[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations]
[Department of Interior Regulatory Plan]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is the Nation's principal 
conservation agency, responsible for the management of much of our 
public lands and resources. It also has major responsibility for 
actions involving American Indians, Alaska Natives, and residents of 
island territories under the administration of the United States. Its 
mission is to encourage the conservation and responsible management of 
the Nation's natural resources and to fulfill the trust 
responsibilities of the U.S. Government.
In carrying out these responsibilities, the Department pursues the 
following major objectives:
 Preserving the nation's national park, wilderness, and fish 
            and wildlife resources, and managing its public lands;
 Managing the supply of quality water resources;
 Improving the Federal Government's relationship with State, 
            local, tribal, and territorial governments;
 Promoting the economic and social well-being of American 
            Indians, Alaska Natives, and people of the U.S. 
            territories; and
 Enhancing America's ability to meet its needs for domestic 
            energy and mineral resources.
Major Regulatory Areas
Only one of DOI's ten bureaus--the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 
and Enforcement--is primarily engaged in activities most often 
considered ``regulatory.'' Its regulations set environmental standards 
for coal mining and reclamation operations and ensure that these 
standards are met through State programs.
A number of other bureau activities, however, have regulatory 
components. Those regulations serve primarily to facilitate DOI 
programs, which focus upon the management of public or trust lands and 
natural resources under U.S. ownership or control. Some of the major 
areas of these regulations include:
 Management of migratory birds and preservation of certain 
            marine mammals and endangered species;
 Management of dedicated lands, such as national parks, 
            wildlife refuges, and American Indian trust lands;
 Management of public lands open to multiple use;
 Leasing and oversight of development of Federal energy, 
            mineral, and renewable resources;
 Management of revenues from American Indian and Federal 
            minerals;
 Fulfillment of trust and other responsibilities pertaining to 
            American Indian tribes;
 Natural resource damage assessments; and
 Management of financial and nonfinancial assistance programs.
Regulatory Policy
DOI Regulatory Procedures and Their Consistency With the 
Administration's Regulatory Policies
Within the general requirements and guidance set forth in Executive 
Orders 12866, 12612, and 12630, DOI's regulatory program seeks to 
accomplish the following: (a) fulfill all legal requirements as 
specified by statutes or court orders; (b) perform essential functions 
that cannot be handled by non-Federal entities; (c) minimize regulatory 
costs to society while maximizing societal benefits; and (d) operate 
programs openly, efficiently, and in cooperation with Federal and non-
Federal entities.
To help meet these objectives, the Department has restructured its 
regulatory process. In mid-1993, it created the Office of Regulatory 
Affairs (ORA) within the Office of the Secretary. A primary function of 
ORA is to help ensure that regulations are promulgated in a timely and 
efficient manner. As part of this task, ORA requires that all bureaus/
offices establish realistic rulemaking schedules. ORA then monitors the 
development of all rulemakings to ensure that deadlines are met. This 
structure allows the public to plan more effectively for anticipated 
regulatory changes and helps regulators focus more clearly upon issues 
to be regulated.
ORA also coordinates the development of rules that cross bureau or 
Departmental jurisdictional lines and helps ensure that agreements are 
reached on policy issues early in the rulemaking process. This system 
substantially reduces delays caused by the late intervention of 
interested parties.
Encouraging Responsible Management of the Nation's Resources
One of DOI's fundamental goals is to encourage the responsible 
management of the Nation's natural heritage. The regulatory program is 
designed to help achieve this by striking appropriate balances between 
the use and preservation of natural resources. For example, the 
Department is seeking ways to provide incentives for users of public 
resources to adopt long-term strategies designed to meet current needs 
while preserving resources for future generations. DOI also is seeking 
to ensure that the Government receives fair prices for public 
resources.
Minimizing Regulatory Burdens
DOI has made a major effort to streamline its regulations and to reduce 
the burdens that they impose. Planning processes for land use and water 
development have been substantially modified to reduce unnecessary 
delays and paperwork associated with agency decisionmaking. Moreover, 
DOI is currently reviewing regulations to determine whether their 
benefits continue to outweigh their costs to society. Rules will 
continue to be reassessed periodically, and needed changes will be made 
as existing operations are evaluated.
The Department's review of potential rules focuses both on assuring 
consistency with broad regulatory policies and goals and on making 
certain that rules are technically feasible and understandable. DOI is 
encouraging the use of performance standards rather than traditional 
command-and-control regulations, providing regulated entities with 
greater flexibility to develop more efficient and less burdensome 
compliance procedures.
The Department has also undertaken an initiative to reform the style in 
which regulations are drafted. Too often, rules are poorly written, 
unclear, and difficult to understand. This causes confusion for the 
public and the agencies responsible for implementing the regulations. 
To remedy this problem, the Department is encouraging the use of 
``plain English'' in rulemakings. A number of seminars have been held 
on this rule-drafting technique, and projects are underway.
Encouraging Public Participation and Involvement in the Regulatory 
Process
One of the goals of Executive Order 12866 is to ensure that the public 
has full and adequate opportunities to participate in the development 
of regulations. Encouraging increased public participation in the 
regulatory process so as to make regulatory policies more responsive to 
our customers' needs is a priority under this Administration. The 
Department is reaching out to communities and seeking their input on a 
variety of regulatory issues. For example, every year the Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS) establishes migratory bird hunting seasons. The 
FWS develops the annual migratory bird hunting seasons in partnership 
with ``flyway councils,'' which are made up of State fish and wildlife 
agencies. As the process evolves each year, FWS holds a series of 
public meetings to afford other interested parties, including hunters 
and other special interest groups, adequate opportunity to participate 
in the establishment of the upcoming seasons' regulations.
DOI is also encouraging the use of negotiated rulemaking to develop 
rules with the full participation of affected communities. Several 
bureaus are currently either employing negotiated rulemaking techniques 
or are exploring whether negotiated rulemaking is appropriate and 
feasible for particular rules.
Finally, Departmental policies are designed to delegate decisionmaking, 
including development and operation of DOI's regulatory programs, to 
the lowest appropriate level. With decentralization, management 
procedures can be developed that are sensitive to the various local 
needs and interests affected by DOI programs.
Bureaus and Offices Within DOI
The following are brief descriptions of the regulatory functions of 
DOI's major regulatory bureaus and offices.
Office of the Secretary, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
The regulatory functions of the Office of Environmental Policy and 
Compliance (OEPC) stem from requirements under section 301(c) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980, as amended (CERCLA). Section 301(c) requires the development 
of natural resource damage assessment rules and the biennial review and 
revision, as appropriate, of these rules. Rules have been promulgated 
for the optional use of natural resource trustees to assess 
compensation for damages to natural resources caused by oil or 
hazardous substances. OEPC is overseeing the study and possible 
promulgation of additional rules pursuant to section 301(c)(2) and the 
review and possible revision of the existing rules in compliance with 
section 301(c)(3).
In undertaking DOI's responsibilities under section 301(c), OEPC is 
striving to meet three regulatory objectives: (a) that the minimal 
amount of regulation necessary be developed; (b) that the assessment 
process provide for tailoring to specific discharges or releases; and 
(c) that the process not be considered punitive, but rather a system to 
achieve fair and just compensation for injuries sustained.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The philosophy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is to encourage 
the development and management of human and other resources among 
American Indians and Alaska Natives, to encourage tribal assumption of 
BIA programs, and to fulfill trust and other responsibilities of the 
U.S. Government. BIA regulatory actions serve to balance its dual role 
as: (a) advocate in assisting tribes and encouraging their 
participation in BIA programs, and (b) trustee protecting and/or 
enhancing American Indian trust resources.
Important BIA programs are promulgated through regulations, rather than 
informal guidelines, so that American Indians are aware of, and have an 
opportunity to participate in, the development of standards and 
procedures affecting them. BIA regulatory policies seek to accomplish 
the following: (a) ensure consistent policies throughout American 
Indian Country; (b) promote American Indian involvement in the 
operation, management, planning, and evaluation of BIA programs and 
services; (c) provide guidance to applicants for BIA services; and (d) 
govern the development of American Indian lands and provide for the 
protection of American Indian treaty and statutory rights.
BIA's regulatory program is designed (a) to promote American Indian 
self-determination, (b) to provide American Indians and Alaska Natives 
with high-quality education and tribal development opportunities, (c) 
to meet BIA's trust responsibilities, and (d) to meet the needs of 
tribes and their members.
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for the development, 
management, and protection of public land resources that traditionally 
have been subject to multiple use. The principal authorities for the 
BLM's activities are the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 
the Mining Law of 1872, the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, 
and the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. BLM's programs cover three 
main program areas: energy and minerals, renewable resources, and 
lands, including conducting Federal land surveys and maintaining the 
official records for all Federal and former Federal lands and minerals.
BLM's fundamental regulatory philosophy is that public resources should 
be managed responsibly, providing maximum benefits to the public, while 
conserving scarce resources for future generations. BLM's regulatory 
program is designed to ensure that:
 The resources in the Nation's lands are effectively and 
            efficiently managed in accordance with law;
 The public's concern for the resources will be reflected in 
            significant opportunity for participation in the 
            development of rules;
 The regulatory compliance burden on individuals, firms, and 
            other affected entities is kept to a minimum; and
 Individuals and firms operating under BLM regulations are 
            given the opportunity to respond to, and make decisions 
            based upon, assessments of market situations.
Minerals Management Service
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) has two major responsibilities: 
(a) timely and accurate collection, distribution, accounting for, and 
auditing of revenues owed by holders of Federal onshore, offshore, and 
tribal land mineral leases in a manner that meets or exceeds Federal 
financial integrity requirements and recipient expectations; and (b) 
management of the resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in a 
manner that provides for safety, protection of the environment, and 
conservation of natural resources. These responsibilities are carried 
out under the provisions of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management 
Act, the Minerals Leasing Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 
the Indian Mineral Leasing Act, and other related statutes.
The regulatory philosophy of MMS is to develop clear, enforceable rules 
that support the missions of each program. MMS will continue periodic 
reviews of offshore regulations to identify changes needed as a result 
of changes in technology, operating practices, or other factors. 
Specific revisions to rules to be pursued include ensuring the ability 
of lessee to meet end-of-lease obligations, its authority under the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 to require spill response plans in State and 
Federal waters, and developing regulations for certification of 
financial responsibility for offshore facilities. MMS also plans to 
continue its review and revision of existing regulations and to issue 
rules to refine the royalty management regulations in chapter II of 30 
CFR.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was 
created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
(SMCRA) to ``strike a balance between protection of the environment and 
agricultural productivity and the Nation's need for coal as an 
essential source of energy.''
The principal regulatory provisions contained in Title V of SMCRA set 
minimum requirements for obtaining a permit for surface coal mining 
operations, set standards for surface coal mining operations, require 
land reclamation once mining ends, and require rules and enforcement 
procedures to ensure that the standards are met. Under SMCRA, OSM 
serves as the primary enforcer of SMCRA until the States achieve 
``primacy,'' that is, until they demonstrate that their regulatory 
program meets all the specifications in SMCRA and has regulations 
consistent with those issued by OSM.
A primacy State takes over the permitting, inspection, and enforcement 
activities of the Federal Government. OSM then changes its role from 
regulating mining activities directly to overseeing and evaluating 
State programs. Today, 24 of the 27 key coal-producing States have 
primacy. In return for assuming primacy, States are entitled to 
regulatory grants and to grants for reclaiming abandoned mine lands. In 
addition, under cooperative agreements, some primacy States have agreed 
to regulate mining on Federal lands within their borders. Thus, OSM 
regulates mining directly only in nonprimacy States, on Federal lands 
in States where no cooperative agreements are in effect, and on 
American Indian lands.
SMCRA charges OSM with the responsibility of publishing rules as 
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. The most fundamental 
mechanism for ensuring that the purposes of SMCRA are achieved is the 
basic policy and guidance established through OSM's permanent 
regulatory program and related rulemakings. Its regulatory framework is 
developed, reviewed, and applied according to policy directives and 
legal requirements.
Litigation by the coal industry and environmental groups is responsible 
for some of the rules now being considered by OSM. Others are the 
result of efforts by OSM to address areas of concern that have arisen 
during the course of implementing OSM's regulatory program.
OSM has sought to develop an economical, safe, and environmentally 
sound program for the surface mining of coal by providing a stable 
regulatory framework. To achieve stability, OSM has endeavored to 
create a regulatory program that provides a high degree of continuity 
in its requirements and creates minimal uncertainty concerning the 
nature and pace of changes to existing provisions.
OSM also has worked to create a consistent regulatory framework. At the 
same time, however, OSM has recognized the need (a) to respond to local 
conditions; (b) to provide flexibility to react to technological 
change; (c) to be sensitive to geographic diversity; and (d) to 
eliminate burdensome recordkeeping and reporting requirements that over 
time have proved unnecessary to ensure an effective regulatory program.
Major regulatory objectives regarding the mining of surface coal 
include:
 Continuing outreach activities with interested groups during 
            the rulemaking process to increase the quality of the 
            rulemaking process, improve the substance of the rules, 
            and, to the greatest extent possible, reflect consensus on 
            regulatory issues;
 Minimizing the recordkeeping and regulatory compliance burden 
            imposed on the public by means of a review and, where 
            advisable, revision of unnecessary and burdensome 
            regulatory requirements; and
 Publishing final rules to implement the Energy Policy Act of 
            1992, Public Law 102-486.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has three basic mission objectives:
 To assist in the development and application of an 
            environmental stewardship ethic based on ecological 
            principles and scientific knowledge of fish and wildlife;
 To guide the conservation, development, and management of the 
            Nation's fish and wildlife resources; and
 To administer a national program to provide the public with 
            opportunities to understand, appreciate, and wisely use 
            fish and wildlife resources.
These objectives are met through the following regulatory programs:
 Management of Service lands, primarily national wildlife 
            refuges;
 Management of migratory bird resources;
 Conservation of certain marine mammals and endangered species;
 Allowance of certain activities that would otherwise be 
            prohibited by law; and
 Administration of grant and assistance programs.
The Service maintains a comprehensive set of regulations in the first 
category--those that govern public access, use, and recreation on 
national wildlife refuges and in national fish hatcheries. As required 
by law, the Service is authorized to allow such uses only if they are 
compatible with the purpose for which each area was established. These 
regulations will be as consistent with State and local laws as 
practicable and will afford the public as much economic and 
recreational opportunity as possible. Consistent with the purposes for 
which those areas are established, with very few exceptions, the 
Service provides these types of opportunities on each of the more than 
500 refuges and hatcheries. These regulations are developed and 
continually reviewed for improvements, with a substantial amount of 
public input, and are typically of limited geographical interest.
Management of migratory bird resources, covered by the second category 
of regulations, entails fulfilling U.S. obligations contained in 
various international treaties. This regulatory program entails an 
annual issuance on migratory bird hunting seasons and bag limits, 
developed in partnership with the States, American Indian tribal 
governments, and the Canadian Wildlife Service. Although these rules 
are issued annually, this regulatory program has been in existence for 
more than 50 years and has not significantly changed over that period 
of time. The regulations are necessary to permit migratory bird hunting 
that would otherwise be prohibited. Although recent declines in 
waterfowl populations have reduced the numbers of such birds that may 
be harvested, the regulations generally do not change significantly 
from one year to another.
The third category includes regulations to fulfill the statutory 
obligation to identify and conserve species faced with extinction. The 
basis for determining endangered species is limited by law to 
biological considerations, although priorities for allocating Service 
resources are established consistent with the President's policies (by 
directing the Service's efforts to species most threatened and those 
whose protection is of the most benefit to the natural resource). Also 
included in this program are regulations to enhance the conservation of 
listed species and of marine mammals for which DOI has management 
responsibility. This program also contains regulations that provide 
guidance to other Federal agencies to assist them in complying with 
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which requires them not to 
conduct activities that would jeopardize the existence of endangered 
species.
When a species is listed as endangered or threatened, the Service may 
designate critical habitat to promote the recovery of the species. 
Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat 
designation limits activities carried out, funded, or authorized by 
Federal agencies within the critical habitat zone. In designating 
critical habitat, the Service considers biological information and 
economic and other impacts of the designation. Areas may be excluded 
from the designation where the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion, provided that the exclusion will not result in 
the extinction of the species. For 1995, the Service is developing a 
number of proposed and final critical habitat rules, including: marbled 
murrlett (final); delta smelt (final); Alabama sturgeon (final); 
Louisiana black bear (final); Rio Grande silvery minnow (final); 
Arizona willow (final); two Klamath River fishes (proposed); Mexican 
spotted owl (proposed); and pecos pupfish (proposed).
The fourth category--the Service's regulatory program that permits 
activities otherwise prohibited by law--entails regulating possession, 
sale or trade, scientific research, and educational activities 
involving fish and wildlife and their parts or products. Generally, 
these regulations are supplemental to State protective regulations, and 
cover activities that involve interstate or foreign commerce, which 
must comply with various laws and international obligations. The 
Service is continually working with foreign and State governments, the 
industry and individuals affected, and other interested parties to 
minimize the burdens associated with Service-related activities. The 
easing of such burdens through regulatory actions continues to balance 
the benefits that may be made available with the necessity to ensure 
adequate protection to the natural resource. Most of the regulatory 
activities are permissive in nature, and the concerns of the public 
generally center on technical issues.
The last category--the Service's assistance programs--includes a 
limited number of regulations necessary to ensure that assistance 
recipients comply with applicable laws and Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Circulars. Regulations in this program help the affected 
parties to obtain assistance and to comply with requirements imposed by 
Congress and OMB.
Bureau of Reclamation
In recent years the Bureau of Reclamation's mission and goals have 
substantially changed. Its new mission is to manage, develop, and 
protect water and related resources in an environmentally and 
economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. To 
accomplish this mission, Reclamation applies management, engineering, 
and scientific skills that result in effective and environmentally 
sensitive solutions.
Reclamation projects provide for some or all of the following 
concurrent purposes: irrigation water service, municipal and industrial 
water supply, hydroelectric power generation, water quality 
improvement, groundwater management, fish and wildlife enhancement, 
outdoor recreation, flood control, navigation, river regulation and 
control, system optimization, and related uses.
The bureau's regulatory program is designed to ensure that its mission 
is carried out expeditiously and efficiently.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget (ASPMB)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

58. NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS; TYPE A--GREAT LAKES 
ENVIRONMENTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 9651(c) CERCLA


CFR Citation:


 43 CFR 11


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, August 8, 1994. Final, Judicial, January 18, 1996.


Settlement agreement


Abstract:


The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act (CERCLA) and the Clean Water Act allow natural resource trustees to 
bring a claim against a potentially responsible party for resources 
that have been injured by a release of a hazardous substance or a 
discharge of oil. CERCLA calls for the promulgation of two types of 
natural resource damage assessment regulations: simplified ``type A'' 
assessment procedures involving minimal fieldwork, and ``type B'' 
procedures calling for more detailed, site-specific assessments. CERCLA 
requires that the regulations be reviewed, and revised as appropriate, 
every 2 years.
The Department has issued regulations establishing an administrative 
process for assessing damages, a type A procedure for determining 
injury and damages from minor spills in coastal and marine 
environments, and site-specific type B procedures for determining 
injury and damages when the type A procedure is not applicable.
In 1989 the Department began the biennial review of the type A 
procedure for coastal and marine environments. Subsequently, the court 
in State of Colorado vs. United States Department of the Interior, 880 
F.2d 481 (DC Cir 1989), ordered the Department to revise the type A 
procedure to incorporate restoration costs as well as lost economic 
values. The type A procedure for coastal and marine environments 
incorporates a computer model capable of calculating damages based on a 
small number of user-supplied data inputs. The Department is revising 
the computer model to comply with the court remand as well as with the 
biennial review requirement.
The Department is developing a new type A procedure for use in the 
Great Lakes. This procedure, like the type A procedure for coastal and 
marine environments, incorporates a computer model capable of 
calculating damages based on a small number of user-supplied data 
inputs. Both type A computer models have been subjected to extensive 
analysis and testing, which has resulted in multiple revisions and 
refinements.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are required by statute and judicial decree. With 
regard to the type A procedures, use of the site-specific type B 
procedures to assess damages from minor releases or discharges is 
usually not cost-effective. Therefore the revised type A procedure for 
coastal and maring environments and the new type A procedure for Great 
Lakes environments are needed to enable trustees to obtain funds to 
restore injured resources.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


These regulations are required by CERCLA, 42 USC 9651(c).


Alternatives:



Two alternatives were considered. Alternative 1 was to take no action. 
Alternative 2 was to develop a type A procedure for minor releases and 
discharges in the Great Lakes that utilizes a computer model capable of 
calculating damages based on a small number of user-supplied data 
inputs.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The natural resource damage assessment regulations do not themselves 
authorize the assessment and recovery of damages; they simply provide 
guidance on how to perform assessments. Costs include the costs of 
preparing the regulation, the costs of developing a computer model, and 
the cost of performing an assessment using the regulation. Without a 
simplified type A procedure, it is unlikely that natural resource 
trustees would attempt to recover damages for the minor releases or 
discharges that occur frequently in the Great Lakes. Therefore, under 
Alternative 1 there would be no assessment costs. Under Alternative 2, 
assessment costs would consist solely of the expenses associated with 
developing model input data and applying the model.
Benefits consist of increased damage recoveries available for 
restoration of injured resources. The estimate under Alternative 1 
assumes that no damages would be recovered because no assessments would 
be performed.
Alternative 1 would yield a net benefit of $14,294,000; Alternative 2 a 
net benefit of $S14,294,000.


Risks:


Without appropriate standards to promote the reliability of lost nonuse 
value estimates, the public may not in some cases be able to obtain 
full compensation for its losses, and in other cases polluters may be 
assessed damages in excess of actual public losses. Without the 
biennial review, trustees may be left without the best available 
assessment procedures, which could prevent trustees from recovering 
adequate funds to restore injured resources and result in excessive 
damage assessment costs. Without the new type A procedures, trustees 
are unlikely to seek compensation for injuries from minor discharges 
and releases in Great Lakes environments, which would leave injured 
resources unrestored and prevent polluters from adequately 
internalizing costs.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           54 FR 39015                                    09/22/89
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       10/23/89
NPRM            59 FR 40319                                    08/08/94
NPRM Comment Per60 FR 7155                                     07/06/95
Final Action                                                   01/00/96
Final Action                                                   01/00/96
Coastal and Marine Environments (RIN 1090-AA23)
ANPRM 09/22/89 (54 FR 39015)
ANPRM Comment Period End 10/23/89
NPRM 12/08/94 (59 FR 63300)
NPRM Comment Period End 07/06/95 (60 FR 7155)
Final Action 01/00/96
Great Lakes (RIN 1090-AA21)
ANPRM 09/22/89 (54 FR 39015)
ANPRM Comment Period End 10/23/89
NPRM 08/08/94 (59 FR 40319)
NPRM Comment Period End 07/06/95 (60 FR 7155)
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Willie R. Taylor
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
Department of the Interior
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget
Room 2340 MIB
1849 C Street NW.
Washington, DC 20240
Phone: 202 208-3891
RIN: 1090-AA21
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--ASPMB
59. NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS; TYPE A--COASTAL AND MARINE 
ENVIRONMENTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 9651(c) CERCLA


CFR Citation:


 43 CFR 11


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Judicial, December 8, 1994. Final, Judicial, January 18, 1996.


Settlement agreement


Abstract:


The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act (CERCLA) and the Clean Water Act allow natural resource trustees to 
bring a claim against a potentially responsible party for resources 
that have been injured by a release of a hazardous substance or a 
discharge of oil. CERCLA calls for the promulgation of simplified 
``type A'' assessment procedures involving minimal fieldwork for use in 
cases of minor releases or discharges. In 1987, the Department issued a 
type A procedure for coastal and marine environments that incorporated 
a computer model capable of calculating damages based on a small number 
of user-supplied data inputs. CERCLA requires that assessment 
procedures be reviewed, and revised as appropriate, every two years. In 
1989, the Department began the biennial review of the type A procedure 
for coastal and marine environments. Subsequently, State of Colorado v. 
United States Department of the Interior, 880 F.2d 481 (D.C. Cir. 
1989), ordered the Department to revise the type A computer model to 
incorporate restoration costs as well as lost economic values.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are required by statute and judicial decree. Also, 
use of site-specific type B procedures to assess damages from minor 
releases or discharges is usually not cost effective. Therefore, the 
revised type A procedure for coastal and marine environments is needed 
to enable trustees to obtain funds to restore injured resources.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


These regulations are required by CERCLA, 42 USC 9651(c).


Alternatives:


Two alternatives were considered. Alternative 1 was to take no action, 
which would leave trustees with a type A procedure that calculates only 
lost economic values. Alternative 2 was to revise the type A procedure 
in compliance with the statutory biennial review requirement and the 
court remand to produce a computer model that calculates lost economic 
values as well as restoration costs.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The natural resource damage assessment regulations do not themselves 
authorize the assessment and recovery of damages; they simply provide 
guidance on how to perform assessments. Costs include the costs of 
revising the computer model and the cost of performing assessments 
using the regulation. Benefits consist of increased damage recoveries 
available for the restoration of injured resources. Under Alternative 
1, trustees would obtain damages only for lost economic values. Under 
Alternative 2, trustees would obtain damages for lost economic values 
as well as restoration costs. Alternative 1 would yield a net benefit 
of $14,212,000. Alternative 2 would yield a net benefit of $56,955,000.


Risks:


Without the revised type A procedures, trustees are unlikely to seek 
compensation for injuries from minor discharges and releases in coastal 
and marine environments, which would leave injured resources unrestored 
and prevent polluters from adequately internalizing costs.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           54 FR 39015                                    09/22/89
ANPRM Comment Pe54 FR 39015                                    10/23/89
NPRM            59 FR 63300                                    12/08/94
NPRM Comment Per60 FR 7155                                     07/07/95
Final Action                                                   01/18/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Willie R. Taylor
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
Department of the Interior
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget
Room 2340 MIB
1849 C Street NW.
Washington, DC 20240
Phone: 202 208-3891
RIN: 1090-AA23
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

60. TRIBAL SELF-GOVERNANCE
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 PL 103-413


CFR Citation:


 25 CFR 1000


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will clarify how the Department and tribes will carry out 
their respective responsibilities under the Tribal Self-Governance Act 
of 1994. At the request of a majority of Indian tribes with self-
governance agreements, the Secretary has established a negotiated 
rulemaking committee to negotiate and promulgate such regulations as 
are necessary to carry out the Act.


Statement of Need:


The Department of the Interior (DOI) needs to clarify how it and the 
tribes will carry out their respective responsibilities under the 
Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994. Provisions are needed to clarify or 
establish:
- Procedures for conducting negotiations, defining stable base budgets, 
time lines for the transfer of funds for tribes, and the amount of 
residual funds to be retained;
- The processes for accepting new tribes into the self-governance 
program planning and negotiation process, for awarding planning and 
negotiation grants, for approving waiver requests, and for determining 
and negotiating tribal shares of BIA and eligible non-BIA programs;
- Mechanisms for reviewing tribal trust functions;
- Retrocession procedures;
- Procedures for ensuring that proper health and safety standards exist 
in construction projects and are included in annual funding agreements;
- Reporting requirements of tribes and DOI; and
- A mechanism for negotiating the inclusion of specific provisions of 
Federal procurement regulations into annual funding agreements.
DOI expects that the rulemaking process will identify other components 
of the program that require clarification.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 requires DOI, upon request of a 
majority of self-governance tribes, to negotiate and promulgate 
regulations to carry out the tribal self-governance program. The Act 
calls for a negotiated rulemaking committee under 5 USC 565, composed 
of Federal and tribal representatives, with a majority of the tribal 
representatives from self-governance tribes. The Act also authorizes 
DOI to adapt negotiated rulemaking procedures to the unique context of 
self-governance and the government-to-government relationship between 
the United States and the Indian tribes. On November 1, 1994, a 
majority of self-governance tribes wrote the Secretary requesting the 
immediate initiation of negotiated rulemaking.


Alternatives:


There is a range of alternatives for each of the program components, 
from maintaining discretion and flexibility at the local level to 
standardizing requirements and procedures on the national level.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The rule is expected to promote greater efficiency of Federal and 
tribal government operations. It is also expected to reduce opportunity 
costs resulting from untimely Federal actions. The rule will improve 
the ability of Federal and tribal governments to plan their self-
governance activities. This should lead to greater stability of 
operations. Clarifying procedures for conducting operations will 
improve the ability of governments to plan for the time and cost of 
conducting negotiations. Clarifying time lines for transfer of base 
funding and other funds to tribes will improve planning and reduce the 
opportunity costs resulting from the untimely transfer of funds under 
the self-governance program. Budget and operation planning will be 
improved by specifying the process for accepting additional tribes into 
the self-governance program planning and negotiating process as well as 
the process for awarding planning and negotiation grants. Since 
retrocession procedures will be specified, governments will be better 
able to plan for retrocessions. Standardization of tribal shares will 
allow the self-governance program to comply with statutory requirements 
not to limit or, reduce the services, contracts, or funds that any 
other Indian tribe or tribal organization is eligible to receive.


Risks:


By removing uncertainty and promoting a more stable framework for the 
program, the rule will greatly lower the risk of not achieving the 
stated goals of tribal self-governance. It will change the role of 
Federal agencies that serve tribes by shifting their responsibilities 
from day-to-day management of tribal affairs to those concerned with 
protecting and advocating tribal interests.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Intent60 FR 8806ish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee02/15/95
NPRM                                                           03/01/96
Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal, Federal


Agency Contact:
Verner V. Duus
Compact Negotiator
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
1849 C Street NW.
Room 2548
Washington, DC 20240
Phone: 202 219-0240
RIN: 1076-AD20
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--BIA
61. INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 25 USC 450; 25 USC 5911; 25 USC 1396; 25 USC 450 (PL 103-413)


CFR Citation:


 25 CFR 900; 25 CFR 272; 25 CFR 274; 25 CFR 275; 25 CFR 277; 25 CFR 278


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, April 25, 1995.


Negotiations for new regulations must be completed within 90 days of 
the Act's effective date unless the Secretary obtains written approval 
of an extension.


Abstract:


The Indian Self-Determination Contract Reform Act of 1994 (Public Law 
103-413) significantly amends numerous provisions of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (25 USC 450). Its 
purpose is to limit the promulgation of regulations under 25 USC 450 
and to specify the terms of self-determination contracts entered into 
between the United States and Indian tribal organizations. The Act adds 
a new definition of the term ``construction contract,'' excludes tribes 
or tribal organizations from the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act, and 
recognizes the applicability of tribal employment and contract 
preference laws to contracts benefitting a single tribe. The latter 
provision in effect permits the application of tribal ordinances 
providing preference in employment to tribal members or other 
individuals. The Act also amends substantially the scope of 
contractable programs and the grounds for declination.


Statement of Need:


As a result of the passage of the Indian Self-Determination Contract 
Reform Act Amendments of 1994, the Department of the Interior (DOI) 
must revise the regulations governing how DOI, the Department of Health 
and Human Services (HHS) and the tribes will carry out their respective 
responsibilities. The Amendments significantly revise numerous 
provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
Act of 1975 (ISDEA). The overall purpose of Title I of ISDEA is to 
limit the promulgation of regulations and to specify the terms of self-
determination contracts entered into between the United States and 
Indian tribes. Title I also makes contracting less burdensome for the 
tribes.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Indian Self-Determination Act of 1994 requires DOI to negotiate and 
promulgate regulations necessary to carry out the tribal Indian Self-
Determination Program. The Act calls for DOI to establish a negotiated 
rulemaking committee composed of Federal and tribal representatives. It 
also authorizes the DOI to adapt negotiated rulemaking procedures to 
the unique context of self-determination and the government-to-
government relationship between the United States and the Indian 
tribes.
During the week of April 13, 1995, DOI, HHS and tribal representatives 
held their first session in Arlington, Virginia, and formed the Indian 
Self-Determination Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. The Committee 
developed and approved the formal organizational protocols and 
preamble.


Alternatives:


The alternative to be considered is that of not issuing regulations or 
procedures and following the actual Indian Self-Determination Act, as 
amended in 1994.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The rule is expected to promote greater efficiency of Federal and 
tribal government operations. The rule is also expected to reduce costs 
resulting from untimely Federal actions and transfer of funds to 
tribes. This reduction will reduce administrative costs for federal 
personnel and contracting tribes, allowing additional funds to provide 
services to the tribal clientele.


Risks:


If DOI, HHS, and tribal representatives are unable to reach an 
agreement on the proposed ISDEA regulations as amended, the Federal 
agencies and tribal representatives will be required to follow the 
amended Act without regulations and/or procedures. The deadline date 
for publication of the proposed regulations and the final rule cannot 
be extended without the approval of the tribes.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/31/95
NPRM Comment Period End                                        04/30/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal


Procurement:


This is a procurement-related action for which there is a statutory 
requirement. There is a paperwork burden associated with this action.


Additional Information:


A proposed rule for a new 25 CFR part 900 was published in the  Federal 
Register on January 20, 1994. This rule is being removed from the 
agenda due to the new legislation. The regulation now being proposed is 
a replacement for that regulation.


Agency Contact:
James Thomas
Chief, Division of Self Determination
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
1849 C Street NW.
Room 4627
Washington, DC 20240
Phone: 202 208-5727
RIN: 1076-AD21
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-F