemaking 

In 1991, the BLM published a 

proposal to remove all regulations in 43 

CFR part 2300 that are concerned with 

emergency withdrawals (56 FR 59914 

(Nov. 26, 1991)). That proposed rule 

was never finalized, and it was 

withdrawn from the Semi-Annual 

Regulatory Agenda in 1993. In addition 

to raising the constitutional issue, the 

preamble for the proposed rule included 

an explanation that the first sentence of 

section 204(e) is redundant, since public 

lands can be protected rapidly through 

the normal exercise of the general 

withdrawal authority, without invoking 

FLPMA section 204(e). 

The BLM received five comments 

during a 30-day comment period. One 

comment supported the 1991 proposed 

rule as written. The other four 

comments opposed the proposed rule. 

One such comment expressed the 

opinion that the executive branch has 

the duty to ‘‘faithfully execute the laws’’ 

and should therefore not challenge the 

constitutionality of a statute. That 

comment also expressed the view that 

the Department should leave the 

emergency withdrawal provisions in 

place in order to maintain a 

‘‘harmonious relationship with 

Congress.’’ Several comments expressed 

the opinion that the Department should 

not refuse to implement the portion of 

section 204(e) providing for a 

committee-directed withdrawal as 

unconstitutional unless and until a 

court makes the determination that the 

statute is in fact unconstitutional. Those 

comments also expressed the view that 

the statute was not unconstitutional, 

with one comment arguing that 

although the committee notifies the 

Secretary of the emergency, the 

notification provision of section 204(e) 

is constitutional because the Secretary 

has the discretion to set the scope and 

duration of the withdrawal and because 

the limited purpose of that provision is 

to give Congress time to act legislatively. 

Thus, the comment argued that the 

committee notification was not a 

‘‘legislative act’’ under Chadha. Two 

comments argued that the Property 

Clause of the Constitution gives 

Congress broad power over the public 

lands, including the power to require a 

withdrawal upon committee 

notification. 

Several comments voiced the belief 

that the statute was not redundant. One 

argued that the statute was not 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60214 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

redundant because the committee 

withdrawal provision was not available 

under the normal withdrawal authority 

conferred by FLPMA section 204 and 

that the provision was necessary to force 

the Secretary to act in emergency 

situations. 

One comment argued that the 

proposed rule would create an 

inconsistency between the statute and 

the regulation and confuse Congress and 

the public. That comment also stated 

that, instead of proposing a rule, the 

BLM should request public input on 

how best to deal with the issue. 

III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule 

As we proposed in 1991, we are now 

proposing that in the future the policy 

of the Department of the Interior will be 

to shield natural resource values, when 

immediate protection from the 

operation of the general land laws 

(including mining laws) is called for, by 

means of the conventional withdrawal 

process as prescribed in 43 CFR part 

2300, and not through the issuance of 

emergency withdrawal orders. This 

proposed rule is in accordance with that 

policy. 

A. The Two Processes 

The BLM’s experience indicates that 

the procedures for issuing an emergency 

withdrawal order do not result in the 

protection of public lands more rapidly 

than the completion of a more 

conventional withdrawal process. 

Conventional procedures enable the 

BLM to protect public lands, without 

substantial delay, for as long as 2 years 

by publishing a Federal Register notice 

of the filing of a withdrawal application 

or proposal. Such publication 

temporarily segregates the public lands 

from settlement, sale, location, or entry 

under the public land laws, including 

the mining laws, to the extent specified 

in the notice. 43 CFR 2310.2(a). The 

notice is required to provide for a 

suitable period of at least 90 days after 

publication for public comment on the 

requested action. 43 CFR 2310.3– 

1(b)(2)(iv). 

If a petition seeks an emergency 

withdrawal, the petition is filed 

simultaneously with an application for 

withdrawal. 43 CFR 2310.1–3(d). If the 

Secretary approves a petition for an 

emergency withdrawal, the publication 

and notice provisions pertaining to 

emergency withdrawals are applicable. 

43 CFR 2310.1–3(e). Those provisions, 

at 43 CFR 2310.5, include the 

immediate issuance of an order signed 

by the Secretary which is effective when 

signed, does not exceed 3 years in 

duration, and may not be extended by 

the Secretary. 43 CFR 2310.5(a). The 

Secretary also sends a notice of the 

emergency withdrawal to the Committee 

on Natural Resources of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources of the 

Senate the same day it is signed, and 

sends a report to both committees 

within 90 days. 43 CFR 2310.5(b) and 

(c). 

