Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 187 / Thursday, September 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations and coal trade associations and representatives, public interest groups, and State entities. After consideration of the public comment and further analysis by the agency, ONRR publishes this final rule pursuant to the authority delegated to it. See 30 U.S.C. 189
MLA; 30 U.S.C. 1751 FOGRMA; 43
U.S.C. 1334 OCSLA; See S.O. 3299, sec. 5; and S.O. 3306, sec. 34.

LOTTER on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

II. Rationale for Withdrawal of the 2020 Rule After completing a review of the regulatory history and the public comment submissions received, ONRR
determined that the defects discussed below require withdrawal of the 2020
Rule. These defects necessitating withdrawal of the 2020 Rule include, among others, 1 an inadequate comment period, 2 absence of discussion of alternatives, 3 lack of reasoned explanations for many of the amendments proposed in that rule, 4
inadequate justification for changes in recently adopted policies reflected in the 2016 Valuation Rule, and 5 flawed economic analysis. ONRR continues to consider and evaluate whether some of the provisions in the now withdrawn 2020 Rule should be adopted in the future. ONRR anticipates re-proposing some of these provisions, particularly ones to amend the 2016 Civil Penalty Rule, in the near future. If ONRR does so, it will avoid the defects that permeated the rulemaking process that resulted in the 2020 Rule and which necessitate the withdrawal of that Rule.
Thus, DOI has determined to withdraw the 2020 Rule and to begin any new rulemaking in a manner that avoids the defects described herein.
A. Inadequate Comment Period Several years ago, ONRR amended the 30 CFR part 1206 regulations when it adopted the 2016 Valuation Rule. See 81
FR 43338. Though the 2016 Valuation Rule followed a public comment period of 120 days, the 2020 Rule followed a 60-day public comment period. In litigation construing ONRRs adoption of the 2017 Repeal Rule, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that ONRR
did not provide meaningful opportunity for comment when it repealed the 2016
Valuation Rule without a comment period of commensurate length to the 2016 Valuation Rules public comment period. California v. U.S. Dept of the Interior, 381 F. Supp. 3d 1153, 117778
N.D. Cal. 2019. Specifically, the District Court found that the 30-day comment period used for the 2017
repeal of the 2016 Valuation Rule was too brief when ONRR had a much longer
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:35 Sep 29, 2021

Jkt 253001

comment period for the adoption of the 2016 Valuation Ruleapproximately 120 days. Id.
While California is a decision by a tribunal of inferior jurisdiction and not binding on litigants who did not appear in that case, ONRR was a party to the case. Because ONRR did not appeal the California case, it is bound by the decision in a manner not applicable to other Federal agencies and bureaus.
Here, though ONRR allowed for more than 30 days of comment on the 2020
Rule, ONRR provided a 60-day comment period on the Proposed 2020
Rule when the 2016 Valuation Rule was adopted after a 120-day comment period. ONRR needed to provide the public with more than a 60-day comment period for review and comment on the 2020 Rule even though some of the amendments may be less complex or controversial than others because the public needed time to consider the lengthy rulemaking history dating back to the 2016 Valuation Rule and how the amendments interrelate.
ONRRs decision to combine various oil, gas, and coal valuation amendments with civil penalty amendments into one rulemaking, when previously it had addressed many of these topics in separate rulemakings in the 2016
Valuation Rule and 2016 Civil Penalty Rule, further added to the necessary review and comment time. Thus, ONRR
must withdraw the 2020 Rule.
Public Comment: A commenter stated that the 2020 Rule did not rescind the entire 2016 Valuation Rule or fully reinstate the prior regulations.
ONRR Response: The 2020 Rule, while not fully repealing the 2016
Valuation Rule, repealed nearly all the revenue-impacting provisions adopted in the 2016 Valuation Rule. Thus, the 2020 Rule is fairly considered a targeted repeal of many of the substantive, revenue-impacting provisions of the 2016 Valuation Rule. Because ONRR is uniquely bound by California and most of the amendments have a lengthy, complex rulemaking history, ONRR
should have provided the public with a comment period of commensurate length with respect to its targeted repeal of the substantive provisions of the 2016
Valuation Rule as was employed when those provisions were adopted in the 2016 Valuation Rule. This is especially the case since ONRR combined valuation and civil penalty amendments together in the 2020 Rule.
Public Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the public had sufficient notice and opportunity to comment on the 2020 Rule. The commenters stated that the Proposed Withdrawal Rule failed to acknowledge
PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

54047

that the Proposed 2020 Rule was available on ONRRs website for almost two months prior to its publication in the Federal Register. The commenters stated that, with the additional time factored in, the public had approximately 115 days to comment on the 2020 Rule, similar to the 120-day comment period provided for the 2016
Valuation Rule.
ONRR Response: There is no legal authority supporting a conclusion that publication on ONRRs website can be substituted, in whole or in part, for the notice required under the APA. See 5
U.S.C. 553b stating that, with only limited exceptions not applicable here, notice of proposed rulemaking shall be published in the Federal Register.
Moreover, there is no demonstration that the general public was perusing ONRRs website for advance notice of a proposed rule instead of relying on the traditional and statutorily-authorized method of notice in the Federal Register. In addition, the public was unable to submit comments for ONRRs review during the 55 days the draft was available only on ONRRs website. The comment period for the 2020 Rule did not open until its publication in the Federal Register and was only open for a 60-day period. Therefore, the commenters assertions do not adequately consider the notice and comment requirements under the APA.
See 5 U.S.C. 553b; see also California, 381 F. Supp. at 1177 finding legal deficiencies in a comment period for ONRRs withdrawal rule that was substantially shorter than the comment period employed when ONRR adopted the rule.
B. No Discussion of Alternatives The Proposed 2020 Rule did not demonstrate that ONRR considered alternatives to the repeal of the provisions adopted via the 2016
Valuation Rule or the provisions adopted via the 2016 Civil Penalty Rule.
Although the Proposed 2020 Rule solicited comment on alternatives, that alone was not sufficient since ONRR
had to comply with the requirements of the California case. According to California, ONRR needed to discuss alternatives when adopting the 2020
Rule because, as discussed herein, ONRR was attempting, through the 2020
Rule, to repeal most of the substantive provisions adopted in 2016. California, 381 F. Supp. 3d at 116869. The 2020
Rule should have discussed alternatives.
For example, ONRR should have discussed alternatives to the substantive, revenue impacting provisions instead of simply reversing course and reinstating a deepwater
E:FRFM30SER1.SGM

30SER1