Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-18261

Proposed Rule2026-18261

National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Production Site Development

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

September 8, 2026

Issuing agencies

Interior DepartmentLand Management Bureau

Abstract

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to streamline its decision-making process for authorizing the construction and operation of qualifying oil and gas production sites and their associated rights-of-way (ROWs) in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (the Petroleum Reserve or NPR-A). This proposed rule would establish pre-defined criteria for defined and repeatable common activities with similar environmental effects that, when met by an applicant, would result in a streamlined permitting process for qualifying production sites.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57091-57110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-18261]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2026 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 57091]]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 3130

[Docket No. BLM-2026-0133; A2407-014-004-065516, #O2509-014-004-125222;
LLAK910000 L13100000.PP0000]
RIN 1004-AF57

National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Production Site Development

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to streamline
its decision-making process for authorizing the construction and
operation of qualifying oil and gas production sites and their
associated rights-of-way (ROWs) in the National Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska (the Petroleum Reserve or NPR-A). This proposed rule would
establish pre-defined criteria for defined and repeatable common
activities with similar environmental effects that, when met by an
applicant, would result in a streamlined permitting process for
qualifying production sites.

DATES: Send your comments on this proposed rule to the BLM on or before
November 9, 2026. The BLM is not obligated to consider any comments
received after this date in making its decision on the final rule.
Information Collection Requirements: This proposed rule includes a
new information-collection requirement that must be approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). If you wish to comment on the
proposed new information-collection requirement, please note that those
comments should be sent directly to the OMB. The OMB is required to
make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in
this proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to the OMB on
the proposed information-collection revisions is best assured of being
given full consideration if the OMB receives it by October 8, 2026.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments using one of these methods:
<bullet> Mail, personal, or messenger delivery: U.S. Department of
the Interior, Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C St. NW,
Room 5646, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: 1004-AF57.
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
In the Search-box, enter ``BLM-2026-0133'' and click the ``Search''
button. Follow the instructions at this website.

For Comments on Information--Collection Activities

Information-Collection Requirements: Written comments and
suggestions on the proposed new information-collection requirement
should be submitted by the date specified earlier in DATES to
<a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this specific information-
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function.
If you submit comments on these information-collection burdens, you
should provide the BLM with a copy at one of the addresses shown
earlier in this section so that we can summarize all written comments
and address them in the final rulemaking. Please indicate ``Attention:
Paperwork Reduction Act Comments (RIN 1004-AF57).'' Comments not
pertaining to the proposed rule's information-collection burdens should
not be submitted to OMB. The BLM is not obligated to consider or
include in the Administrative Record for the final rule any comments
that are improperly directed to OMB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Cowan, NPR-A Rulemaking Project
Manager, telephone: 505-954-2016 or email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eba5bbb9c6aab4bb99848f9e889f828485b4b8829f8eb4b99e878eab898786c58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2ecf2f08fe3fdf2d0cdc6d7c1d6cbcdccfdf1cbd6c7fdf0d7cec7e2c0cecf8cc5cdd4">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>. For questions relating to regulatory
process issues, contact Faith Bremner at: 202-513-0775. Individuals in
the United States who are deaf, blind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services for contacting Mr. Cowan. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
For a summary of the rule, please click on the Docket Details tab
in docket number BLM-2026-0133 on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. List of Acronyms
II. Public Comment Procedures
III. Background
IV. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
V. Procedural Matters

I. List of Acronyms

APD--Application for Permit to Drill
BLM--Bureau of Land Management
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
COA--Condition of Approval
DOI--Department of the Interior
EIS--Environmental Impact Statement
E.O.--Executive Order
FLPMA--Federal Land Policy and Management Act
IAP--Integrated Activity Plan
MDP--Master Development Plan
MMPA--Marine Mammal Protection Act
NAGPRA--Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
NEPA--National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA--National Historic Preservation Act
NPR-A--National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska
NPRPA--Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976
NSO--No Surface Occupancy
OIRA--Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA--Regulatory Impact Analysis
ROD--Record of Decision
ROP--Required Operating Procedure
ROW--Right-of-way
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C.--United States Code

II. Public Comment Procedures

If you wish to comment on this proposed rule, you may submit your
comments to the BLM by mail, personal or messenger delivery, or through
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> (see the ADDRESSES section). Please make
your comments on the proposed rule as specific as possible, confine
them to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, explain the reason for
any changes you recommend, and include any supporting documentation.
Where possible, your comments should reference the specific section or
paragraph of the proposal that you are addressing (for example, ``43
CFR

[[Page 57092]]

3139.11 Pads and Road Design''). The BLM is not obligated to consider
or include in the administrative record for the final rule any comments
received after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments
delivered to an address other than those listed previously (see
ADDRESSES).
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will
be available for public review at the address listed under ``ADDRESSES:
Mail, personal or messenger delivery'' during regular hours (7:45 a.m.
to 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Before including your address, telephone number, email 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.

II. Background

On May 12, 2026, the BLM Alaska State Office received a ``Petition
for Rulemaking to Create a Development Permit Program in the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska'' (Petition) from the Alaska Oil and Gas
Association, which is a professional trade association that represents
companies involved in exploring, producing, transporting, and refining
oil and gas in Alaska. The Petition, submitted on behalf of AOGA's
member companies, outlines the need for a uniform and efficient permit
approval process that would expedite the authorization and construction
of production sites and associated rights-of-way, while maintaining
robust environmental protections and mitigation measures. Drawing on
nearly 3 decades of environmental impact analyses and regulatory
experience in the NPR-A, the Petition proposes regulatory modifications
designed to streamline permitting for projects with well-understood
environmental effects, thereby advancing both Congressional intent for
expeditious development under the laws governing the NPR-A and national
energy policy objectives. The public can review the Petition on the
BLM's website, <a href="https://eplanning.blm.gov">https://eplanning.blm.gov</a>, under NEPA number ``DOI-BLM-
AK-0000-2026-0012-EIS.''
After considering the Petition, the BLM decided to undertake this
rulemaking to streamline the decision-making process for certain
defined and repeatable common activities with similar environmental
effects in the Petroleum Reserve. The Department and the BLM have long
recognized that existing processes for NPR-A development were often
repetitive, duplicative, unpredictable, and unnecessarily burdensome
and in need of streamlining. This rulemaking therefore advances
improvements that the Department had already contemplated, before it
received the petition, to reduce delays in decision making for oil and
gas infrastructure in the Petroleum Reserve; to better implement the
direction of the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, as
amended (NPRPA); and to expeditiously develop oil and gas resources
within the NPR-A.
In addition, this rulemaking reflects the current Integrated
Activity Plan (IAP), which provides the overarching management
framework for the NPR-A, including land allocations, applicable lease
stipulations, required operating procedures, and broad-scale
environmental analyses that guide future leasing and development
decisions. The 2025 IAP implements the direction in section 50105 of
Public Law 119-21 that the BLM expeditiously restore and resume oil and
gas lease sales under the NPR-A leasing program by holding at least
five lease sales by 2035 in the areas designated for leasing in the
2020 IAP ROD and under the same lease terms and stipulations set out in
that decision. As a result, the 2025 IAP established the conditions and
expectations, consistent with the 2020 IAP ROD, under which oil and gas
activities may proceed across much of the Petroleum Reserve, ensuring
consistency, predictability, and appropriate resource protections.
Note, however, that while the IAP provides the management direction for
how leasing and development occur in the NPR-A, it does not by itself
authorize exploration or development activities. This proposed rule
relies on that framework, but goes further, by offering a streamlined
permitting process for production site applications, aligning detailed
project-level approvals with the IAP's programmatic direction.
The most recent example of the BLM's decision-making process to
authorize oil and gas development in the Petroleum Reserve is the
Willow Master Development Plan (MDP). After ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.
requested that the BLM prepare the Willow MDP Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on May 10, 2018, the BLM initiated the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review by publishing a Notice of Intent
to prepare an EIS on August 7, 2018 (82 FR 38725). Following a Record
of Decision (ROD) in October 2020, litigation ensued, and the court
ultimately vacated the ROD and remanded the matter to the BLM in 2021.
The BLM then prepared a Supplemental EIS to address the District
Court's decision. After completing the Supplemental EIS, the BLM then
issued a new ROD approving the plan--which authorized development--in
March 2023. Agency review of proposed development under the Willow MDP
proceeded over an almost 5-year period that included the BLM's initial
NEPA review, a change in administration, litigation that resulted in a
supplemental EIS, and additional analysis before issuance of the final
ROD in March 2023. By comparison, the streamlined process proposed in
this rule would establish a 60-day decision window for qualifying
production site applications, reflecting the BLM's intent to provide a
more predictable and timely approval framework for development
activities with well-understood environmental effects. This approach
would reduce the delays in project permitting--demonstrated by the
Willow MDP--by setting clear eligibility criteria for streamlined
review; requiring all compliance steps and data up front, establishing
strict timelines for BLM review and approval; and relying on an EIS,
which is being developed as part of this rulemaking, to avoid
repetitive NEPA analyses.
In support of this rulemaking, the BLM identified and reviewed the
applicable oil and gas development environmental assessments and EISs
completed within the NPR-A since 1998. The ePlanning website (<a href="https://eplanning.blm.gov/">https://eplanning.blm.gov/</a>) contains a comprehensive list of environmental
assessments and EISs completed within the NPR-A, which can be accessed
by searching for the EIS supporting the rule under NEPA number ``DOI-
BLM-AK-0000-2026-0012-EIS.'' By comparison, the streamlined process
proposed in this rule would establish a 60-day decision window for
qualifying production site applications, reflecting the BLM's intent to
provide a more predictable and timely approval framework for
development activities with well-understood environmental effects.
While the Willow project involves full field development of the
most comprehensive type in the NPR-A to date, the review process and
timeline are not atypical for other more modest development proposals
with similar known environmental effects in the area. In particular,
the BLM's experience approving the Greater Mooses Tooth 1 pad,
supported by the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the

[[Page 57093]]

Alpine Satellite for the Proposed Development Project (DOI-BLM-AK-0000-
2013-0001-EIS), demonstrates that even smaller-scale projects may
require extensive and time-consuming NEPA review, reinforcing the need
to streamline decision-making for certain development activities. The
proposed rule would reduce delays experienced in projects like Greater
Mooses Tooth 1 by establishing clear eligibility criteria for
streamlined review, requiring all compliance information up front,
setting firm timelines for the BLM's review and approval, and relying
on an EIS to avoid repetitive, project-specific NEPA analyses. The BLM
published the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for Production Site Development in the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska on May 19, 2026 (91 FR 29155), which initiated the
BLM's EIS to evaluate the environmental effects of this rulemaking.

A. Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976

President Warren G. Harding originally designated the area of the
Petroleum Reserve in 1923 as Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4, Executive
Order No. 3797-A (Feb. 27, 1923). It was one of several naval petroleum
reserves established in the aftermath of World War I intended to serve
as an emergency oil supply for the U.S. Navy. Encompassing
approximately 23 million acres of public land extending from the north
slope of the Brooks Range to the Arctic Coast--an area nearly the size
of the State of Indiana--the Petroleum Reserve's primary purpose was
rooted in securing a domestic source of petroleum for national defense,
rather than in resource preservation. Between 1944 and 1953, the Navy
conducted exploratory programs in the Petroleum Reserve that discovered
two small oil fields (Simpson and Umiat), one prospective oil field
(Fish Creek), a gas field (South Barrow), and four prospective gas
fields (Meade, Square Lake, Titaluk, and Wolf Creek). The Navy also
pioneered numerous methods for oil exploration in the Arctic and
collected a significant amount of scientific information regarding
northern Alaska.
Motivated by private industry's 1968 discovery of oil at Prudhoe
Bay and the increasing price of oil due to the embargo that started in
1973, Congress passed the NPRPA in 1976. The NPRPA transferred
administrative jurisdiction over the Petroleum Reserve from the
Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary of the Interior and redesignated
the ``Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4, Alaska'' as the ``National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.'' At the time the NPRPA was enacted, the
NPR-A remained largely unexplored and almost completely undeveloped
(H.R. Rep. No. 94-156, at 3). Between 1974 and 1977, the Navy drilled
seven test wells in the northeast corner of the NPR-A. These early
explorations were significant undertakings that involved public funds,
with a single test well costing the Federal Government approximately
$100 million.
Congress recognized that accelerating exploration, that would
eventually lead to production, of the NPR-A was vital to the national
interest to assess the amount and location of the potential oil and gas
available in the NPR-A, particularly considering the national need for
energy independence. H.R. Rep. No. 94-81, at 8. Congress also
acknowledged that the wildlife and other surface values in the NPR-A
would have to be considered within the context that the NPR-A be
managed for oil and gas exploration activities. Congress determined
that the Secretary of the Interior is best qualified to make judgments
regarding these other values. Id.
Congress provided certain directives within the NPRPA, including
for the Secretary of the Interior to commence petroleum exploration
within the NPR-A as soon as the administration of the NPR-A was
transferred to the Interior Department. Congress further set forth the
purpose that the development of the NPR-A be regulated in a manner
consistent with the total energy needs of the Nation. The NPRPA
established a management priority for oil and gas exploration
activities within the NPR-A and, as a result, is considered a dominant-
use statute.
Within that context, the NPRPA also authorized the Secretary to
promulgate such rules and regulations necessary and appropriate for the
protection of environmental, fish and wildlife, and historical or
scenic values within the Petroleum Reserve. Public Law 94-258, codified
at 42 U.S.C. 6503(b). This provision provides the Secretary with
discretion to protect surface resources within the Petroleum Reserve
but not in contravention of the overriding purpose of the NPRPA to
provide for the energy needs of the Nation.
The NPRPA as originally enacted also directed the Secretary to
assure the maximum protection of significant subsistence, recreational,
fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic value within special areas,
as determined by the Secretary, but only insofar as that protection is
consistent with the requirements of the NPRPA for the exploration of
the Petroleum Reserve (42 U.S.C. 6504(a)). The BLM promulgated
regulations soon after enactment of the NPRPA to govern management and
protection of surface resources in the NPR-A that implement the
direction in Act (43 CFR part 2360).
In promulgating this rule, the BLM has also been mindful that,
under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), a
reviewing court will exercise independent judgment in determining
whether this rule falls within the authority Congress conferred by the
NPRPA. The rule is fully consistent with the statutory language and
structure of the NPRPA. Section6506a(b) expressly delegates to the
Secretary the discretion to determine what conditions, restrictions,
and prohibitions are ``necessary or appropriate'' to mitigate
reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on the surface
resources within the Petroleum Reserve. Separately, section 6503(b)
delegates to the Secretary the discretion to promulgate rules and
regulations she deems ``necessary and appropriate'' to protect the
Petroleum Reserve's environment, fish and wildlife, and historical or
scenic values. Finally, section 6506a(o) expressly authorizes the
Secretary to issue implementing regulations. Through this rule, the BLM
is appropriately exercising the discretion in that delegated authority
in a manner that gives effect to the NPRPA's dominant-use purpose
without contravening the Secretary's additional statutory obligation to
protect surface resources. Because the discretion exercised here is one
Congress expressly conferred, this rule reflects the type of delegation
that Loper Bright confirms, while ensuring that the BLM has acted
within the bounds of that delegation.

B. Department of the Interior Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1981

In 1979, the BLM completed a comprehensive ``Study of the
Reserve,'' as required by the NPRPA. The study determined the best
overall procedures to be used in the development, production,
transportation, and distribution of petroleum reserves in the NPR-A,
the alternatives to those procedures, and the environmental
consequences. The BLM submitted the results of that study to Congress.
In response, Congress amended the NPRPA through the Department of
the Interior (DOI) Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1981, which directed
the Secretary to conduct an expeditious program of competitive leasing
of oil and gas in the NPR-A, while providing for such conditions,
restrictions, and prohibitions as the Secretary deems

[[Page 57094]]

appropriate to mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects on the surface resources in the NPR-A (Pub. L. 96-514,
tit. I, 94 Stat. 2957, 2964). The Fiscal Year 1981 Appropriations Act
also exempted management of the NPR-A from two sections of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA): section 202
(43 U.S.C. 1712), which requires the BLM to prepare resource management
plans to guide management of public lands; and section 603 (43 U.S.C.
1782), which required the BLM to complete wilderness reviews and
describes the procedures for managing any lands recommended to Congress
for wilderness designation pending congressional action. Id.
In doing so, Congress explained that exempting the NPR-A from FLPMA
sections 202 and 603 was necessary because both sections would
otherwise inhibit expeditious leasing. See H.R. Rep. No. 96-1147, at 33
(1980). This legislative history gives further support to the position
that the purpose of the NPRPA is primarily to facilitate oil and gas
leasing and associated activities and that the direction to protect
surface values, both within and outside special areas, is a secondary
purpose of the NPRPA. Moreover, the only provision of the NPRPA
requiring an EIS (for the first lease sale after enactment) provides
that an EIS is only needed ``if such is deemed necessary under the
provisions'' of the NEPA--providing clear discretion to the Secretary
to make such determination of the level of environmental review
required. The NPRPA highlights specific areas (Utukok River, Teshekpuk
Lake) as requiring ``maximum protection of surface values'' but also
contains the limiting proviso that such protections must be
``consistent with the requirements of this Act for the exploration of
the reserve.'' Finally, the Act contains provisions that, compared to
other organic statutes pertaining to oil and gas exploration, leasing,
and development implemented by the BLM, are unique; these include an
expeditious leasing program, generous lease terms, and exploration
incentives to ``encourage the greatest ultimate recovery of oil or gas,
or in the interest of conservation . . ., '' 42 U.S.C. 6506a(k)(1)(A).
Combined with the original direction in the NPRPA, the 1981
Interior Appropriations Act amendments emphasize that Congress intended
to dedicate management of the NPR-A to the primary purpose of
supporting an expeditious program of oil and gas activities in the NPR-
A, while providing the Secretary with discretion to take into
consideration the protection of surface resource values as appropriate
and consistent with that overriding purpose. Id. Because Congress
dedicated management of the NPR-A to a single overriding purpose, the
BLM's role centers on facilitating oil and gas development while
applying protective measures only as consistent with that mandate. The
IAP provides the framework BLM Alaska uses to manage surface resources
in the NPR-A, identifying required operating procedures and
stipulations that guide where and how development may occur. However,
because it is not subject to section 202 of FLPMA, the IAP, which the
BLM has long used to guide the management of the NPR-A, addresses a
narrower range of uses than a FLPMA resource management plan and does
not provide a framework for management under broader principles of
multiple use and sustained yield. See 43 U.S.C. 1732(a). By
establishing these protective measures up front, the IAP ensures that
oil and gas activities proceed in a manner consistent with the NPRPA's
dominant-use purpose while safeguarding key surface values.

C. Historical Development Within the NPR-A

Before development occurs, operators in the NPR-A generally
undertake exploration activities to better understand potential oil and
gas resources. These efforts usually include geophysical surveys,
constructing temporary (seasonal) ice roads and pads, and drilling
exploratory wells. This up-front work helps confirm the existence of
oil and gas resources and informs the lessee in determining whether to
pursue permanent development and production. In the NPR-A, exploration
work is generally seasonal and temporary in nature, leaving behind
little to no permanent infrastructure, and it occurs before--and indeed
it is often carried out to inform--future development work that is the
subject of this rule. As such, exploration work in NPR-A has always
received its own standalone NEPA analysis. This analysis supports
exploration-specific permitting actions which generally include
applications for permits to drill (APD) with associated surface use
plan of operations and ROWs. These approvals and their associated NEPA
analyses, even though they involve the same geography of a potential
future development proposal, are distinct from development level NEPA
analyses.
For development level permitting, the BLM's decision-making process
begins when an operator submits an initial APD (or sometimes, as in the
case of Willow, a broader development proposal may precede the actual
APD) for each permanent pad, along with any needed ROW applications.
These applications outline the proposed infrastructure such as roads,
pads, and wells. These early submissions establish the basic scope of
the proposed project and initiate the BLM's review process.
Once the operator submits its applications, the BLM begins
preparing the appropriate environmental documents to comply with the
NEPA. Historically, the BLM has prepared an EIS for each development
plan in the NPR-A, separate from the prior exploration-level NEPA
documents which had likely been prepared in the same geographic area.
The development EIS evaluates potential environmental effects and
considers a range of alternatives. Concurrent with the EIS process, the
BLM also completes required analysis and consultations under laws such
as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA). This environmental review phase has typically spanned several
years and provided multiple opportunities for public input.
The NEPA process concludes when the BLM issues a ROD identifying
the approved development alternative and outlining how the project may
proceed under Federal law and management objectives. The operator then
submits any remaining APDs and ROW applications, consistent with the
approved plan. Because these are tiered to the development plan's EIS
and ROD, no additional NEPA analysis is required. The BLM processes
these permits under applicable regulations. The Mineral Leasing Act of
1920 (30 U.S.C. 226(p)) requires that APDs are issued within 30 days of
receipt if the requirements under NEPA and all other applicable laws
have been completed. Of the 72 APDs BLM Alaska has issued in the NPR-A
over the last 10 years as development has been increasing, processing
has taken an average of 32 days from receiving a complete application.
In reviewing the NEPA preparation and subsequent permitting application
processing time, the BLM Alaska State Office completes review and
approval of full field development plans in approximately three to five
years. For this reason, and as a result of Alaska's unique
construction/project window as a result of weather, applicants often
initiate their development plans/applications years in advance.

[[Page 57095]]

Following permit approval, on-the-ground work may begin.
Construction of roads and pads typically occurs during winter, when
frozen ground facilitates access and reduces surface impacts.
Production-phase drilling usually begins following initial construction
of at least some permanent gravel roads and pads, and the combined
construction and drilling phases often extend over several years. Once
drilling is complete and production facilities are operational, oil
production begins. From permit approval through construction and to
first oil, the post-NEPA development cycle in the NPR-A commonly spans
up to 6 years.
Throughout development, operators continue technical work such as
seismic data reprocessing, reservoir modeling, engineering design, and
refining subsurface drilling plans.

III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

A. Summary

The BLM proposes this more efficient means of project review and
approval to ensure the Secretary better meets his NPRPA statutory
direction for ``expeditious'' oil and gas leasing and development while
also ensuring the BLM achieves the same level of protection of the
surface values in the NPR-A. The proposed rule establishes a
streamlined permitting process for qualifying oil and gas production
sites in the NPR-A, focusing on projects located relatively near
existing permanent infrastructure with well-understood environmental
effects. It consolidates multiple approvals into a single coordinated
review, requires all environmental compliance information up front, and
sets firm timelines to expedite decision-making. The rule will be
supported by a detailed EIS that evaluates the foreseeable impacts of
qualifying projects, eliminating the need for repeated project-specific
NEPA analyses. Overall, it aims to provide a predictable, efficient
approval framework while maintaining appropriate protection for surface
resources, subsistence, and environmental values.
As outlined above, the environmental review process has routinely
been unpredictable, redundant, and excessively time consuming, with
uncertain outcomes for the applicant and agency alike. Therefore, the
logical focus of an effort at overall process improvement should be on
streamlining and reducing redundancy in the environmental review
process, leading to less regulatory burden and more predictable
outcomes, while informing the decisionmaker of the environmental
consequences of the action and maintaining compliance with the NPRPA,
including necessary and appropriate mitigation measures, and other
applicable law. The proposed rule would create a single, coordinated
review process for qualifying production infrastructure located within
25 miles of existing permanent oil and gas infrastructure in the NPR-A,
allowing applicants to proceed directly to submitting applications for
permits to drill, ROWs, and associated authorizations. This 25-mile
criterion applies to any permanent oil and gas infrastructure as
defined in this rule, including infrastructure constructed after the
rule is finalized. By allowing future infrastructure to serve as an
anchor for streamlined review (whether that infrastructure qualified
under this rule or underwent its own standalone NEPA and permitting
processes), the rule enables a gradual westward progression of
development from existing NPR-A facilities, without limiting
eligibility only to infrastructure analyzed in prior NEPA documents.
This action responds to the Petition requesting a uniform,
predictable process for development projects that share common, well-
studied characteristics with existing NPR-A infrastructure. The
proposed rule is supported by decades of environmental review and
mitigation experience in the NPR-A. It has been developed in parallel
with and will be analyzed by an EIS evaluating detailed information
regarding the potential effects of the rule and the qualifying
development activities expected to be authorized under its streamlined
permitting process. The proposed rule also draws on the extensive
analysis conducted in the Willow MDP and its accompanying EIS, which
together represent the most comprehensive evaluation of development
effects in the NPR-A to date. In addition, the 2025 IAP provides
updated planning guidance, Required Operating Procedures (ROP), and
surface-resource protections that further inform the environmental
baseline supporting this predictable permitting framework.
The defined criteria for projects that may qualify for the
streamlined permitting process in the proposed rule is intended to
limit the application of this rule to projects that share common, well-
studied characteristics and that are located adjacent to existing NPR-A
infrastructure. By doing so, the BLM intends to tailor the scope of the
environmental analysis supporting the proposed rule to those types of
projects for which the BLM can better predict the potential
environmental impacts in a manner that lends itself to a more detailed
and specific environmental analysis than is available through an IAP.
In drafting the proposed rule, the BLM maintained the streamlined
permitting concept suggested in the Petition but included additional
safeguards and agency oversight. Compared to the Petition, the BLM's
version adds stronger environmental and subsistence protections,
clarifies Federal discretion in approving or modifying permits, and
incorporates additional compliance requirements. Overall, the BLM
proposal offers a faster, more predictable process than the current
regulations while maintaining protections for land, wildlife,
subsistence, and local communities. Additionally, the Petition
requested that the BLM amend 43 CFR part 3160 (Onshore Oil and Gas
Operations) by adding a new subpart 3166, titled ``Permitting
Procedures for Production Sites in the National Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska.'' The BLM decided instead to amend the regulations at 43 CFR
part 3130, ``Oil And Gas Leasing: National Petroleum Reserve,'' to add
a new subpart 3139, entitled ``Streamlined Permitting Procedures for
Production Sites in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.'' Since
part 3160 contains nationwide onshore operating regulations that apply
broadly across all BLM-managed oil and gas areas, the BLM decided that
this proposed rule more appropriately aligned with part 3130, as it is
the regulatory framework that specifically governs oil and gas
activities in the NPR-A.
The BLM will also comply with consultation requirements under ESA
section 7 with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service and NHPA section 106 with Alaska's State
Historic Preservation Office. The EIS supporting this proposed rule
will also include the subsistence evaluation and hearing procedures
required under section 810 of ANILCA. The intent is that the proposed
rule will identify requirements that would allow qualified production
sites to comply with all applicable environmental compliance statutes.
Because the EIS will still be under development when the NPRM is
published, the BLM will release draft Chapters 1 and 2 to provide the
public a meaningful opportunity to review the purpose and need, the
range of alternatives, and the analytical framework that will guide the
environmental review. These chapters contain the elements which could
be adjusted based on comment and so directly influence the scope of the
rule;

[[Page 57096]]

they describe the framework that the BLM will use to evaluate potential
environmental impacts, subsistence considerations, and resource
protections under the NPRPA. Chapters 3 and 4, which will be part of
the Final EIS will address affected environment, environmental
consequences, cumulative effects, required consultations, and responses
to public comment. Although those later chapters will not be available
during the NPRM comment period, they will apply established methods and
data sources routinely used in NPR-A development analyses and will not
introduce new concepts essential for understanding the proposed rule.
By making the early chapters public at the NPRM stage and clearly
describing the topics that will be addressed in later chapters, the BLM
ensures that commenters have sufficient context to provide informed
input while the agency continues developing the remaining EIS
components.
The BLM encourages commenters to review the proposed rule and the
draft EIS chapters together and to identify any conditions,
restrictions, or requirements the BLM should consider as it refines
both the EIS and the regulatory text. The BLM will publish the proposed
rule and draft EIS Chapters 1 and 2 simultaneously and will accept
comments on both, but comments will be collected separately. Comments
on the proposed rule should focus on the regulatory framework and be
submitted at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> through the process detailed in this
preamble (see ADDRESSES earlier). Comments on the draft EIS chapters 1
and 2 should address the alternatives, scope of analysis, and potential
environmental concerns the BLM should consider as it completes the
environmental review process and be submitted through the BLM's
ePlanning EIS website (https://ePlanning.blm.gov).
The proposed rule is consistent with the NPRPA, which dedicated
management of the NPR-A to oil and gas leasing, exploration,
development, and production, while allowing the Secretary of the
Interior to impose conditions that protect surface resources so long as
they remain consistent with that primary purpose.
Additionally, the proposed rule aligns with recent national energy
policy directives, including Executive Order (E.O.) 14153, Unleashing
Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential, and E.O. 14154, Unleashing
American Energy, which direct the DOI to streamline permitting and
reduce delays for energy development projects. The NPR-A Production
Site Development rule advances these directives by establishing a
predictable and expedited process for reviewing production site
applications, thereby reducing administrative barriers and supporting
responsible development of the NPR-A's significant energy resources.
Consistent with E.O.14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, the
rule is designed to enhance timely access to domestic energy supplies
through improved procedural efficiency. The rule also reflects the
objectives of E.O.14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, by
identifying targeted revisions that remove unnecessary administrative
burdens while maintaining requirements needed to ensure compliance with
applicable environmental statutes.

B. Section-by-Section Discussion

First, the BLM proposes to revise the title for part 3130.
Currently, the heading for part 3130 is ``Oil and Gas Leasing: National
Petroleum Reserve, Alaska.'' In order to better reflect statutory
language and the subparts, including the addition of a new subpart 3139
for the streamlined permitting procedures for production sites, the BLM
is proposing to revise the heading of part 3130 to state, ``Oil and Gas
Leasing Program: National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska.''
Second, the BLM has reflected the proposed changes to the authority
section of part 3130 from the Oil and Gas Leasing proposed rule, 91 FR
38084 (6/24/2026), which would remove the citation to FLPMA in the
authority statement. As background, E.O. 14270, Zero-Based Regulatory
Budgeting To Unleash American Energy, directs the BLM to incorporate a
sunset provision into regulations promulgated under FLPMA. While the
Department's oil and gas leasing regulations refer to FLPMA for
management of the land, this part is primarily established under the
NPRPA and its authority for promulgating regulations. As a result, the
BLM did not include a sunset date for these regulations. The BLM also
proposes to update the authority section for part 3130 to reference the
full NPRPA by replacing ``42 U.S.C. 6508'' with ``42 U.S.C. 6501, et
seq.''
The BLM proposes to add 14 sections into the proposed subpart 3139
for streamlined decisions on oil and gas development in the NPR-A. The
title for this subpart would be ``Streamlined Permitting Procedures for
Production Sites in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.'' Under
the NPRPA, the BLM intends these proposed regulations to support an
expeditious program of oil and gas development in the NPR-A, while
still protecting the surface resource values as appropriate and
consistent with that overriding purpose of the NPRPA.
The following discussion addresses each section of the proposed new
subpart 3139.
Section 3139.1 Purpose
The BLM proposes this section to clearly identify the purpose of
the new subpart. This provision is intended to inform readers that the
proposed regulations in this subpart would establish a streamlined
permitting process specifically for qualifying oil and gas sites, as
well as associated ROWs, within the NPR-A. By including this statement
of purpose, the BLM aims to ensure that the scope and application of
the subpart are transparent and easily understood.
Section 3139.2 Objective
The BLM proposes this section to clearly articulate the objective
of the new subpart. Consistent with the NPRPA, the objective of this
rule is to promote orderly and efficient energy production from Federal
oil and gas leases within the NPR-A. At the same time, the BLM must
appropriately mitigate adverse effects on surface resources and
subsistence activities. Therefore, this section specifies that
development conducted under this subpart would be subject to necessary
or appropriate conditions and restrictions designed to minimize such
impacts. Clearly stating the objective ensures transparency regarding
the intent and scope of the proposed regulations.
Section 3139.3 Definitions
The BLM proposes to include several definitions in this section to
ensure clarity and consistency in the application of this subpart. In
addition to the definitions already established in 43 CFR parts 2880,
3130, and 3160, this proposed rule adds definitions for ``Applicant,''
``Approval,'' ``Integrated activity plan (IAP),'' ``Pad,'' ``Permanent
oil and gas infrastructure,'' ``Production site,'' and ``Required
operating procedure (ROP).''
The proposed definition of ``Applicant'' would clarify that only an
NPR-A leaseholder or a designated operator may apply for an approval
under this subpart. This ensures that applicants would have an existing
legal interest and operational responsibility for Federal oil and gas
development within the NPR-A.
The proposed definition of ``Approval'' would describe the BLM's
authorization of the construction and operation of a production site.
Depending on the project, an approval

[[Page 57097]]

may consist of one or more APDs (with an associated surface-use plan of
operations), one or more ROW grants, or both. This definition is
intended to streamline the permitting process by allowing applicants to
pursue combined or multiple approvals under a single regulatory
framework.
The proposed definition of ``Integrated activity plan (IAP)'' would
describe the type of land use management plan developed by the BLM to
guide the appropriate management of BLM-administered lands and minerals
within the NPR-A. As discussed above, the Fiscal Year 1981
Appropriations Act exempted management of the NPR-A section 202 of
FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712), which requires the BLM to prepare resource
management plans to guide management of public lands. Because of that
exemption and that the NPRPA is a dominant-use statute, the IAP is not
developed as a resource management plan and does not consider sustained
yield and multiple use. While the IAP analyzes a range of possible
future BLM management practices for NPR-A in a manner similar to that
done in a resource management plan and is conducted consistent with
NEPA regulations, it historically addresses a narrower range of
management than a FLPMA resource management plan (e.g., it makes no
decisions on opening lands to hard rock or coal mining because the
lands within the Petroleum Reserve are withdrawn from those uses). This
definition is intended to be consistent with the term historically used
in past IAPs, including the definition used in the glossary of the
current IAP on page 9.
The proposed definition of ``Pad'' is intended to be the common
term used to describe the location upon which an operator can drill
wells in the NPR-A. This proposed definition is consistent with the
term ``pad'' used in the glossary of the current IAP on page 5.
The proposed definition of ``Permanent oil and gas infrastructure''
would describe the facilities that establish the geographic parameters
to allow applications to qualify for submission under this proposed
rule in 43 CFR 3139.4(b). In crafting this definition, the BLM sought
to ensure that only enduring, pad-based production facilities serve as
anchors for proposed production sites. To qualify, these facilities
would remain in place for more than one winter season and would be
integral to ongoing production operations. For roads, the BLM would
anticipate that only roads or pipelines connected to producing pads
would qualify based upon the language that the roads would be
``supporting ongoing production activities.'' For example, an applicant
could not propose three separate 25-mile roads to stretch 75 miles into
the NPR-A without also including the construction of pads and drilling
of wells. The definition intentionally excludes facility types that are
temporary, seasonal, or otherwise outside the scope of the development
footprint for the pad and supporting transmission lines or roads. This
definition would exclude the following: material sites such as sand and
gravel, exploration wellheads, seawater treatment plants, ice roads,
ice pads, and over-summering ice pads for exploration purposes--even
when pads are designed for use in successive winters. These exclusions
would reflect the BLM's determination that such features do not exhibit
the permanence, functional characteristics, or environmental profile
necessary to define the established production corridors and developed
nodes on which this rule relies. By limiting ``permanent oil and gas
infrastructure'' to production pads, production facilities, pipelines,
and certain all-season gravel road connections, the definition would
support a consistent application of the 25-mile eligibility criterion
and would reinforce the rule's focus on authorizing development only
when environmental conditions, operational impacts, and mitigation
strategies are well understood and appropriately bounded.
The proposed definition of ``Production site'' would identify the
types of infrastructure that may qualify for streamlined review under
this rule. A production site would include the facilities and
infrastructure necessary to produce and transmit Federal oil and gas
resources to market, such as gravel pads and roads, wells, and
pipelines. Although the term ``Production site'' may appear to refer
solely to facilities directly involved in oil and gas production, the
BLM intentionally defines the term more broadly to include roads,
pipelines, and other infrastructure necessary to transmit production to
market. This approach aligns with existing BLM permitting practices, in
which an APD commonly includes associated roads and pipelines located
on the lease or unit. Retaining the term ``Production site'' therefore
provides consistency with established regulatory usage while ensuring
that the streamlined approval process applies to the complete footprint
required to support production activities. The BLM is requesting
comments on changes to the production-site definition that may allow
broadening or tightening the production-site definition to ensure the
definition is appropriate for the streamlined approval process proposed
under this rule.
Finally, the proposed definition of ``Required operating procedure
(ROP)'' would mean the identified requirements in the IAP that must be
carried out during proposal implementation and is based on laws,
regulations, E.O.s, BLM planning manuals, policies, instruction
memoranda, and applicable planning documents. The BLM derived this
proposed definition from the term ROP used in the glossary of the
current IAP on page 14.
Section 3139.4 Qualified Production Sites
The BLM proposes this section to identify the criteria that an
application must meet to qualify as a production site eligible for
streamlined review under this subpart. These criteria are designed to
ensure that activities processed under this rule fall within the scope
of development analyzed in the EIS and other environmental reviews and
consultations conducted in conjunction with this rulemaking. The
criteria will be informed by the public comments received on the
proposed rule and the draft EIS Chapters 1 and 2. By establishing clear
eligibility requirements, the BLM intends to confirm that proposed
activities have been sufficiently analyzed to meet the agency's
obligations under applicable environmental statutes.
Paragraph (a) would require that an application meet the definition
of ``Production Site'' in Sec. 3139.3. This would ensure that only the
types of development contemplated in the EIS may be considered under
this proposed streamlined process.
Paragraph (b) would require that the application demonstrate that
the entire location of the production site is located within 25 miles
of existing permanent oil and gas infrastructure. In evaluating this
distance, the BLM considered current lease holdings and found that a
25-mile limit would allow five lessees to qualify under this subpart,
compared to only three lessees at a 15-mile limit. The BLM selected 25
miles to ensure that the streamlined permitting process is not
initially limited to only a few operators, while still focusing
development in areas where environmental conditions and impacts are
well understood and where permanent, year-round roads and pipelines
already support ongoing production. To provide clarity and ensure
consistent application of this criterion, the BLM intends the 25-mile
measurement to begin at the outer edge

[[Page 57098]]

of existing permanent oil and gas infrastructure, such as the edge of a
production pad or the edge of an all-season gravel road connected to
year-round pipelines. The entire footprint of the proposed production
site must fall within this 25-mile boundary. This approach would ensure
that qualifying projects remain tightly linked to established, year-
round infrastructure where environmental conditions and impacts are
well understood. The BLM would not consider legacy well locations as
``permanent oil and gas infrastructure.'' Permanent oil and gas
infrastructure would only include locations that are connected to year-
round roads and pipelines. This limitation would focus streamlined
permitting on areas where environmental conditions and impacts are well
understood and where development can occur with reduced incremental
disturbance. The BLM requests comment on whether the 25-mile limitation
should be expanded or reduced, including how any adjustment would
affect environmental impacts and operational flexibility or whether
paragraph (b) should be adjusted to include only the nearest point of
the project.
Paragraph (c) would require that an application includes either
wells or infrastructure necessary to transport production from existing
or proposed wells. This requirement would limit the use of the
streamlined process to projects tied directly to oil and gas
production. The BLM could potentially expand this paragraph to specify
components that would not be considered a part of production sites,
such as runways for airplanes or housing for workers. The BLM requests
comments related to this section on if and how the definition of
production site should be narrowed or broadened to support streamlined
decision making in the NPR-A under this proposed rule.
Paragraph (d) would clarify that production sites located within
lands designated as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) in the applicable IAP
are generally not eligible for streamlined permitting of surface
infrastructure, except for NSO areas where essential road and pipeline
crossings are allowed in the IAP. The IAP provides the management
framework for surface-resource protections and land allocations in the
NPR-A, including NSO designations. Because NSO areas prohibit permanent
surface-disturbing infrastructure, development proposed within those
areas would not meet the criteria for predictable, well-understood
effects that form the basis of this streamlined permitting process.
Projects within NSO lands therefore remain subject to standard
permitting and project-specific NEPA review, outside the scope of this
rule's coordinated and expedited procedures. For those lands closed to
new infrastructure except for essential roads and pipeline crossings
under the IAP, the BLM would allow roads and pipelines to be located in
those lands and be permitted under the proposed rule. The BLM will
verify eligibility by comparing this spatial information in the
complete APD or complete ROW application to the official NSO boundaries
using current IAP maps and geospatial datasets maintained by the BLM
Alaska State Office.
The proposed rule anticipates that Sec. 3139.4 would establish a
set of objective criteria that applicants must satisfy for a production
site to qualify under subpart 3139. The existing criteria in the
regulatory text will be refined in response to the environmental impact
parameters, resource considerations, and project design elements
evaluated in the EIS being prepared in support of this rulemaking. The
criteria could include items such as confirming proximity to existing
permanent infrastructure, verifying that proposed facilities match the
types of development modeled in the EIS, and documenting that
anticipated impacts remain within the bounds evaluated for the rule.
The BLM is also contemplating limiting the number of facilities that
could be approved under this rule or limiting production sites that
qualify under this rule to those proposed on lands outside special
areas in the NPR-A. As the BLM develops the EIS analysis, it will
refine the criteria that may be used to determine which proposed
projects will qualify under the rule to ensure that qualifying
production sites remain within the scope of impacts evaluated for the
rule and that no new circumstances or potential effects fall outside
the bounds considered in the EIS. The BLM requests comment on this
criteria-based approach; whether additional safeguards or criteria
should be incorporated to improve clarity and predictability. The
purpose of these criteria would be to identify and address potential
permitting challenges early in the process, improving efficiency while
ensuring environmental and subsistence protections are maintained. The
BLM is also soliciting comments on whether there are other limitations
that should be placed on applications or development under this rule.
Section 3139.5 BLM Review and Approval of a Production Site
The BLM proposes this section to establish a clear, predictable,
and streamlined process for reviewing and approving production-site
applications under this rule. This section would set firm timelines for
the BLM's initial review and completeness determinations, applicant
response periods, and issuance of a decision by the BLM to ensure that
qualifying projects would provide applicants with greater certainty
while maintaining the BLM's ability to verify that proposed production
sites meet the proposed definition in Sec. Sec. 3139.3 and 3139.4 and
comply with applicable environmental and operational standards.
Paragraph (a) would require an applicant to clearly request review
under subpart 3139 when submitting an APD or a ROW application. The BLM
anticipates that applicants would identify this request prominently on
the face of the application to ensure that BLM staff would promptly
recognize the applicable review process while still receiving all
information required for a complete submission.
Paragraph (b) would require the BLM to review each application to
determine whether it meets the proposed definition of a ``Production
site'' in Sec. 3139.3, qualifies under proposed Sec. 3139.4, and is
complete under proposed Sec. 3139.6. Under paragraph (c), if any of
these criteria are not met, the BLM would be required to notify the
applicant in writing within 21 days of receipt of the application. The
BLM would provide the applicant with the specific grounds of
disqualification and each item of missing information. This early
screening step would help ensure that only eligible projects proceed
into the streamlined approval process.
Paragraph (d) would require an applicant to submit the missing
information within 30 days of receiving the BLM's notification that the
application is incomplete. If the applicant does not provide the
required information within that timeframe or request an extension of
time within 30 days, the BLM would return the application unapproved.
The applicant may resubmit a new application, which would restart the
review timeline.
Paragraph (e) would require the BLM to issue an approval, or an
approval with conditions, within 60 days of receiving a complete
application. In the event of a conflict between this 60-day timeframe
and any regulatory timeframe associated with individual components of a
complete application that provides a shorter timeframe, this 60-day

[[Page 57099]]

timeframe will prevail. As described previously, depending on the
project, an ``approval'' may consist of one or more APDs (with an
associated surface-use plan of operations), one or more ROW grants, or
both. Once an application satisfies the criteria in this subpart, the
BLM's decision would be limited to issuance of approval or an approval
with conditions. The BLM requests comment on whether this timeframe is
appropriate. Although a complete application may meet the proposed
procedural requirements of Sec. 3139.6, the BLM would still be
required to verify that the project qualifies as a production site
under Sec. Sec. 3139.3 and 3139.4. In some cases, this could leave
only a short period to address un-qualified production site-related
issues after the applicant responds to an incompleteness notification.
Establishing a full 60-day period would provide the BLM with sufficient
time to conduct a review, confirm eligibility, and ensure that the
proposed production site meets the proposed technical and environmental
parameters contemplated under this proposed streamlined process.
Finally, paragraph (f) would clarify that, in issuing approvals
under this section, the BLM would comply with existing regulatory
requirements at existing Sec. Sec. 3162.3-1(g), 2804.25, and
2884.20(a) through (c). This would ensure consistency with established
procedures governing APDs and ROWs and would reaffirm that the
streamlined process under subpart 3139 would not replace or diminish
these existing obligations. Instead, this provision would integrate the
streamlined decision-making structure into the broader regulatory
framework that governs on-the-ground development activities.
Section 3139.6 Contents of a Complete Application
The BLM proposes this section to clearly define the required
information for a complete application under subpart 3139. The BLM
would not require applicants to submit additional information beyond
the requirements of this section. A complete application is essential
for the BLM to determine whether a proposed production site meets the
eligibility criteria in proposed Sec. 3139.4 and complies with
existing applicable environmental and operational standards. If an
application were to lack one or more required elements, the BLM would
notify the applicant and provide 30 days to supply the missing
information. If the applicant does not respond within that timeframe,
the BLM would return the application unapproved. This approach would
ensure efficient review while maintaining the rigor necessary to
support responsible development in the NPR-A.
Paragraph (a) would require the application to identify the size
and location of the proposed gravel pad. Although this information is
already submitted under existing APD and ROW requirements, restating it
in proposed subpart 3139 would ensure that it is prominently included
for the BLM's initial completeness review.
Paragraph (b) would require the applicant to identify the
anticipated number of wells to be drilled from the proposed pad. While
the BLM could determine this from submitted APDs, including it directly
in the subpart 3139 application ensures that the agency can efficiently
evaluate the scope of the proposed production site.
Paragraph (c) would require the application to demonstrate
compliance with the current NPR-A IAP, including the ROPs and the
conditions and restrictions to mitigate adverse impacts in Sec. Sec.
3139.9 through 3139.14. The application would only need to comply with
the NPR-A IAP in effect when the application is submitted. This would
ensure that any proposal submitted under the proposed streamlined
process would be fully aligned with the environmental protections and
operating standards identified through the IAP process. The BLM
anticipates that future IAPs may modify these requirements and has
therefore proposed flexible incorporation language at Sec. 3139.9. The
BLM requests public comments on whether subpart 3139 should be limited
to only applications made under the 2025 IAP and include a sunset
provision based upon the 2025 IAP or whether subpart 3139 should also
account for future IAPs as well.
Paragraph (d) would require applicants to submit all underlying
APDs and ROW applications, as applicable. These existing requirements
would remain fully in effect under subpart 3139, and the streamlined
process could not proceed without complete APD or ROW submissions under
43 CFR subparts 2804, 2884, 3162, and 3171. The BLM identified the
requirement to add compliance with subpart 3171 to ensure the applicant
complies with all downhole requirements set by the BLM for well
construction and integrity. This proposed rule does not address the
downhole design of wells. Instead, the complete application under Sec.
3139.6(d)(1) must include a complete APD. The APD would not be deemed
complete if there are outstanding concerns with the well's design or
construction.
Paragraph (e) would ensure that applicants provide sufficient data
for the completion of the cultural resource review and consultation
process required under section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act before submitting an application. During this early
completion of the section 106 process, the applicant and their cultural
resource consultants would work with the BLM to secure permits and
authorizations, define the APE, conduct field surveys, consult with the
SHPO and federally recognized Tribes, identify historic properties,
and, if necessary, finalize agreement documents required to mitigate
adverse effects to historic properties. Conducting and completing the
section 106 process prior to submitting an application would allow the
BLM to comply with heritage resource statutory requirements without
delaying the permitting timeline in the proposed rule. This would
support the rule's broader goal of streamlining agency review and
decision-making by ensuring that all necessary information is
available, and statutory requirements are finalized, at submission.
This would reduce the need for delays owing to revisions and would
ensure that development proceeds in compliance with Federal historic
preservation requirements.
Paragraph (f) would require applicants to provide sufficient data
for the BLM to complete a Plan of Action under the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) prior to filing an
application, if the proposed project is likely to result in a discovery
of Tribal ancestral human remains or cultural items. Oil and gas
development in the NPR-A may encounter NAGPRA human remains and
cultural items. A Plan of Action (POA) is required for the disposition
of all NAGPRA materials that have been encountered on Federal lands
since 1990, whether prepared ahead of time or following an inadvertent
discovery. If a POA is not prepared ahead of time, construction and
development can be delayed until completion of regulatory-required
consultations and the signing of a POA. Completing a POA prior to
submitting an application would ensure that these statutory and
regulatory requirements are met and provides clarity upon the
inadvertent discovery of NAGPRA materials for applicants, the BLM, and
affected Tribes. This requirement would support the proposed rule's
goal of streamlining review and preventing delays during construction,
and it strengthens the

[[Page 57100]]

Federal Government's commitment to consultation and co-stewardship with
Tribes.
The BLM proposes adding paragraph (g) to ensure applicants supply
the biological information and survey data needed to ensure compliance
with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Completion of wildlife
and habitat surveys prior to application submittal would allow the BLM
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate potential effects to
listed species and critical habitat more quickly and with greater
accuracy. This requirement would align with the rule's purpose of
creating a more predictable permitting process by ensuring that
applications include adequate environmental information at the outset.
Providing this information early would reduce delays, would support
conservation of threatened and endangered species, and would allow the
BLM to make decisions that fully comply with ESA obligations.
The BLM considered requiring applicants to demonstrate completion
of the MMPA process to obtain a letter of authorization for incidental
take. However, the BLM elected to not include MMPA since it is an
applicant driven process. The Fish and Wildlife Service has a 5-year
MMPA incidental take regulation that covers the area and many of the
operators and their activities in the NPR-A. The BLM requests comments
on whether the BLM should propose a paragraph, similar to paragraph (g)
for MMPA.
Finally, the BLM requests comment on whether additional elements
should be included to ensure that applications submitted under this
rule contain sufficient environmental, technical, and operational
information and the appropriate timing for consultation. For example,
specific surveys or monitoring data might warrant inclusion as part of
the complete-application requirements to support the streamlined review
process.
Section 3139.7 Effect of Approval
The BLM proposes this section to clarify the regulatory effect of
an approval issued under subpart 3139. This section would explain how
an approval functions within the broader legal framework that governs
oil and gas development in the NPR-A, including how it would interact
with the existing regulations in part 2800, Rights-of-Way Under the
Federal Land Policy And Management Act; part 2880, Rights-of-Way Under
the Mineral Leasing Act; part 3160, Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; and
subpart 3171, Approval of Operations. In addition, this section would
explain the process for modifying an approved production site. Overall,
Sec. 3139.7 is intended to provide applicants with regulatory
certainty while ensuring that the BLM continues to meet its
environmental and operational oversight responsibilities.
Paragraph (a) would provide that an approval under Sec. 3139.4
would obviate the need for additional approvals of a production site
under the NPRPA and under 43 CFR parts 2800, 2880, and 3160, and
subpart 3171. This paragraph is intended to confirm that all necessary
authorizations for constructing and operating the production site would
be encompassed within the approvals issued under this subpart.
Therefore, by consolidating these authorities, the BLM would establish
a unified permitting mechanism while maintaining compliance with the
applicable statutory framework.
Paragraph (b) would allow an applicant to modify a production site
by following the same procedures used to obtain the initial approval
under proposed Sec. 3139.4. This would ensure that modifications would
undergo the same qualification and completeness review as the original
application before benefiting from the streamlined process. The
paragraph would also complement Sec. 3139.8(d), which requires that
any changes to an approved APD or ROW must still be submitted to and
approved by the BLM as required under parts 2800, 2880, and 3160.
Therefore, the applicant must request changes to APD and ROW approvals
as required by the other parts; however, the applicant would still need
to comply with the requirements in subpart 3139.
The EIS being prepared in support of this rulemaking will establish
an analyzed design envelope that encompasses the reasonably foreseeable
environmental effects associated with constructing and operating
qualified production sites in the NPR-A. The BLM has already initiated
preparation of the EIS, as announced in the Notice of Intent published
in the Federal Register on May 19, 2026 (91 FR 29155). Paragraph (c)
would clarify that when the BLM determines under Sec. 3139.5 that an
application qualifies under this subpart, the agency would be
confirming that the anticipated impacts of the proposed production site
fall within that analyzed design envelope. Because the EIS would fully
evaluate those effects, no additional project-level NEPA analysis would
be required for the BLM to issue its approval. This approach is
intended to provide predictability and efficiency while ensuring that
the scope of the EIS is sufficiently broad to encompass all activities
eligible under the rule.
The BLM is also requesting comments on whether certain provisions
in the existing regulations under parts 2800, 2880, 3160, or 3170
should not apply. For example, Sec. 3162.3-1(h) establishes specific
timelines and procedural requirements for reviewing APDs. These
procedural requirements may conflict with the completeness and approval
process created in proposed Sec. Sec. 3139.5 and 3139.6, which would
include defined timeframes (21 days, 30 days, and 60 days) tailored
specifically for the streamlined NPR-A production site review process.
The timeframes within subpart 3139 would supersede any conflicting
timeframes in the regulations; therefore, the BLM does not believe the
timeframes in Sec. 3162.3-1(h) apply under this proposed rule;
however, we request comments on whether that should be specified in the
final regulatory text.
Finally, the BLM is soliciting comment on whether this rule should
include a specific limit on the number of applications that may be
approved and whether there are any other limitations that should be
placed on the scope or extent of applications or development approved
under this rule.
Section 3139.8 Conditions on Approvals
The BLM proposes this section to clarify the conditions that apply
to all production sites approved under this subpart. These conditions
are intended to ensure that development authorized through the
streamlined permitting process remains consistent with the underlying
lease terms, the ROPs and stipulations in the IAP, and other
environmental protections and operational standards that apply in the
NPR-A. This section would also establish a timeframe for initiating
construction and outlines how the BLM may apply additional conditions
of approval or require subsequent modifications. Together, these
provisions would ensure that while the permitting process would be
streamlined, the BLM would maintain adequate oversight to minimize
environmental impacts and ensure compliance with governing regulations.
Paragraph (a) would require that all approved production sites
comply with applicable lease terms, lease stipulations, and the
relevant ROPs from the 2025 IAP. These instruments establish the
baseline environmental, subsistence, and operational protections that
apply to oil and gas development in the NPR-A. Although proposed
subpart 3139 would streamline the approval process for production
sites, it would not alter these foundational

[[Page 57101]]

requirements. This provision would ensure that the protections and
planning framework already established through the NPR-A leasing
program and the IAP remain applicable to any development authorized
under this subpart.
Paragraph (b) would require construction of an approved production
site to begin no later than 4 years after the date of approval, with
construction defined as the first day of construction activity--
occurring within the boundaries of the NPR-A--associated with
installation of the gravel pad or the access road. The BLM proposes a
4-year period because it matches the standard term for an approved APD
at 43 CFR 3171.14(a). This would provide consistency between the
existing APD framework and the streamlined approval process that would
be established under this proposed subpart. This requirement would
ensure that authorized development proceeds in a timely manner. A
defined start-construction window would help the BLM ensure that site-
specific environmental conditions have not materially changed since
approval. If construction were delayed beyond this period, the BLM may
need to reevaluate the project before it could proceed. The BLM also
requests comment on the BLM's definition as to the start of
construction, which the proposed rule currently defines as ``the first
day of activity, occurring within the boundary of the NPR-A, to
construct the pad or the access road.''
Paragraph (c) would clarify that the BLM may apply site-specific
conditions of approval (COAs) to APDs and site-specific terms and
conditions to ROWs where necessary to mitigate surface or downhole
impacts associated with the production site. This would reflect
longstanding BLM practice under parts 2800, 2880, and 3160, under which
COAs and ROW terms are tailored to address environmental, technical, or
subsistence considerations unique to each project. Although subpart
3139 would streamline the decision-making process, it would not limit
the BLM's ability to impose appropriate mitigation measures. Instead,
this provision would ensure that the streamlined process would
incorporate the same protective tools normally available under the
BLM's existing authorities.
Paragraph (d) would require that any changes to an approved permit
be requested and approved by the BLM in accordance with existing
regulatory requirements in parts 2800, 2880, and 3160. This provision
would reinforce that modifications to an APD or ROW granted under
subpart 3139 would still be required to follow established procedures
for amending BLM-issued authorizations. While applicants could seek
modifications through the streamlined path in proposed Sec. 3139.4,
this provision would clarify that the BLM retains full authority to
review and approve changes through standard regulatory processes
whenever necessary. This would help maintain consistency between
subpart 3139 approvals and the BLM's broader permitting and operational
oversight responsibilities.
Section 3139.9 Conditions and Restrictions To Mitigate Adverse Effects
The BLM proposes this section to specify that the applicant would
comply with the IAP's ROPs and identify the overarching conditions and
restrictions that all applicants would be required to follow to
mitigate adverse effects from oil and gas development in the NPR-A. The
BLM identified additional mitigation measures from the conditions
applied to development under the Willow MDP and other requirements
applied to existing development within the NPR-A. The BLM plans to
further analyze the rule conditions and restrictions in the EIS
supporting this rule, and the BLM will most likely refine the
conditions and restrictions further based upon public comments received
on the draft Chapters 1 and 2 of the EIS and on the proposed rule.
Together, these measures would satisfy the mitigation directives in
sections 6504(a) and 6506a(b) of the NPRPA, including the direction
that oil and gas exploration and development ``be conducted in a manner
which will assure the maximum protection of such surface values to the
extent consistent with the requirements of this Act for the exploration
of the reserve.''
In addition, the BLM proposes to incorporate the existing ROPs from
the IAP with Sec. 3139.6(c) and 3139.9. Therefore, to remove
duplication, the BLM did not include the ROPs in the proposed sections
on conditions and restrictions to mitigate adverse effects, even though
NPR-A lessees and designated operators would still need to comply with
the ROPs from the IAP.
This section would also establish a process through which the
authorized officer may approve deviations or exemptions where
appropriate. Consistent with similarly motivated longstanding practice
under the IAP framework, this would ensure that the rule would remain
responsive to technological advances, site-specific conditions, and the
evolving environmental context of the NPR-A. The applicant would need
to request an exemption or deviation from the conditions and
restrictions for the BLM to consider. The BLM proposes three specific
bases for such flexibility. Under proposed paragraph (a), the BLM could
grant an exemption or deviation if a substitute measure would be
equally or more effective in mitigating adverse effects. This provision
would allow the BLM to adopt improved mitigation measures as new data
or community input becomes available. Under proposed paragraph (b), the
BLM may approve a deviation if technological advancements render a
specific condition unnecessary. Under proposed paragraph (c), the BLM
may grant an exemption when the condition is not applicable to the
proposed production site. The BLM would make a decision on these
requests within 30 days. This framework would provide regulatory
stability while allowing the BLM to apply the most current and
effective mitigation tools available.
The BLM reviewed the Petition and elected to reorganize this last
section into multiple themed sections to boost clarity. The BLM
requests comments on how it should organize the conditions and
restrictions. The BLM organized the proposed rule's conditions and
restrictions to focus on development; however, the BLM also considered
organizing the conditions and restrictions based upon the surface
resource values being protected by each condition and restriction.
Since some conditions and restrictions would protect multiple surface
resource values, the BLM elected to organize the conditions and
restrictions as proposed.
Finally, the BLM requests feedback on whether the proposed
requirements sufficiently address site-specific environmental,
cultural, and subsistence considerations. Should additional conditions
or restrictions beyond those outlined in the Willow MDP provisions be
incorporated into this rulemaking? Does the BLM need to consider other
conditions or restrictions to ensure maximum protection of Special
Areas or other particularly sensitive resources? Ultimately, the BLM
seeks input on any further measures that should be evaluated to enhance
safeguards and minimize impacts associated with production site
development.
Section 3139.10 General Conditions and Restrictions
The BLM proposes the following general conditions and restrictions
to ensure that projects approved under this proposed section
effectively mitigate adverse effects and support responsible
development in the NPR-A. The BLM based many of the conditions and

[[Page 57102]]

restrictions identified in this provision on the design features in the
Willow MDP's 2023 record of decision, which can be found on the BLM's
ePlanning website at <a href="https://eplanning.blm.gov">https://eplanning.blm.gov</a> under the NEPA Number of
``DOI-BLM-AK-0000-2018-0004-EIS.'' In the Willow MDP, the BLM adopted
many applicant-proposed design features as part of its decision. Design
features are impact-reducing actions or designs that the proponent
committed to in their permit applications and supporting documents.
After review, the BLM decided to carry forward these specific design
features into the proposed rule.
In addition to the requirements identified here, all production
sites must also comply with the IAP's ROPs, which apply independently
and are not repeated in this section. These proposed provisions would
reflect the agency's experience managing development in the NPR-A and
are designed to address predictable environmental and subsistence-
related concerns in a clear, structured manner.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (a) to protect cultural
resources. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design
Feature No. 78.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (b) to protect wetlands,
vegetation, birds, terrestrial mammals, and marine mammals. The BLM
identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 21.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (c) to protect birds and
terrestrial mammals. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP
Design Feature No. 50.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (d) to protect birds and
terrestrial mammals. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP
Design Feature No. 55.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (e) to protect cultural and
paleontological resources. The BLM identified this requirement in
Willow MDP Design Feature No. 65.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (f) to protect subsistence
and sociocultural systems. The BLM identified this requirement in the
IAP ROPs H-1 and H-4 and Willow MDP Design Feature No. 68 and 69. The
BLM seeks comment on how best to structure the process to ensure
applicants effectively engage affected communities, Tribes, and Alaska
Native corporations within the North Slope.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (g) to address local
community concerns. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP
Design Feature No. 75. The BLM broadened the statement in the rule to
ensure it could apply across the NPR-A for all local community
residents.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (h) to protect subsistence
and sociocultural systems. The BLM identified this requirement in
Willow MDP Design Feature No. 77. The BLM proposes to require
permittees under this rule to provide access to NPR-A leaseholders and
designated operators to facilitate future development across the NPR-A.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (i) to ensure coordinated use
of transportation corridors and other production-related
infrastructure, thereby reducing surface disturbance and minimizing
impacts to resources and uses within the NPR-A. Ensuring that certain
oil and gas infrastructure is co-located will reduce disturbance within
the NPR-A, diminishing impacts to resources and uses in the NPR-A. This
paragraph would ensure that all NPR-A lessees and designated operators
would collocate or share, as much as feasible, their road, pipeline,
and associated infrastructure to reduce the impact of future
development in the NPR-A.
The BLM welcomes public feedback on the proposed general conditions
and restrictions included in this section. Are there additional
measures the agency should include to further reduce impacts or improve
clarity? What would be the basis or rationale for adding them?
Alternatively, are any of the proposed requirements unnecessary, overly
burdensome, or duplicative? The BLM requests specific comments on
whether these conditions would strike the right balance between
environmental protection, subsistence considerations, and operational
feasibility.
Section 3139.11 Pad and Road Design
The BLM proposes the following pad and road design conditions and
restrictions to ensure that projects approved under this section would
effectively mitigate adverse effects and support responsible
development in the NPR-A. In addition to the proposed pad- and road-
design requirements identified here, all production sites would also be
required to comply with the IAP's ROPs, which apply independently and
are not repeated in this section. These proposed provisions would
reflect the agency's experience managing development in the NPR-A and
are designed to address predictable environmental and subsistence-
related concerns in a clear, structured manner.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (a) to protect soils,
permafrost, gravel resources, wetlands, vegetation, birds, and
terrestrial mammals. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP
Design Feature No. 37.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (b) to protect soils,
permafrost, gravel resources, wetlands, vegetation, birds, and
terrestrial mammals. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP
Design Feature No. 39.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (c) to protect wetlands,
vegetation, birds, and terrestrial mammals. The BLM identified this
requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 43 as an outgrowth from
the IAP ROP C-2.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (d) to protect fish. The BLM
identified this requirement in the IAP ROP E-5 and Willow MDP Design
Feature No. 26.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (e) to protect soils,
permafrost, gravel resources, water resources, wetlands, vegetation,
and birds. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design
Feature No. 27.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (f) to protect water
resources, wetlands, vegetation, fish, and birds. The BLM identified
this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 23.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (g) to protect water
resources, wetlands, vegetation, and fish. The BLM identified this
requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 28.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (h) to protect soils,
permafrost, and gravel resources. The BLM identified this requirement
in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 34.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (i) to protect soils,
permafrost, gravel resources, air quality, visual resources, water
resources, wetlands, vegetation, fish, birds, terrestrial mammals, and
public health. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design
Feature No. 36.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (j) to protect soils,
permafrost, and gravel resources. The BLM identified this requirement
in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 42.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (k) to protect subsistence
and sociocultural systems. The BLM identified this requirement in
Willow MDP Design Feature No. 72.
The BLM welcomes public feedback on the proposed pad and road
design conditions and restrictions included in this section. Are there
additional measures the agency should include to

[[Page 57103]]

further reduce impacts or improve clarity? What would be the basis or
rationale for adding them? Alternatively, are any of the proposed
requirements unnecessary, overly burdensome, or duplicative? The BLM
requests specific comments on whether these conditions would strike the
right balance between environmental protection, subsistence
considerations, and operational feasibility.
Section 3139.12 Pipeline and Utility Design
The BLM proposes the following pipeline and utility design
conditions and restrictions to ensure that projects approved under this
section would effectively mitigate adverse effects and support
responsible development in the NPR-A. In addition to the pipeline- and
utility-design requirements identified here, all production sites would
also be required to comply with the IAP's ROPs, which apply
independently and are not repeated in this section. These proposed
provisions would reflect the agency's experience managing development
in the NPR-A and are designed to address predictable environmental and
subsistence-related concerns in a clear, structured manner.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (a) to protect birds,
wetlands, and vegetation. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow
MDP Design Feature No. 9.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (b) to protect birds. The BLM
identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 54.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (c) to protect birds,
wetlands, vegetation, terrestrial mammals, and spill risk. The BLM
identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 11.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (d) to protect soils,
permafrost, gravel resources, water resources, wetlands, and
vegetation. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design
Feature No. 31.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (e) to protect soils,
permafrost, and gravel resources. The BLM identified this requirement
in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 44.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (f) to protect visual
resources, birds, terrestrial mammals, marine mammals, and subsistence
and sociocultural systems. The BLM identified this requirement in
Willow MDP Design Feature No. 59.
The BLM welcomes public feedback on the proposed pipeline and
utility design conditions and restrictions included in this section.
Are there additional measures the agency should include to further
reduce impacts or improve clarity? What would be the basis or rationale
for adding them? Alternatively, are any of the proposed requirements
unnecessary, overly burdensome, or duplicative? The BLM requests
specific comments on whether these conditions would strike the right
balance between environmental protection, subsistence considerations,
and operational feasibility.
Section 3139.13 Spill Prevention and Remediation
The BLM proposes the following spill prevention and remediation
conditions and restrictions to ensure that projects approved under this
section would effectively mitigate adverse effects and support
responsible development in the NPR-A. In addition to the proposed spill
prevention and remediation requirements identified here, all production
sites would also be required to comply with the IAP's ROPs, which would
apply independently and are not repeated in this section. These
provisions would reflect the agency's experience managing development
in the NPR-A and are designed to address predictable environmental and
subsistence-related concerns in a clear, structured manner.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (a) to protect all resources.
Spill prevention protects all resources the BLM manages by reducing
risks to human health and safety and minimizing harmful effects to
subsistence resources, fish and wildlife, and the broader surface
environment. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design
Feature No. 95.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (b) to protect all resources.
Spill prevention protects all resources the BLM manages by reducing
risks to human health and safety and minimizing harmful effects to
subsistence resources, fish and wildlife, and the broader surface
environment. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design
Feature No. 38. This would ensure that the permittees install pipeline
crossings with insulation and design features, which would inhibit heat
transfer to permafrost, contain fluids in the event of a pipeline leak,
and provide structural integrity to the pipeline crossing.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (c) to protect all resources.
Spill remediation protects all resources the BLM manages by reducing
risks to human health and safety and minimizing harmful effects to
subsistence resources, fish and wildlife, and the broader surface
environment. The BLM identified this requirement in the IAP ROP A-4 and
Willow MDP Design Feature No. 100.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (d) to protect all resources.
Spill prevention protects all resources the BLM manages by reducing
risks to human health and safety and minimizing harmful effects to
subsistence resources, fish and wildlife, and the broader surface
environment. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design
Feature No. 102.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (e) to protect all resources.
Spill remediation protects all resources the BLM manages by reducing
risks to human health and safety and minimizing harmful effects to
subsistence resources, fish and wildlife, and the broader surface
environment. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design
Feature No. 106.
The BLM welcomes public feedback on the proposed spill prevention
and remediation conditions and restrictions included in this section.
Are there additional measures the agency should include to further
reduce impacts or improve clarity? What would be the basis or rationale
for adding them? Alternatively, are any of the proposed requirements
unnecessary, overly burdensome, or duplicative? The BLM requests
specific comments on whether these conditions would strike the right
balance between environmental protection, subsistence considerations,
and operational feasibility.
Section 3139.14 Operational Conditions and Restrictions
The BLM proposes the following operational conditions and
restrictions to ensure that projects approved under this section would
effectively mitigate adverse effects and support responsible
development in the NPR-A. In addition to the operational conditions and
restrictions identified here, all production sites would also be
required to comply with the IAP's ROPs, which would apply independently
and are not repeated in this section. These provisions would reflect
the agency's experience managing development in the NPR-A and are
designed to address predictable environmental and subsistence-related
concerns in a clear, structured manner.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (a) to protect wetlands and
vegetation by using single season ice roads to support winter
construction. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design
Feature No. 5.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (b) to protect all resources.
As

[[Page 57104]]

ice roads and pads do not cause permanent disturbance to the
permafrost, this paragraph will protect all resources in the NPR-A. The
BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 10.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (c) to protect water
resources; wetlands and vegetation; fish; birds; terrestrial mammals;
marine mammals; subsistence and sociocultural systems; and public
health. The BLM identified this requirement in the Willow MDP Design
Feature No. 20.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (d) to protect soils,
permafrost, and gravel resources; water resources; wetlands and
vegetation. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design
Feature No. 31.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (e) to protect birds;
terrestrial mammals; subsistence and sociocultural systems. The BLM
identified this requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 58.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (f) to protect subsistence
and sociocultural systems. The BLM identified this requirement in
Willow MDP Design Feature No. 76.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (g) to protect air quality
and public health. The BLM identified this requirement in Willow MDP
Design Feature No. 85.
The BLM proposes to include paragraph (h) to reduce the natural gas
emissions from oil and gas facilities by requiring the use of electric
solenoids or instrument air driven pneumatics. The BLM identified this
requirement in Willow MDP Design Feature No. 122.
The BLM welcomes public feedback on the proposed operational
conditions and restrictions included in this section. Are there
additional measures the agency should include to further reduce impacts
or improve clarity? What would be the basis or rationale for adding
them? Alternatively, are any of the proposed requirements unnecessary,
overly burdensome, or duplicative? The BLM requests specific comments
on whether these conditions would strike the right balance between
environmental protection, subsistence considerations, and operational
feasibility.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563)

E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) within the OMB will review all significant rules. This
rulemaking would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is
significant under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. The Proposed Rule is
expected to lead to benefits and costs through three mechanisms
including reduced environmental review costs, increased development and
production, and increased demand for leases. Eliminating the need to
develop an EIS for individual projects is estimated to result in cost
savings to either the BLM or the developer, depending on who would
incur the cost of preparing the analysis. Increased supply of oil may
impact the market price for oil and related products resulting in
changes to consumer and producer surplus. Increased development and
production resulting from the Proposed Rule is expected to result in
increased production-related government revenues, which would be
transfers from industry to the U.S. treasury or the State of Alaska.
Greater levels of development and reduced Design Features may increase
disturbance-related costs stemming from impacts on subsistence
resources and public safety. Finally, the Proposed Rule would reduce
costs and uncertainty for leaseholders to develop their leases. This
would increase the value of current undeveloped leases and the demand
for new leases in future lease sales.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for
improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce
burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with
regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations
must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking
process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of
ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these
requirements.
For more detailed information, refer to the regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) prepared for this proposed rule. The RIA has been posted
in the docket for the proposed rule on the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Searchbox, enter Docket number
``BLM-2026-0133'', click the ``Search'' button, open the Docket Folder,
and look under Supporting Documents.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA)
requires that Federal agencies prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis for rules subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 500 et
seq.) if the rule would have a significant economic impact, whether
detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities.
Refer to 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Congress enacted the RFA to ensure that
government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately
burden small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small
governmental jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit enterprises.
The BLM has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to
determine if this rule would result in significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small businesses that are most
likely to be impacted by the Proposed Rule are those holding oil and
gas leases in the NPR-A. Through a search of publicly available
information and on-the-ground knowledge, the BLM estimates that six of
the ten businesses holding leases in the NPR-A may be small entities
according to the size standards. Identification is uncertain as
employment numbers and annual receipts for some companies are
unavailable. There may be indirect impacts on businesses that provide
goods and services to leaseholders such as construction contractors,
engineering firms, and transportation firms. The BLM identified the
number of small firms operating in Alaska in several oil and gas
supporting industries. In addition, five government jurisdictions in
the area are small.
After an initial one-time familiarization cost, the Proposed Rule
would reduce costs and time needed for approving oil and gas
development projects in the NPR-A, which would benefit leaseholders and
operators and could indirectly benefit small government jurisdictions.
The BLM has estimated the potential economic impacts to small entities
using best available information. Based on this analysis, the BLM does
not expect the Proposed Rule to have a significant adverse economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, but small businesses
could benefit by capturing a share of the revenue from increased
production. Please refer to the RIA for more information. At this
stage, the BLM does not expect there to be a significant adverse
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;

[[Page 57105]]

nevertheless, the BLM solicits comments from potentially affected small
entities on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The BLM is
working with SBA's Office of Advocacy to ensure that small business
impacts are properly assessed and considered according to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Please refer to the RIA for more
information.

C. Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (E.O. 14192)

DOI has examined this proposed rulemaking and has tentatively
determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives
outlined in E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.''
This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, would promote prudent
financial management and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.
Therefore, the BLM expects the rule to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory
action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on State,
local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100
million per year. The rule would not have a significant or unique
effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector as
there is no direct implementation of action as a result of this rule. A
statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) is not required.

E. Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally
Protected Property Right--Takings (E.O. 12630)

This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. Therefore, a
takings implication assessment is not required. The proposed rule would
add a new permitting subpart into part 3139. The proposed provisions in
this rule would not cause a taking of private property because the
operations that would be subject to these rules are already subject to
existing lease terms, which expressly require that subsequent lease
activities must be conducted in compliance with subsequently adopted
Federal laws and regulations.
This proposed rule conforms to the terms of the existing leases and
applicable statutes and, as such, the rule is not a government action
capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights.
Therefore, the BLM has determined that the rule would not cause a
taking of private property or require further discussion of takings
implications under E.O. 12630.

F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this proposed rule
would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism
impact statement is not required.
The proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
levels of government. It would not apply to States or local governments
or State or local governmental entities. The rule would affect the
relationship between operators, lessees, and the BLM, but it would not
directly impact the States. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132,
the BLM has determined that this proposed rule would not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a
federalism assessment.

G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

This proposed rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be
written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.

H. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O.
13175 and Departmental Policy)

The Department strives to strengthen its government-to-government
relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation
with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance
and Tribal sovereignty. Further, it is the policy of the Department to
recognize and fulfill its obligations to consult with ANCSA
Corporations on the same basis as Indian Tribes under E.O. 13175.
The BLM evaluated this proposed rule under the Department's
consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 to identify
possible effects of the rule on federally recognized Indian Tribes and
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations. The NPR-A
contains several communities that include Alaska Native Tribes and
ANCSA Corporations and also involves a regional Alaska Native Tribal
Government and a regional ANCSA Corporation. Nuiqsut is the community
closest to current development in the NPR-A, that, along with the
additional communities within the NPR-A of Atqusuk, Wainwright, and
Utqiagvik that experience--directly or indirectly--the beneficial and
adverse effects of oil and gas development.
Therefore, the BLM has provided an opportunity for consultation
with Tribes and ANCSA Corporations during scoping of the Notice of
Intent for the EIS and will continue to provide an opportunity for
consultation with Tribes and ANCSA Corporations. The Tribes and ANCSA
Corporations may request individual consultation regarding the proposed
rule throughout the rulemaking process. The BLM will fully consider the
views of Tribes and ANCSA Corporations in the final rule.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) generally
provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Collections of information include any request or
requirement to obtain, maintain, retain, or report information to an
agency, or disclose information to a third party or to the public (44
U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c)).
This proposed rule contains a new information-collection
requirement that is subject to review by OMB under the PRA. OMB has
approved the existing information-collection requirements contained in
43 CFR part 3130 under OMB control number 1004-0196. The proposed new
information collection requirement along with the resulting public
reporting burdens are outlined below.
1. New Information Collections
43 CFR 3139.5. Contents of a Complete Application Under Subpart 3139
Any applicant may request an approval by filing an APD or ROW
application with BLM's regional state office in Alaska and request
approval under this subpart. These requests are optional and the
applicant can still apply under the existing APD (OMB Control Number
1004-0220) and/or ROW (SF-299/OMB Control Number 0596-0249). The
applicant would only need to provide the new additional information if
applying under the streamlined decision process in the

[[Page 57106]]

proposed rule. The proposed new additional information for an
application under Sec. 3139.5 includes:
<bullet> the size and location of the proposed pad;
<bullet> the number of wells anticipated on the proposed pad;
<bullet> demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the
current NPR-A IAP, including the required operating procedures, and
compliance with the Conditions and Restrictions to Mitigate Adverse
Impacts in Sec. Sec. 3139.9 to 3139.14;
<bullet> any applicable information required by subparts 3162 and
3171 (OMB Control Number 1004-0220);
<bullet> any applicable information required by subpart 2884 for
issuance of a pipeline ROW and subpart 2804 for any other ROW (SF-299);
<bullet> demonstration that the applicant has complied with the
requirements for completing section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (1966, as amended; 54 U.S.C. 306108) and its
implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800;
<bullet> demonstration that the applicant has complied with the
requirements for completing a Plan of Action under the NAGPRA (1990, as
amended; 25 U.S.C. Chapter 32) and its implementing regulations at 43
CFR 10.4(b); and
<bullet> demonstration that the applicant collaborated with the BLM
to support section 7 consultation under the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544).
The above new information collection requirement would not revise
information collected for an APD or a ROW. It would be additional
optional information to accompany an application under subpart 3139.
This additional new information will support the streamlined decision-
making process outlined in this proposed rule for oil and gas
development within the NPR-A.
1. Summary of Burden Changes
Currently, there are 24 annual responses, 223 annual burden hours,
and $1,320 annual non-hour cost burdens approved under OMB Control
Number 1004-0196. The new information collection requirements in Sec.
3139.5 of this proposed rule are estimated to add 1 annual response and
10 annual burden hours resulting in a total of 25 annual responses and
233 annual burden hours. The non-hour cost burdens would remain
unchanged.
The resulting new estimated total information collection burdens
for OMB Control Number 1004-0196 are provided below.
Title of Collection: Oil and Gas Leasing: National Petroleum
Reserve--Alaska (43 CFR part 3130).
OMB Control Number: 1004-0196.
Form Numbers: None.
Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
Respondents/Affected Public: Participants in the oil and gas
leasing program within National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 25.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 25.
Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 30 minutes to
80 hours, depending on activity.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 233.
Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Total Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: $1,320.
If you want to comment on the information-collection requirements
of this proposed rule, please send your comments and suggestions as
indicated in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections as previously described.

J. National Environmental Policy Act

The BLM is preparing an EIS for the proposed rule in accordance
with the NEPA. You may review the draft chapters 1 and 2 of the EIS at
<a href="https://eplanning.blm.gov">https://eplanning.blm.gov</a>. The NEPA Number is DOI-BLM-AK-0000-2026-
0012-EIS. In the EIS, the BLM will evaluate the environmental effects
of the proposed rule, and reasonably foreseeable actions that could be
authorized pursuant to the rule, on BLM-managed lands in the NPR-A. The
BLM will consider reasonably foreseeable effects on subsistence
resources and uses; wildlife and habitat, including caribou, polar
bear, migratory birds, and fish; surface water, wetlands, and
permafrost; air quality; noise; cultural and historic resources; visual
resources; and socioeconomic conditions. The BLM will prepare an EIS
before we publish a final rule.
The EIS for this rulemaking is analyzing four alternatives. Under
the no action alternative, the BLM would continue using the existing
permitting framework, relying on project-specific NEPA reviews without
streamlined approvals. Another alternative will reflect the proposed
rule. Under a third alternative, streamlined permitting would be more
limited, applying only to satellite pads under narrower geographic
conditions, with additional design features and mitigation
requirements, longer timelines for construction initiation, and a hard
cap of 14 production pads that could be approved under the rule. Under
the final alternative, streamlined permitting eligibility would expand
to a broader set of facility types and a wider geographic area, with
shorter construction initiation timelines and no additional design
features beyond existing IAP requirements, resulting in the greatest
development potential among the action alternatives. The BLM has
considered but dismissed other alternatives that did not meet the
purpose and need or were otherwise impracticable; these are briefly
described in draft Chapters 1 and 2 of the EIS. The BLM will publish
the proposed rule and draft EIS Chapters 1 and 2 simultaneously and
will accept comments on both, but comments will be collected
separately. Section 1.3(d) of the DOI NEPA Handbook provides that the
public comment period for draft environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement associated with a rulemaking ``should
generally run concurrently with the public comment period for the
proposed rule.'' However, publication of a draft environmental document
is not mandated by NEPA, the DOI NEPA regulations, or the DOI NEPA
Handbook. Instead, Section 3.3 of DOI NEPA Handbook allows the BLM to
publish ``draft, pre-decisional materials as in the bureau's judgment
may assist in fulfilling its responsibilities under NEPA.'' Consistent
with the President's direction in E.O. 14153, Unleashing Alaska's
Extraordinary Resource Potential, E.O. 14154, Unleashing American
Energy, and E.O. 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, to
reduce obstacles to energy development in Alaska with all due haste,
the BLM is publishing drafts of Chapters 1 and 2 of the environmental
impact statement in order to ensure the public has a chance to provide
comment on the purpose and need and alternatives being considered,
while not delaying publication of the proposed rule. Comments on the
proposed rule should focus on the regulatory framework and be submitted
at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> through the process detailed in this preamble
(see ADDRESSES earlier). Comments on the draft EIS chapters 1 and 2
should address the alternatives, scope of analysis, and potential
environmental concerns the BLM should consider as it completes the
environmental review process and be submitted through the BLM's
ePlanning EIS website (https://ePlanning.blm.gov).
The BLM has also considered Seven County Infrastructure Coalition
v. Eagle

[[Page 57107]]

County, 605 U.S. 168 (2025), which held that NEPA requires an agency to
evaluate the reasonably foreseeable effects of an action but does not
require the agency to evaluate effects of separate projects that are
remote in time or place, fall outside the agency's regulatory
authority, or depend on the independent action of third parties.
Because the Approval process established in Sec. 3166.5 is the
mechanism by which BLM authorizes construction and operation of
Production Sites--rather than a preliminary step preceding a later
site-specific NEPA review--the EIS being prepared in support of this
rule will analyze the reasonably foreseeable effects of Production
Sites subject to the streamlined approval process under this rule. That
analysis, however, does not extend to the downstream effects which are
separate in time and place from, and outside the BLM's regulatory
authority over, the Production Sites that are subject to the
streamlined approval process of this rule. See Id.; Center for
Biological Diversity v. United States BLM, 141 F.4th 976 (9th Cir.
2025); 16 DM 1 section 6.1(k) (providing a definition of ``effects'').
The BLM would appreciate comments that identify alternatives or
criteria, conditions, restrictions, or other requirements that could be
incorporated into alternatives to be considered in the EIS.

K. Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. Order 13211)

Under E.O. 13211, agencies are required to prepare and submit to
OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for significant energy actions. This
statement is to include a detailed statement of ``any adverse effects
on energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in
supply, price increases, and increase use of foreign supplies)'' for
the action and reasonable alternatives and their effects.
Section 4(b) of E.O. 13211 defines a ``significant energy action''
as ``any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal
Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation
of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance
notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking:
(1)(i) that is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or any
successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is
designated by OIRA as a significant energy action.''
Any changes in oil or gas production estimated to result from the
rule's enactment would increase the total U.S. gas production and U.S.
oil production from the increased production in the NPR-A. For these
reasons, we do not expect the proposed rule to adversely impact the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. As such, the rulemaking is not
a ``significant energy action'' as defined in E.O. 13211.

L. Clarity of This Regulation (E.O.s 12866, 12988, and 13563)

We are required by E.O.s 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section
3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential
memorandum of June 1, 1988, to write all rules in plain language. This
means that each rule must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To help
the BLM revise the proposed rule, your comments should be as specific
as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or
sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables
would be useful, etc.

M. Ensuring Lawful Governance (E.O. 14219)

E.O. 14219 requires agencies to prioritize the executive branch's
limited enforcement resources on regulations that are authorized by
constitutional Federal statutes. In accordance with this directive, the
BLM conducted a review of its proposed rule and concluded that it does
comply with the NPRPA and does not undermine the national interest.

N. Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting (E.O. 14270)

E.O. 14270 requires the BLM to incorporate a sunset provision into
regulations promulgated under the Mining Act of 1872, FLPMA, and the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. While 43 CFR part 3130 references FLPMA at
43 U.S.C. 1733 and 1740, these regulations are primarily established
under the NPRPA and its authority for promulgating regulations. As a
result, the BLM did not include a sunset date for this proposed rule
and proposes to remove any reference to FLPMA from part 3130's
authority.
However, the BLM is also considering whether to include a sunset
provision for subpart 3139. As previously noted, the BLM could link
this rule directly to the 2025 IAP and specify that subpart 3139 would
sunset when the existing 2025 IAP is replaced or superseded. The BLM
requests comment on if or how the BLM should apply a sunset provision.
Potential benefits may include ensuring that this streamlined
permitting process remains consistent with future IAP decisions,
reducing the need for later revisions, and providing a clear regulatory
endpoint. Potential costs could include reduced long-term
predictability for operators, the potential need for new rulemaking
when future IAPs are issued, and administrative effort associated with
transitioning to updated regulatory frameworks. Commenters are
encouraged to address whether a sunset provision would support or
hinder implementation of the NPRPA and the effective management of
development in the NPR-A.

43 CFR Chapter II

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3130

Alaska, Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas
exploration, Oil and gas reserves, Public lands-mineral resources,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the BLM proposes to amend
43 CFR part 3130 as follows:

PART 3130--OIL AND GAS LEASING: NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA

0
1. Revise the heading for part 3130 to read as follows:

PART 3130--OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE,
ALASKA

0
2. Revise the authority citation for part 3130 to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6501, et seq.

0
3. Add subpart 3139 to part 3130 to read as follows:

Subpart 3139--Streamlined Permitting Procedures for Production
Sites in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska

Sec.
3139.1 Purpose.
3139.2 Objective.
3139.3 Definitions.
3139.4 Qualified production sites.
3139.5 BLM review and approval of a production site.

[[Page 57108]]

3139.6 Contents of a complete application.
3139.7 Effect of approval.
3139.8 Conditions on approvals.
3139.9 Conditions and restrictions to mitigate adverse effects.
3139.10 General conditions and restrictions.
3139.11 Pad and road design.
3139.12 Pipeline and utility design.
3139.13 Spill prevention and remediation.
3139.14 Operational conditions and restrictions.

Sec. 3139.1 Purpose.

The regulations in this subpart provide a permitting process
specific to the construction and operation of qualifying oil and gas
production sites and associated rights-of-way in the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska (``NPR-A'').

Sec. 3139.2 Objective.

The objective of this subpart is to promote orderly and efficient
energy production from Federal lands in the NPR-A, subject to
conditions and restrictions intended to mitigate adverse effects on
surface resources and subsistence activities.

Sec. 3139.3 Definitions.

Except as provided herein, the definitions in parts 2880, 3130, and
3160 of this title apply to this subpart. As used in this subpart, the
term:
Applicant means, at the time of application, an NPR-A leaseholder
or designated operator that applies for an approval under this subpart.
Approval means the BLM's approval of an application for
construction and operation of a Production Site, which includes (as
applicable) BLM's issuance of a permit to drill (with a surface use
plan of operations) or a right-of-way grant.
Integrated activity plan (IAP) means the type of land use
management plan developed by the BLM to guide appropriate management of
BLM-administered lands and minerals within the NPR-A.
Pad means a drilling site, usually constructed of local materials,
such as gravel.
Permanent oil and gas infrastructure means structures, facilities,
and linear features associated with oil and gas production or
transportation that occupy land for more than one winter season and are
integral to ongoing production operations. Permanent oil and gas
infrastructure includes: production pads; facilities directly
supporting oil or gas production; pipelines used to transport oil, gas,
or produced fluids; and all-season gravel roads supporting ongoing
production activities.
Production site means the infrastructure necessary to allow the
production or transmission to market of Federal oil and gas resources
in the NPR-A, consisting of gravel pads and roads; wells (inclusive of
producers, injectors, and disposal wells); pipelines; and other
infrastructure as required to produce or transmit Federal oil and gas
resources.
Required operating procedure (ROP) means the identified
requirements in the IAP that must be carried out during proposal
implementation and is based on laws, regulations, executive orders, BLM
planning manuals, policies, instruction memoranda, and applicable
planning documents.

Sec. 3139.4 Qualified production sites.

A qualified production site must meet the following requirements:
(a) The proposed infrastructure must meet the definition of a
production site in Sec. 3139.3;
(b) The entire location of the proposed production site must be
within 25 miles of existing permanent oil and gas infrastructure;
(c) The production site must include wells, or infrastructure to
transport production from existing or proposed wells; and
(d) The proposed production site must be located entirely outside
lands designated as no surface occupancy in the IAP for the NPR-A,
unless essential road or pipeline crossings are allowed by the IAP.

Sec. 3139.5 BLM review and approval of a production site.

(a) Any applicant may request approval by filing an application for
permit to drill (APD) or right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM
Alaska state office and explicitly stating in the application that the
request is for approval under subpart 3139.
(b) The BLM will review the application to determine whether:
(1) It meets the definition of a production site in Sec. 3139.3;
(2) It qualifies for permitting as a production site under Sec.
3139.4; and
(3) It is complete as set forth in Sec. 3139.6.
(c) If the BLM determines that the application does not meet the
definition of a qualified production site, does not qualify for
permitting as a production site under Sec. 3139.4, or the application
is not complete, the BLM will notify the applicant of the specific
grounds of disqualification and each item of missing information in
writing within 21 days of receipt of the application.
(d) If the applicant does not provide the completed application, or
request an extension, within 30 days of receipt of the BLM's
notification that the application is not complete, the BLM will return
the application unapproved.
(e) If, after the review conducted under paragraph (b), the BLM
determines that the application meets the definition of a production
site, qualifies for a production site under these regulations, and the
application is complete, the BLM must issue an approval or an approval
with conditions within 60 days of the date of receipt of a complete
application. This 60-day timeframe will prevail over any other
regulatory timeframe associated with individual components of a
complete application (listed in Sec. 3139.6) that provides a shorter
timeframe.
(f) In issuing approvals under this section, the BLM will comply
with Sec. Sec. 3162.3-1(g), 2804.25, and 2884.20(a), (b), and (c) of
this title, as applicable.

Sec. 3139.6 Contents of a complete application.

A complete application must include the following information, and
the BLM will not require applicants to submit additional information
beyond the requirements of this section:
(a) The size and location of the proposed pad;
(b) The number of wells anticipated on the proposed pad;
(c) Demonstration that the application is in compliance with the
requirements of the current NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) when
submitted, including the required operating procedures (ROPs), and will
comply with the conditions and restrictions to mitigate adverse impacts
listed in Sec. Sec. 3139.9 to 3139.14;
(d) One or both of the following, as appropriate:
(1) A complete APD for a well as required by subparts 3162 and
3171;
(2) A complete ROW application as required by subpart 2884 for
issuance of a pipeline ROW and subpart 2804 for any other ROW.
(e) Sufficient data to allow the BLM to comply with the
requirements for completing section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (1966, as amended; 54 U.S.C. 306108) and its
implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800;
(f) Sufficient data to allow the BLM to comply with the
requirements for completing a Plan of Action under the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990, as amended; 25 U.S.C.
Chapter 32) and its implementing regulations at 43 CFR 10.4(b) if the
proposed project is likely to result in a discovery of Tribal ancestral
human remains or cultural items; and

[[Page 57109]]

(g) Demonstration that the applicant provides the information
necessary for the BLM to comply with its section 7 consultation
requirements under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1544).

Sec. 3139.7 Effect of approval.

(a) An approval under Sec. 3139.4 constitutes approval of a
production site under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of
1976, and will not require further review or approval under parts 2800,
2880, or 3160, or subpart 3171 of this title.
(b) An applicant may only modify a production site by following the
procedures in Sec. 3139.4.
(c)The BLM's determination under Sec. 3139.5 that a proposed
production site qualifies under this subpart confirms that the
environmental effects of constructing and operating the site fall
within the scope of impacts analyzed in the EIS prepared for this
rulemaking. No additional project-level NEPA analysis or documentation
is required for the BLM to issue its approval under this section.

Sec. 3139.8 Conditions on approvals.

(a) Approved production sites must comply with all applicable lease
terms, IAP lease stipulations, and relevant ROPs from the IAP.
(b) Construction of a production site approved under this subpart
must begin no later than 4 years after the date of approval.
Construction is deemed to begin the first day of activity to construct
a pad or the access road occurring within the boundary of the NPR-A.
(c) The BLM may apply site-specific conditions of approval to the
APDs or terms and conditions of approval to the ROW that reflect
necessary measures for both surface and downhole development within the
NPR-A.
(d) Any changes to the approved APD or ROW must be requested of and
approved by the BLM as required under parts 2800, 2880, and 3160.

Sec. 3139.9 Conditions and restrictions to mitigate adverse effects.

The applicant will comply with all conditions and restrictions to
mitigate adverse effects, as set forth in the IAP's ROPs and Sec. Sec.
3139.10 through 3139.14, which satisfy the requirements of sections
6504(a) and 6506a(b) of the NPRPA. If requested by the applicant, the
authorized officer may grant exemptions from, or deviations to, the
applicable conditions and restrictions set forth in these sections or
the IAP's ROPs. The BLM will make a decision on these requests within
30 days. The authorized officer may grant these requests if:
(a) A substitute condition or restriction is equally or more
effective in mitigating adverse effects;
(b) Advances in technology have rendered the condition or
restriction for which a deviation or exemption is requested
unnecessary; or
(c) The condition or restriction for which a deviation or exemption
is requested is otherwise not applicable to the approved production
site.

Sec. 3139.10 General conditions and restrictions.

The applicant will comply with the following general conditions and
restrictions to mitigate adverse effects:
(a) Protect cultural resources sites with a 500-foot avoidance
buffer;
(b) Design infrastructure placement that considers wildlife habitat
types, using best available data;
(c) Design facilities to minimize nesting, denning, or sheltering
opportunities for ravens, raptors, and foxes;
(d) Provide the BLM authorized officer with a geographic
information system (GIS) compatible infrastructure location information
to facilitate agency monitoring and assessment of wildlife movements
through the project area construction and operations;
(e) Use the results of cultural and paleontological resource
surveys to inform project design and facilities placement and avoid
known cultural and paleontological resources during ground-disturbing
activities and ice road construction;
(f) Before submitting an application, provide project information
to, and offer to meet with, affected communities, Tribes, and Alaska
Native corporations within the North Slope and document those
engagement efforts in the application.
(g) Apply non-discriminatory hiring policies to ensure fair access
for all qualified candidates, including Alaska Natives or local hires;
(h) Provide reasonable use of project roads to local community
residents for access to subsistence areas and NPR-A leaseholders and
designated operators for permitted NPR-A leaseholder activities; and
(i) Provide for reasonable and equitable access and use of
transportation corridors approved and built under this subpart for all
NPR-A lessees and designated operators, including co-location or shared
use of roads, pipelines, and other transportation or production-related
infrastructure, where such access can be accommodated without
compromising safety, environmental protections, or existing operational
commitments.

Sec. 3139.11 Pad and road design.

The applicant will comply with the following conditions and
restrictions to mitigate adverse effects when constructing pads and
roads:
(a) Implement strict guidelines for travel on ice roads to avoid
tundra damage, including ice road driver training, speed and weight
limits, and road edge delineators along both sides of roads;
(b) Design ice roads that are a minimum of 6 inches thick to
eliminate or minimize impacts to wetlands and tundra during winter
construction;
(c) Route ice roads to avoid shrub areas and large areas of tussock
tundra;
(d) Design fish-passage culverts in consultation with the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game;
(e) Install cross-drainage culverts as needed to maintain natural
surface drainage to mitigate the risk of sheet flow interruption and
thermokarsting;
(f) Place gravel roads perpendicular to the general flow direction
when crossing natural drainages to maintain the existing flow patterns
and characteristics;
(g) Place bridges and river crossings at narrow river sections to
avoid gravel fill and minimize the number of piers/pilings placed below
ordinary high water.
(h) Elevate on-pad heated buildings or structures using pilings, to
prevent or reduce heat transfer to underlying soils and preserve the
thermal integrity of the permafrost;
(i) Implement dust control measures for gravel roads and pads to
reduce fugitive dust that can settle on vegetation or snow and increase
thermal conductivity;
(j) Use sufficient thickness for gravel pads and roads to maintain
a stable thermal regime by insulating the underlying tundra and
offsetting the loss of insulating effect caused by the compression of
the vegetated tundra beneath the gravel; and
(k) Include subsistence tundra access ramps and pullouts on gravel
roads, with locations based on community input, to allow local
residents access to the areas adjacent to roadways.

Sec. 3139.12 Pipeline and utility design.

The applicant will comply with the following conditions and
restrictions to mitigate adverse effects when constructing pipelines
and installing utilities.
(a) Suspend communications and power cables from horizontal support
members atop vertical support members

[[Page 57110]]

to avoid additional fill associated with utility poles;
(b) Minimize the electrocution hazard by suspending electrical
distribution lines from pipe racks or burying cables off pad instead of
using overhead lines;
(c) Design pipelines to minimize redundant parallel pipelines;
(d) Use ice roads and pads to install vertical support members for
pipelines;
(e) Construct pipelines above-ground to minimize permafrost
impacts; and
(f) Use a muted (i.e., non-reflective) coating on pipelines to
avoid glare.

Sec. 3139.13 Spill prevention and remediation.

The applicant will comply with the following conditions and
restrictions to mitigate adverse effects from spills.
(a) Build and operate pipelines with the best available technology
for detecting and preventing corrosion or mechanical defects to
minimize impacts related to point source pollution from oil spills or
leaks;
(b) Install pipeline equipment to minimize spill risk at major
stream crossings;
(c) Immediately and completely clean up all spills, recovering 100
percent of spilled material for recycling when possible;
(d) Equip and maintain oil-spill response equipment intended for
use in winter conditions for effective use in Arctic conditions (i.e.,
in a manner to prevent the freezing or icing of the equipment); and
(e) Designate a trained spill response team and hazardous-materials
response team, consisting of trained volunteer spill and hazardous
materials response personnel on site.

Sec. 3139.14 Operational conditions and restrictions.

The applicant will comply with the following conditions and
restrictions to mitigate adverse effects during operations.
(a) Construct gravel roads, pads, and pipelines during the winter
season, supported by access via ice roads;
(b) Use ice roads and pads to support construction, including using
ice pads for construction camps, equipment staging, gravel stockpiles,
and construction activities at bridge crossings;
(c) Inject produced water into the reservoir and do not discharge
it to surface lands, surface waters, or marine waters;
(d) Ensure drill cuttings are temporarily stored on ice and removed
prior to spring breakup;
(e) Align pipe racks adjacent to pipeline racks so vertical support
members are in line to reduce obstructions to caribou and subsistence
user movements;
(f) Ensure current communications protocols for helicopters, fixed-
wing aircraft, and marine-vessel traffic are adequate to address local
community concerns about traffic-related impacts to subsistence
activities;
(g) Equip vehicles with block heaters and plug-in vehicle engines
when temperatures are -30 [deg]F or above to avoid idling, conserve
fuel, and reduce emissions; and
(h) Use electric solenoids or instrument air driven pneumatics
instead of natural gas driven pneumatics.

Lanny E. Erdos,
Director, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement,
Exercising Authority of the Assistant Secretary--Land and Minerals
Management.
[FR Doc. 2026-18261 Filed 9-4-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-10-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on September 8, 2026.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.