Initially, the 2-year segregation that 

occurs immediately upon notice of a 

conventional withdrawal proposal or 

application has the same effect as the 

first 2 years of a 3-year emergency 

withdrawal. However, the conventional 

process permits the extension of a 

withdrawal that is granted during the 2- 

year segregative period, if warranted by 

the purpose for which the withdrawal 

was first made. 43 CFR 2310.4(a). In 

contrast, an emergency withdrawal may 

not be extended by the Secretary. 43 

CFR 2310.5(a). Lands involved in an 

emergency withdrawal may continue to 

be withdrawn past the expiration of the 

emergency withdrawal only via the 

conventional withdrawal procedures. 

Id. 

Public notice and opportunities for 

comment under conventional 

withdrawal procedures (43 CFR 2310.3– 

1(b)(2)(iv)–(v) and (c)) do not occur for 

emergency withdrawals. Unlike the 

emergency process, the conventional 

process ensures that the BLM casts a 

wide net for information. The 

conventional process takes appropriate 

account of and considers the interests of 

persons with ownership or other legally 

recognized interests in land or other 

natural resources. It also properly 

accommodates public participation in 

the Federal decision-making process. In 

short, the emergency withdrawal 

process is unnecessary because of the 

segregative effect provided by the 

conventional withdrawal process. 

B. The Constitutional Issue 

Whenever a Congressional committee 

directs the Secretary to withdraw lands 

immediately, issues with regard to the 

constitutionality of that action are likely 

to arise. Such issues do not arise upon 

the exercise of the Secretary’s 

conventional withdrawal authority. 

This rulemaking is not a forum for 

resolving the validity of the Committeedirected withdrawal provision of 

section 204(e). However, in view of the 

district court’s ruling in National 

Wildlife Federation v. Clark, we believe 

the existing emergency-withdrawal 

regulations may be an impediment to 

resolving that question in an 

appropriate forum. 

The substantive changes in this rule 

are the same as those proposed in 1991. 

In addition, we have made 

nonsubstantive stylistic changes in 

keeping with current format 

requirements of the CFR. In these 

circumstances, since the public has had 

an opportunity to comment on the 1991 

proposed rule, a comment period of 15 

days provides adequate opportunity for 

meaningful analysis, and reasonable 

time within which to formulate 

comments for submission. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this proposed rule 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

within the meaning of Executive Order 

12866. 

• This proposed rule will not have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more, and will not adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities. 

• This proposed rule will not create 

any serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with any action taken or 

planned by another agency. 

• This proposed rule will not 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs, or the rights and obligations 

of their recipients. 

• This proposed rule will not raise 

novel legal or policy issues arising out 

of legal mandates, the President’s 

priorities, or the principles set forth in 

Executive Order 12866. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The BLM has determined that this 

proposed rule removing the provisions 

for emergency withdrawals is of a 

procedural nature. Therefore, this rule is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review under section 

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act, pursuant to 516 

Departmental Manual (DM), Chapter 2, 

Appendix 1, CX 1.10. In addition, this 

rule does not present any of the 12 

extraordinary circumstances listed in 

516 DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 2. 

Pursuant to the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations (40 

CFR 1508.4) and the environmental 

policies and procedures of the 

Department of the Interior, the term 

‘‘categorical exclusions’’ means a 

category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment and that have been found 

to have no such effect in procedures 

adopted by a Federal agency and for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60215 

which neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Congress enacted the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as 

amended, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, to ensure 

that Government regulations do not 

unnecessarily or disproportionately 

burden small entities. The RFA requires 

a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact, either detrimental or beneficial, 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The BLM has determined that 

this proposed rule removing the 

provisions for processing emergency 

withdrawals will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the RFA. 

As stated above in the preamble, the 

proposed rule would only remove the 

administrative process for processing 

emergency withdrawals. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This proposed rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’’ as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2) 

because it will not have an annual effect 

on the economy greater than $100 

million; it will not result in major cost 

or price increases for consumers, 

industries, government agencies, or 

regions; and it will not have significant 

adverse effects on competition, 

employment, investment, productivity, 

innovation, or the ability of United 

States-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule does not impose 

an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector, 

in the aggregate, of $100 million or more 

per year; nor does the rule have a 

significant or unique effect on State, 

local, or tribal governments. The rule 

would impose no requirements on these 

entities. The changes in this proposed 

rule would not have effects approaching 

$100 million per year on the private 

sector. Therefore, the BLM is not 

required to prepare a statement 

containing the information required by 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Executive Order 12630, Government 

Action and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights (Takings) 

This proposed rule is not a 

government action capable of interfering 

with constitutionally protected property 

rights. Therefore, the DOI has 

determined that the rule would not 

cause a taking of private property or 

require further discussion of takings 

implications under this Executive 

Order. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

This proposed rule will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the levels of 

government. Therefore, in accordance 

with Executive Order 13132, the BLM 

has determined that this proposed rule 

does not have sufficient Federalism 

implications to warrant preparation of a 

Federalism Assessment. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform 

The BLM has determined that this 

proposed rule does not unduly burden 

the judicial system and meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of Executive Order 12988. 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, the BLM has determined that 

this proposed rule will not result in 

significant changes to BLM policy and 

that tribal Governments will not be 

unduly affected by this rule. This rule 

has no bearing on trust lands, or on 

lands for which title is held in fee status 

by Indian tribes or U.S. Governmentowned lands managed by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs. 

Information Quality Act 

In developing this proposed rule, the 

BLM did not conduct or use a study, 

experiment or survey requiring peer 

review under the Information Quality 

Act (Section 515 of Pub. L. 106–554.). 

Executive Order 13211, Effects on the 

Nation’s Energy Supply 

This proposed rule has no 

implications under Executive Order 

13211. 

Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of 

Cooperative Conservation 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13352, the BLM has determined that 

this proposed rule is administrative in 

content, involving only changes 

affecting issuance of emergency 

withdrawals. The regulatory provisions 

governing the conventional withdrawal 

process, unlike those governing the 

emergency withdrawal process, provide 

for public participation. In proposing a 

policy of using the conventional 

withdrawal process instead of the 

emergency withdrawal process, we are 

facilitating cooperative conservation. 

Thus, this proposed rule does not 

impede the facilitation of cooperative 

conservation; takes appropriate account 

of and considers the interests of persons 

with ownership or other legally 

recognized interests in land or other 

natural resources; properly 

accommodates local participation in the 

Federal decision-making process; and 

provides that the programs, projects, 

and activities are consistent with 

protecting public health and safety. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The BLM has determined that this 

proposed rule does not contain 

information collection requirements that 

the Office of Management and Budget 

must approve under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. 

Executive Order 12866, Clarity of 

Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations that are 

simple and easy to understand. We 

invite your comments on how to make 

this rule easier to understand, including 

answers to questions such as the 

following: 

1. Are the requirements in the 

proposed rule clearly stated? 

2. Does the proposed rule contain 

technical language or jargon that 

interferes with its clarity? 

3. Does the format of the proposed 

rule (grouping and order of sections, use 

of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or 

reduce its clarity? 

4. Would the proposed rule be easier 

to understand if it were divided into 

more (but shorter) sections? 

5. Is the description of the proposed 

rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this preamble helpful? How 

could this description be more helpful 

in making the proposed rule easier to 

understand? 

Please send any comments you have 

on the clarity of the proposed rule to the 

address specified above in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Authors 

The principal authors of this 

proposed rule are Jeff Holdren and 

Vanessa Engle of the Division of Lands, 

Realty, and Cadastral Survey, BLM 

Washington Office (WO), with 

assistance from the Division of 

Regulatory Affairs (WO) and the Office 

of the Solicitor, Department of the 

Interior. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
60216 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 2300 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, electric power, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, public 

lands-withdrawal. 

Under the authorities cited below, 

part 2300, group 2300, subchapter B, 

chapter II of title 43 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

C. Stephen Allred, 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and 

Minerals Management. 

PART 2300—LAND WITHDRAWALS 

1. The authority citation for part 2300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1201; 43 U.S.C. 1740; 

Executive Order No. 10355 (17 FR 4831, 

4833). 

Subpart 2300—Withdrawals, General 

§ 2300.0–1 [Amended] 

2. Section 2300.0–1 is amended by 

removing the last sentence in paragraph 

(a). 

Subpart 2310—Withdrawals, General— 

Procedure 

3. Section 2310.1 is amended by 

revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 2310.1 Procedures—general. 

(a) The basic steps leading up to the 

making, modification, or extension of a 

withdrawal are: 

* * * * * 

4. Section 2310.1–2 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (c)(3), and (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 2310.1–2 Submission of applications. 

(a) Applications for the making, 

modification, or extension of a 

withdrawal shall be submitted for filing, 

in duplicate, in the proper Bureau of 

Land Management office, as set forth in 

§ 1821.2–1 of this chapter, except for 

applications that are classified for 

national security reasons. Applications 

that are classified for national security 

reasons shall be submitted, in duplicate, 

to the Office of the Secretary, 

Department of the Interior, Washington, 

DC 20240. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) If the lands that are subject to an 

application are wholly or partially 

under the administration of any 

department or agency other than the 

Department of the Interior, the Secretary 

must make or modify a withdrawal only 

with the consent of the head of the 

department or agency concerned. In 

such case, a copy of the written consent 

must accompany the application. The 

requirements of section (e) of Executive 

Order 10355 (17 FR 4831) must be 

complied with in those instances where 

the Order applies. 

* * * * * 

(d) If the preceding application 

requirements have not been met, or if an 

application seeks an action that is not 

within the scope of the Secretary’s 

authority, the authorized officer may 

reject the application as a defective 

application. 

5. Section 2310.1–3 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c), removing 

paragraph (d), redesignating paragraph 

(e) as paragraph (d), and revising newly 

redesignated paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 2310.1–3 Submission of withdrawal 

petitions. 

* * * * * 

(c) If a petition is submitted 

simultaneously with a withdrawal 

application, the information 

requirements pertaining to withdrawal 

applications (See § 2310.1–2) shall 

supersede the requirements of this 

section. 

(d) Upon the approval by the 

Secretary of a petition for withdrawal, 

the petition will be considered as a 

Secretarial proposal for withdrawal, and 

notice of the withdrawal proposal shall 

be published immediately in the 

Federal Register in accordance with 

§ 2310.3–1(a). 

6. Section 2310.3, which consists 

solely of a heading, is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 2310.3 Action on withdrawal applications 

and withdrawal proposals. 

7. Section 2310.3–1 is amended by 

revising the first sentence in paragraph 

(b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 2310.3–1 Publication and public meeting 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) Except as otherwise provided in 

paragraph (a) of this section, within 30 

days of the submission for filing of a 

withdrawal, extension, or modification 

application, the authorized officer must 

publish in the Federal Register a notice 

to that effect. * * * 

* * * * * 

8. Section 2310.3–3 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 2310.3–3 Action by the Secretary: Public 

land orders and notices of denial. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) On the same day an order 

withdrawing 5,000 or more acres in the 

aggregate is signed, the Secretary must 

advise each House of the Congress, in 

writing, of the withdrawal action taken. 

Under the Secretary’s authority in the 

Act, the notices that are sent to Congress 

must be accompanied by the 

information required by section 

204(c)(2) of the Act (43 U.S.C. 

1714(c)(2)). 

* * * * * 

9. Section 2310.3–4 is amended by 

removing paragraph (c), redesignating 

paragraph (d) as paragraph (c), and 

revising newly redesignated paragraph 

(c) to read as follows: 

§ 2310.3–4 Duration of withdrawals. 

* * * * * 

(c) Withdrawals of specific duration 

may be extended, as provided for in 

§ 2310.4. 

§ 2310.5 [Removed] 

10. Section 2310.5 is removed. 

[FR Doc. E8–23823 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket No. FEMA–B–1010] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on 

the proposed Base (1 percent annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and 

proposed BFE modifications for the 

communities listed in the table below. 

The purpose of this notice is to seek 

general information and comment 

regarding the proposed regulatory flood 

elevations for the reach described by the 

downstream and upstream locations in 

the table below. The BFEs and modified 

BFEs are a part of the floodplain 

management measures that the 

community is required either to adopt 

or show evidence of having in effect in 

order to qualify or remain qualified for 

participation in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, 

these elevations, once finalized, will be 

used by insurance agents, and others to 

calculate appropriate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

the contents in those buildings. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before January 8, 2009. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS