Revision of Regulations for Planning, Programming, Budgeting

Issuing agencies

Abstract

The BLM proposes to amend existing regulations that establish the procedures to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, as amended (FLPMA). We solicit comment on all aspects of this proposed rule.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 216 (Tuesday, November 10, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 10, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72495-72510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-22860]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 1600

[A2407-014-004-065516, #O2509-014-004-125222.1]
RIN 1004-AF53


Revision of Regulations for Planning, Programming, Budgeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The BLM proposes to amend existing regulations that establish 
the procedures to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to 
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, as amended (FLPMA). We 
solicit comment on all aspects of this proposed rule.

DATES: Send your comments on this proposed rule to the BLM on or before 
January 11, 2027. The BLM is not obligated to consider any comments 
received after this date in making its decision on the final rule.
    If you wish to comment on the information-collection requirements 
in this proposed rule, please note that the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) is required to make a decision concerning the information-
collections contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 60 days 
after publication of this

[[Page 72496]]

proposed rule in the Federal Register. Therefore, comments should be 
submitted to OMB by December 10, 2026.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    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-AF53.
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the 
Search box, enter ``BLM-2026-0298'' and click the ``Search'' button. 
Follow the instructions at this website. Pursuant to the Administrative 
Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a plain language summary of the 
proposed rule is also available on the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
    Comments on Information-Collection Requirements: Written comments 
and recommendations for the information-collection requirements should 
be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to 
<a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this information-collection by 
selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by 
using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacie McIntosh, Deputy Assistant 
Director of Resources and Planning, The BLM Directorate of Resources 
and Planning, Division of Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, by 
phone at (208) 373-3818, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adcfc1c0f2c5dcf2ddc1ccc3c3c4c3cadfd8c1c8edcfc1c083cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d6f616052657c527d616c636364636a7f7861684d6f6160236a627b">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> for 
information relating to the BLM planning program and information about 
the proposed rule. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, 
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. 
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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of land, the most of 
any Federal agency. This land, known as the National System of Public 
Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. The 
BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate 
throughout the nation.
    FLPMA is the BLM's ``organic act'' that directs management of the 
public lands on the basis of multiple-use and sustained yield, unless 
otherwise specified by law (43 U.S.C. 1732(a)). Multiple use as defined 
in FLPMA ``means the management of the public lands and their various 
resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will 
best meet the present and future needs of the American people; making 
the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources 
or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient 
latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs 
and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the 
resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that 
takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for 
renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, 
recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and 
natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and 
coordinated management of the various resources without permanent 
impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the 
environment with consideration being given to the relative values of 
the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will 
give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output'' (43 
U.S.C. 1702(c)). FLPMA defines ``public lands'' as ``any land and 
interest in land owned by the United States within the several States 
and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of 
Land Management, without regard to how the United States acquired 
ownership'' (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)). FLPMA defines ``sustained yield'' to 
mean ``the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level 
annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of 
the public lands consistent with multiple use'' (43 U.S.C. 1702(h)).
    Section 202 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712) directs the Secretary of the 
Interior to ``develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use 
plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public 
lands'' (43 U.S.C. 1712(a)) and outlines requirements for developing 
and revising land use plans. Section 202(f) (43 U.S.C. 1712(f)) directs 
the Secretary of the Interior, by regulation, to ``establish procedures 
. . . to give Federal, State, and local governments and the public, 
adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the 
formulation of plans and programs relating to the management of the 
public lands.''
    The BLM administers its planning program under the regulations at 
Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1600, Planning, 
Programming, Budgeting. The BLM first developed land use planning 
regulations in 1979 (44 FR 46386, August 7, 1979). These regulations 
established the term ``resource management plan'' for the land use 
plans directed by FLPMA, to replace the then-existing ``management 
framework plans.'' The BLM made significant revisions to the 
regulations in 1983 to clarify the planning process and ``eliminate 
burdensome, outdated, and unneeded provisions'' (48 FR 20364, May 5, 
1983) and revised them again in 2005 to make clear the role of 
cooperating agencies in the land use planning process and to emphasize 
the importance of working with Federal and State agencies and local and 
tribal governments through cooperating agency relationships in 
developing, amending, and revising the BLM's resource management plans 
(70 FR 14561, March 23, 2005). The BLM conducted a substantial revision 
to the land use planning regulations in 2016 (70 FR 89580, December 12, 
2016) which was subsequently disapproved under the Congressional Review 
Act (82 FR 60554, December 21, 2017). In 2024, the BLM revised the 
portion of the planning regulations governing the designation and 
management of areas of critical environmental concern, 43 CFR 1610.7-2 
(89 FR 40308, May 9, 2024). In 2026, the BLM completed a deregulatory 
rulemaking process regarding the designation and management of areas of 
critical environmental concern, issuing a final rule that returned the 
BLM to the previous text of this regulation (91 FR 25787, May 12, 
2026).
    This proposed rule is intended to streamline, modernize, and better 
align the BLM's land use planning process with section 202 of FLPMA (43 
U.S.C. 1712). The proposed rule would eliminate procedures not required 
by statute that impose delays and roadblocks and remove unnecessary 
program-specific procedures that could be better addressed in other 
parts of the regulations while improving the BLM's coordination with 
Federal, State, and local governments, and tribes. The proposed rule 
would also improve the readability of the planning regulations.

II. Section-by-Section Discussion

    The proposed rule would revise part 1600, including subparts 1601 
(Planning) and 1610 (Resource Management Planning), and establish a new 
subpart at 1611 (Amending Land Use Plans to Address Emergencies). The 
BLM is proposing a number of minor changes to modernize language, 
clarify ambiguities, and eliminate redundancies.

[[Page 72497]]

    The proposed rule includes revisions to section designations and 
organization of the provisions to bring the proposed regulations into 
compliance with the Office of the Federal Register's Document Drafting 
Handbook requirements. This includes the removal of hyphens in the 
existing section designations and adding structural symmetry in which 
we insert some [Reserved] sections to fill in gaps in the CFR 
numbering.
    The BLM also proposes the following substantive changes to 
individual sections of Part 1600.

Part 1600--Planning, Programming, Budgeting

    The BLM is proposing to remove ``programming'' and ``budgeting'' 
from the title of this part to accurately reflect that the existing and 
proposed regulations do not address agency programming or budgeting.
Subpart 1601--Planning
Section 1601.0-1 Purpose
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1601.10 and 
revise it to clarify land use planning terminology consistent with BLM 
practice and to include specific direction from FLPMA for the 
establishment of land use plans.
    In Sec.  1601.10 and throughout these proposed regulatory changes, 
the BLM is proposing revisions to use consistent terminology concerning 
the ``development, revision, amendment, and maintenance'' of land use 
plans. The ``development'' of a land use plan occurs when BLM first 
establishes a land use plan for an area of public lands or first 
establishes a land use plan under new authority, such as for lands 
within the boundaries of a new area designated for special management 
by Congress. The ``revision'' of a land use plan occurs when the BLM 
makes substantial changes to the scope of the decisions for public 
lands currently managed under a land use plan. The ``amendment'' of a 
land use plan occurs when the BLM makes limited changes to a land use 
plan. The BLM is proposing to clarify that ``maintenance'' of a land 
use plan occurs when the BLM corrects errors and is limited to further 
refining the documentation of a decision of the approved plan. These 
corrections and refinement of documentation must not result in an 
expansion in the scope of resource uses or restrictions or change the 
decisions. Maintenance of land use plans is also being proposed to 
document land use or restrictions of uses on the public lands 
established by law or Presidential Proclamation.
    The BLM is also proposing to remove the phrase ``use of existing 
plans'' to clarify that the purpose of these regulations is to provide 
the process for approving or changing land use plans, not the 
procedures for implementing land use plans.
Section 1601.0-2 Objective
    Section 1601.0-2 establishes the objective of land use planning. 
The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1601.20 and edit it 
to clarify that land use plans ``provide by tracts or areas for the use 
of the public lands'' (43 U.S.C. 1712) and to remove clauses not 
necessary in regulation. The BLM is also proposing to relocate the last 
sentence in existing Sec.  1601.0-2 that explains that ``resource 
management plans are designed to guide and control future management 
actions and the development of subsequent, more detailed and limited 
scope plans for resources and uses'' to a new proposed Sec.  1610.10, 
``Land use plans.'' The intent of this section is to state the 
objective of these regulations not the resource management plans 
themselves.
Section 1601.0-3 Authority
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1601.30 and 
make minor changes to include all sections of FLPMA that authorize 
establishing these land use planning regulations and to remove the 
reference to the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 because it 
does not provide authority for land use planning procedures. With this 
proposed regulatory revision, the BLM is removing all references to 
non-planning requirements from the part 1600 regulations and has 
removed all regulations specific to coal and mining from this part. 
With these proposed changes, the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 
1976 and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 are not 
specific authority for this Part of the regulations. While these other 
statutes provide authority relevant to the BLM's management of the 
public lands, they are not necessary in this section. Moreover, as 
described in more detail in the associated sections below, the BLM is 
proposing to relocate portions of existing Sec. Sec.  1610.5-7(c) and 
1610.2(j) and (k) to 43 CFR 3420. These changes also reduce barriers to 
efficiently completing land use plans by eliminating unnecessary 
references.
Section 1601.0-4 Responsibilities
    The BLM is proposing to remove Sec.  1601.0-4 because it provides 
internal BLM procedures and delegations that are more appropriate in 
the BLM's delegation manual and policy and are not required by statute. 
Removal of this section reduces the regulatory burden on the BLM and 
allows State Directors to manage internal work for land use planning as 
appropriate for their State.
Section 1601.0-5 Definitions
    The BLM is proposing to remove Sec.  1601.0-5 to remove definitions 
in this section that are already provided in statute (e.g., repetition 
of FLPMA's definition of `multiple use'); to remove terminology no 
longer used in these proposed regulations due to other changes the BLM 
is proposing (e.g., `resource area or field office'); and, where 
relevant, to relocate regulatory requirements in the existing 
`definitions' section (e.g., `conformity or conformance') that the BLM 
wants to retain to other sections of the regulations. Removal of this 
section substantially streamlines the planning regulations and reduces 
redundancies that add length and not clarity to the existing regulatory 
procedures.
Section 1601.0-6 Environmental Impact Statement
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1601.40, 
retitle it to ``Environmental compliance,'' and to remove the existing 
language in this section that requires the BLM to prepare an 
environmental impact statement every time the BLM develops or revises a 
plan. Instead, the BLM would be guided by the Department of the 
Interior's NEPA procedures, 91 FR 8738 (February 24, 2026) to ensure 
that it complies with NEPA when completing land use planning. This 
proposed change is deregulatory and it would not prevent the BLM from 
preparing an environmental impact statement for a plan revision; 
rather, it would allow the BLM to determine how best to comply with 
NEPA during land use planning, consistent with applicable law and 
agency NEPA procedures and the specific facts of the individual 
planning process the BLM is undertaking consistent with the procedures 
in these regulations.
Section 1601.0-7 Scope
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1601.50 and 
edit it for clarity, including changes to reflect the terminology the 
BLM has historically used for land use planning work. The BLM is 
specifically proposing to add language to paragraph (a) to clarify that 
these regulations apply only to BLM-administered lands that are subject 
to section 202 of FLPMA. Thus, for example, these regulations do not 
apply to public lands on the north slope of Alaska within the National 
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska because those lands are

[[Page 72498]]

exempt from section 202 of FLPMA per the Naval Petroleum Reserves 
Production Act of 1976.
Section 1601.0-8 Principles
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1601.60 and 
edit it for clarity, including changes to incorporate terminology for 
planning work to align more consistently with language in sections 103 
and 202 of FLPMA. The BLM proposes removing the statement regarding the 
scope of impacts because the scope of impacts is driven by the BLM's 
determination of what is necessary to understand significance and make 
an informed decision for compliance with NEPA.
Section 1601.70 Administrative Remedy
    The BLM is proposing a new Sec.  1601.70 to relocate and clarify 
existing regulatory direction in existing Sec.  1610.5-2(b) that a land 
use plan decision is the final decision of the Department of the 
Interior and not subject to appeal or review to the Office of Hearings 
and Appeals (OHA), including the Interior Board of Land Appeals. The 
proposed language adding ``and is not reviewable by the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals'' is not a substantive change but merely clarifies 
the existing scope of OHA's jurisdiction.
Subpart 1610--Resource Management Planning
    The BLM is proposing an editorial change to the title of this 
subpart to restore use of the term ``land use planning'' as it appears 
in FLPMA rather than continuing to refer to new terminology in the 
regulations of ``resource management planning.''
Section 1610.1 Resource Management Planning Guidance
    The BLM is proposing to remove existing Sec.  1610.1 because it 
provides internal BLM procedures and delegations that are more 
appropriate in the BLM's delegation manual and policy and are not 
required by statute. For example, the current regulations instruct how 
the State Director would communicate instructions to a Field Manager 
regarding the planning effort and describe the permissive scope of an 
interdisciplinary team. This internal process is not required by law or 
necessary or appropriate for inclusion in the regulations. The early 
identification of key information during the planning process, such as 
information needed for analysis, is also duplicative of proposed Sec.  
1610.41, which would require the BLM to assemble resource, 
environmental, social, economic, and institutional data when preparing 
for planning. The BLM would still require early identification of key 
information, but this change eliminates internal workload procedures 
that are more appropriate for policy.
    Removing this section also removes the existing regulatory 
direction that a resource management plan be prepared and maintained on 
a resource or field office areas basis, unless the State Director 
authorizes a more appropriate area. While under the current regulations 
the State Director may determine the appropriate planning area, this 
change removes internal delegations that are more appropriate for 
policy and provides more flexibility for the BLM to determine a 
planning area boundary that is appropriate for the particular planning 
effort.
    Additionally, the BLM is proposing a new section to be located at 
1610.10 called ``Land use plans'' which would incorporate language from 
FLPMA's definition of land use plans and clarify the role and content 
of those plans. To clarify and ensure consistency across the BLM, 
paragraph (a) of this proposed section provides that land use plans 
consist of: (1) desired resource use and condition objectives, (2) 
designations identified by statute, regulation, or national policy of 
land areas for exclusive purposes or uses (e.g., establishment of areas 
of critical environmental concern under FLPMA; establishment of herd 
management areas under BLM regulations for Protection, Management, and 
Control of Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros at 43 CFR 4710.1; or 
establishment of corridor designations for BLM scenic and backcountry 
byways, consistent with BLM's Byways Handbook 8357-1), (3) lands 
allocated for allowable uses, and (4) management direction for the 
general management practices or program constraints needed to achieve 
the resource use and condition objectives. Language in existing Sec.  
1601.0-5(n)(8) providing that the BLM will establish intervals and 
standards for monitoring and evaluating the plan to determine the 
effectiveness of the plan and the need for amendment or revision is 
proposed for relocation to paragraph (b) of this proposed section. Most 
of the concepts in this section are currently scattered across the 
existing planning regulations, including the definition section. This 
proposed section would also clarify that BLM does not generally make 
implementation-level decisions through the land use planning process, 
which is consistent with the BLM's practice. Direction in the existing 
regulations that approval of land use plans is the responsibility of 
State Directors would be clarified and added to paragraph (c) of this 
proposed section. Finally, paragraph (d) would clarify that land use 
plans are titled as resource management plans to reduce any confusion 
about these two terms and to ensure consistent use of these terms 
across the BLM.
Section 1610.2 Public Participation
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1610.20 and 
edit it to outline procedures for meaningful participation 
opportunities consistent with FLPMA section 202(a), which requires the 
BLM to develop and revise land use plans ``with public involvement'' 
and section 309(e) which requires the BLM by regulation, to establish 
``procedures, including public hearings where appropriate, to give the 
Federal, State and local governments and the public adequate notice and 
an opportunity to comment upon the formulation of standards and 
criteria for, and to participate in, the preparation and execution of 
plans and programs for, and the management of, the public lands'' while 
greatly reducing internal administrative workflows and overburdensome 
procedures that were not providing meaningful benefits to the process.
    The BLM is proposing to remove references to NEPA in this section 
and throughout the proposed rule to allow the BLM to comply with NEPA 
as appropriate for the individual planning effort. The BLM is also 
proposing to remove the requirement to publish notice in the Federal 
Register at the initiation of the planning process and the existing 
requirement for public review of the proposed planning criteria and a 
30-day public comment period on any significant changes made to a 
proposed plan or amendment prior to issuing a decision. The 90-day 
public comment period requirement for all draft land use plans, 
revisions and amendments supported by environmental impact statements 
in existing Sec.  1610.2(e) is also proposed for removal. A 90-day 
comment period is not required by statute and will make it more 
difficult for the BLM to meet the statutory deadlines set by NEPA, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)), including the direction to complete an 
environmental assessment in one year and an environmental impact 
statement in two years, unless the deadlines are extended in accordance 
with that Act.
    Consistent with direction in section 202 of FLPMA and 309(e), the 
BLM would continue to provide opportunities for public involvement, but 
the proposed rule would allow greater flexibility to determine public

[[Page 72499]]

participation that is appropriate to the areas and people involved in 
the specific planning process. The BLM is proposing that opportunity 
for public participation, at a minimum, must be provided at the outset 
of the planning process (consistent with proposed Sec.  1610.42) and 
the BLM would provide a public involvement opportunity through the 
protest process upon publication of a proposed plan, revision, or 
amendment (consistent with proposed Sec.  1610.51). The BLM proposes to 
retain a minimum 30-calendar-day comment period when a public comment 
period is required (consistent with proposed Sec.  1610.20(a)(1)) or 
the BLM elects to provide one, and an ability to extend the comment 
period. Under proposed paragraph (b)(1), an extension may not exceed an 
additional 30-calendar-days to help ensure BLM can meet the deadlines 
established in NEPA. The current regulations require a greater number 
of minimum required public comment periods and can result in delays to 
the planning process that also do not benefit informed decision-making. 
For example, the current regulations require planning efforts, 
including amendments, that are supported by environmental impact 
statements to hold a minimum of a 90-day public comment period on the 
draft plan. A 90-day minimum public comment period is more than double 
the public comment period formerly required under Council on 
Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the procedural 
requirements of NEPA, which the Council on Environmental Quality 
rescinded (91 FR 618, January 8, 2026), and there is no corresponding 
requirement in either NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) or the Department of 
the Interior's 2026 NEPA procedures (91 FR 8,738, February. 24, 2026). 
With the requirement to complete environmental impact statements in two 
years absent an extension (42 U.S.C. 4336a(g)(1)), a 90-day public 
comment period is burdensome to BLM's ability to comply with NEPA. 
Furthermore, use of a long comment period as reliance for quality 
public engagement is not always the right approach for each planning 
effort. The proposed procedures introduce flexibility to the process so 
that the BLM can formulate public involvement in a manner that 
appropriately supports the planning effort. The proposed text would 
allow the BLM the flexibility to determine for each planning effort if 
the minimum required public engagement would be adequate or what public 
engagement beyond the minimum required would best support the planning 
effort while also ensuring the BLM can meet our statutory requirements 
under NEPA for timely completion of analysis.
    The BLM recognizes that its approach to providing opportunities for 
public involvement in the proposed rule represents a change from the 
approach in the existing rule. While both approaches are consistent 
with the requirements of FLPMA, based on its experience the BLM 
believes that its proposed approach is likely to provide greater 
flexibility to tailor the public participation process to each planning 
effort, reduce regulatory burdens, and allow the BLM to more 
efficiently meet other statutory requirements. The BLM specifically 
seeks public comment on these proposed changes and how the BLM can 
structure opportunities for public involvement, including public 
comment in a manner that meets BLM's statutory obligations, reduces 
regulatory burden and allows for completion of the planning process in 
an efficient manner consistent with all applicable laws.
    The BLM is also proposing an option in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section for a public meeting in lieu of a public comment period when 
permissible under other authorities--such as NEPA--and when adequate 
notice to the public is provided. This proposed paragraph does not 
prevent the BLM from offering both a public meeting and public comment 
period when deemed appropriate. This proposed paragraph provides 
flexibility for the BLM to streamline planning efforts when 
appropriate. For example, the BLM may need to conduct amendments to 
consider changes to land tenure decisions to allow small parcels of 
public lands to be made available for disposal, sometimes as small as a 
half-acre, to address unintentional trespass or sales to communities. A 
plan amendment of this nature is generally only of interest to the 
highly localized community, and a public meeting may provide for more 
engaging public involvement than a 30-day written comment period and 
allow the process to progress more quickly. The proposed paragraph 
opens flexibility to the BLM to avoid delays to planning efforts, 
particularly where there is only localized interest in the decision BLM 
is considering.
    In order to focus these regulations on planning procedures, the BLM 
is proposing to remove paragraphs (j) and (k) of this section, which 
relate specifically to coal resources. The BLM planning regulations are 
not an appropriate location for this program-specific regulation, and 
it would decrease confusion by moving these coal related provisions to 
the program specific regulations. Specifically, the BLM proposes 
relocating the last three sentences of paragraph (j) to appear verbatim 
at the end of the current paragraph at 43 CFR 3420.1-4(e)(4)(i). The 
BLM also proposes relocating the second and third sentences in 
paragraph (k) and the three subsequent parts to 43 CFR 3420.1-5 
verbatim, excepting the removal of the internal reference ``Sec.  
3420.1-5 of'' from the relocated sentence as the cross-reference is no 
longer necessary. The BLM is proposing to remove the first sentences of 
paragraphs (j) and (k) because they are duplicative of existing 
regulations in part 3420. These proposed changes are not substantive 
and would not change existing practice.
Section 1610.3 Coordination With Other Federal Agencies, State and 
Local Governments, and Indian Tribes
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1610.30 and 
edit it to introduce the following subsections that clarify differences 
between coordination and consistency as required by FLPMA, and to make 
clear that these FLPMA responsibilities are separate from 
responsibilities of other authorities, such as involving government 
entities through NEPA's cooperating agency status.
Section 1610.3-1 Coordination of Planning Efforts
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1610.31 and 
make changes to better align this provision's description of the BLM's 
responsibilities for coordination during the land use planning process 
with the BLM's obligations under FLPMA section 202(c)(9). The proposed 
regulations provide a clear definition of coordination with other 
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Tribes that is 
distinct to the BLM's land use planning process and is based on 
Congress's recognition that state, local, and tribal government 
entities play a unique and necessary role in land use planning. As 
stated by the Public Land Law Review Commission \1\ in the 1970 Report 
to Congress: \2\ ``First, these

[[Page 72500]]

governments represent the people and institutions that will be most 
directly affected by Federal programs growing out of land use 
planning'' (page 61). This intent is reflected in the proposed 
paragraph (a)(1), which explains that coordination in the planning 
process means inviting the participation of governmental entities 
regarding the general approach of the planning effort as 
representatives of people and institutions that are impacted by the 
BLM's management of public lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Public Land Law Review Commission was established as an 
independent federal agency by an act of September 19, 1964 (78 Stat. 
982). Its function was to review the federal public land laws and 
regulations and recommend a public land policy. For more background, 
see National Archives, Records of the Public Land Law Review, 
available at <a href="http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/409.html">http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/409.html</a>.
    \2\ Public Land Law Review Commission. One third of the Nation's 
land; a report to the President and to the Congress. 1970. <a href="https://archive.org/details/onethirdofnation3431unit">https://archive.org/details/onethirdofnation3431unit</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BLM is also proposing to clarify the direction to consider 
plans of State and local governments and Indian tribes in this section. 
The BLM believes that the consideration of these plans is part of the 
coordination process that occurs during land use planning. The BLM 
would also clarify that the definition of ``approved resource-related 
plans'' in paragraph (b)(1) of this section includes approved resource-
related ``policies.'' These proposed regulations also use the term 
``approved resource-related plans'' or ``plans'' when referring to 
plans or policies adopted by State, local, and tribal governments in 
discussions at Sec.  1610.41 ``Preparing for planning'', Sec.  1610.52 
``Governor's consistency review'', and Sec.  1610.53 ``Local 
governments' consistency review.''
    The BLM also proposes a terminology change from ``officially 
approved and adopted resource related plans'' to just ``approved 
resource-related plans'' based on changes in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section that a plan must be ``prepared and approved pursuant to and in 
accordance with authorization provided by State, local, or Tribal 
constitutions, legislation, or charters for the relevant governmental 
entity'' and, as such, believes the qualifiers of ``officially'' and 
``adopted'' as unnecessary. This change occurs throughout the 
regulatory text.
    FLPMA's coordination requirements ensure the BLM coordinates its 
planning with the planning and management programs of other federal 
agencies, state and local governments, and tribes. While this 
coordination may inform consistency, FLPMA has a separate requirement 
that BLM land use plans be consistent with State and local plans to the 
maximum extent the Secretary finds consistent with Federal law and the 
purposes of FLPMA, as discussed in further detail below.
Section 1610.3-2 Consistency Requirements
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1610.32 and 
make general revisions to focus this section on consistency and 
complement changes proposed to other sections. The BLM is proposing 
specific changes to clarify that FLPMA's consistency requirements are 
distinct from the BLM's coordination responsibilities contained in 
proposed Sec.  1610.31. To clarify that this section outlines 
procedures for how the BLM should seek consistency with State and local 
plans, the BLM is proposing to change the section title to ``Seeking 
consistency with State and local plans.'' The BLM has also made 
editorial revisions to the existing regulatory text to include the 
terms ``to the maximum extent consistent with Federal law and the 
purposes of [the Federal Land Policy and Management Act]'' when 
describing consistency with approved state and local resource related 
plans. This language more closely tracks section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA, 
which states, ``[l]and use plans of the Secretary under this section 
shall be consistent with the State and local plans to the maximum 
extent [the Secretary] finds consistent with Federal law and the 
purposes of this Act.'' The BLM is also clarifying in paragraph (a)(1) 
that BLM should seek consistency with plans of state and local 
governments ``that are germane in the development of land use plans for 
public lands'' (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)).
    The current regulations at Sec.  1610.3-1(d)(1) direct the BLM to 
determine consistency with ``other Federal agencies, State agencies, 
Indian tribes and local governments that may be affected.'' The BLM 
proposes to remove consistency requirements from both other Federal 
agency plans and tribal plans because Sec.  202(c)(9) of FLPMA provides 
that, to the maximum extent the Secretary finds consistent with Federal 
law and the purposes of FLPMA, land use plans ``shall be consistent 
with State and local plans.'' 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9). The BLM 
specifically requests comment on these proposed changes and the 
appropriate scope of consistency in these regulations, including those 
entities that should be included in the consistency review.
    In clarifying that consistency obligations are distinct from 
coordination, the BLM is proposing to incorporate the definition of 
``consistency,'' a principle identified in the 1970 Public Land Law 
Review Commission Report to Congress, which informed the development 
and passage of FLPMA. The Report stated, ``As a general rule, no use of 
public land should be permitted which is prohibited by state or local 
zoning. There may be exceptions, however, and the federal agency should 
be authorized to allow such a use, but only when the agency makes a 
finding that overriding national interest requires the use.'' (Public 
Land Law Review Commission, One Third of the Nation's Land, 63 (1970)). 
The proposed changes to the definition of ``consistency'' clarify that 
the BLM would not allow uses on the public lands that would be 
prohibited under State or local laws or that would otherwise conflict 
with an approved resource-related plan of a State or local government, 
except when required by Federal law or it is in the national interest 
to do so. This clarification would not change the BLM's practice of 
continuing to work with State and local governments to manage the 
impacts of management on public lands, but the proposed rule clarifies 
how this consistency process would occur. The BLM also seeks to clarify 
that the definition of approved resource-related plans are plans and 
policies approved in accordance with State and local constitutions, 
legislation or charters.
    The BLM is also proposing to relocate and revise the Governor's 
consistency review procedures in existing Sec.  1610.3-2 to new 
proposed Sec.  1610.52, which is described in more detail below. The 
BLM is also proposing a new Sec.  1610.53 described below, which would 
establish a local government consistency review process.
Section 1610.4 Resource Management Planning Process
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1610.40, 
retitle it ``Land use planning process,'' and edit it to simplify the 
required steps of the land use planning process by removing unnecessary 
procedures for compliance with NEPA, emphasizing the importance of 
preparing for planning and outlining steps required to meet FLPMA's 
requirements. The BLM is also proposing to remove overly prescriptive 
procedures that present barriers to efficient completion of land use 
planning and regulatory requirements not directed by FLPMA. The BLM 
proposes as the new subsections of Sec.  1610.40 a more streamlined 
planning process responsive to FLPMA's requirements that allows the BLM 
greater flexibility to conduct a land use planning process that is 
tailored to the scope of and specific issues presented in an individual 
planning effort.
Section 1610.4-1 Identification of Issues.
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1610.41, 
retitle it ``Preparing for planning,'' and to revise it to address 
three steps the BLM must

[[Page 72501]]

take to prepare for planning to provide a more informed and efficient 
planning process.
    First, as described in proposed paragraph (a)(1), the BLM must 
gather and review its existing resource, environmental, social, and 
other relevant data and information. These edits remove the reference 
to collecting data at this point in the process, consistent with 
direction in section 202(c)(4) of FLPMA to ``rely, to the extent it is 
available, on the inventory of the public lands, their resources, and 
other values on the existing inventories of public lands.''
    Second, as described in proposed paragraph (a)(2), the BLM must 
request all relevant approved State and local government and Tribal 
plans. If any such government would like its plans to be considered 
during the BLM planning process, it must, within 45 days of the BLM's 
request, provide all relevant approved plans and a summary of the uses 
that the State, local, or Tribal government generally prohibits or 
restricts within its jurisdiction. The BLM should seek this information 
before the State Director identifies guidelines for the plan or 
revision and prior to the development of alternatives. This early 
outreach and information collection would engage these government 
entities earlier in the process and facilitate a stronger working 
relationship throughout the planning process, which would lead to a 
more efficient process. It would also provide more information early in 
the process where it is most useful to inform the planning process and 
associated environmental review.
    Third, as described in proposed paragraph (a)(3) of this section, 
the BLM must document a planning area profile and analysis framework 
when developing or revising a land use plan. This profile and analysis 
framework would include information about current conditions, trends, 
forecasts for resources, resource uses, existing uses, social and 
economic uses, and other information about the area to inform the 
approach for the planning effort. The BLM would make this document 
publicly available for transparency.
Section 1610.4-2 Development of Planning Criteria
    The BLM is proposing to remove this section from the regulations, 
eliminating the development of planning criteria as a distinct step in 
the planning process. The development of planning criteria adds 
additional time to the planning process and is overly prescriptive. The 
new direction in proposed Sec.  1610.41(a)(3) to document and make 
publicly available a framework for analysis as part of preparing for 
planning would provide information that is more relevant and useful to 
the planning process earlier in the process.
Section 1610.42 Public Notice of Planning
    The BLM is proposing a new Sec.  1610.42, titled ``Public notice of 
planning.'' This new section requires the BLM to provide public notice 
when it initiates the development, revision or amendment of a land use 
plan and request public participation. This proposed new section and 
the proposed changes in public participation in Sec.  1610.20 would 
remove extraneous requirements for multiple Federal Register 
notifications, allow for a more efficient planning process, ensure 
public participation early in the planning process where it is most 
helpful to the BLM, and allow the BLM to manage public notification and 
additional public involvement in a manner consistent with the scope of 
a planning effort.
Section 1610.4-3 Inventory Data and Information Collection
    The BLM is proposing to relocate the direction in this section to 
proposed Sec.  1610.41(a)(1) to clarify that the BLM assembles data to 
support a planning effort when preparing for planning.
Section 1610.4-4 Analysis of the Management Situation
    The BLM is proposing to remove this subsection from the regulations 
because it is unnecessarily prescriptive and imposes procedure not 
required by FLPMA, and its removal will provide the BLM with more 
flexibility to compile this information for a particular planning 
effort. For example, subparts (a) through (i) identify a list of 
``factors to be considered'' in identifying the issues and 
opportunities for a planning area that are more appropriate for policy 
to provide guidance on rather than a regulatorily established list. 
Additionally, the current regulations state that ``the analysis of the 
management situation shall provide . . . the basis for formulating 
reasonable alternatives.'' FLPMA provides no instruction for the 
formulation of alternatives and this procedure complicates the 
authorities under NEPA for the development of alternatives (42 U.S.C. 
4332(2)(C)(iii)). Proposed Sec.  1610.41(a)(3) includes a requirement 
to document and make publicly available a planning area profile as part 
of preparing for planning, which the BLM believes would better inform 
the BLM's decision-making.
Section 1610.4-5 Formulation of Alternatives
    The BLM is proposing to remove this section from the regulations, 
consistent with the overall intent of this deregulatory effort to 
remove procedures of other programs from the planning regulations and 
to reduce duplication, redundancy, confusion, and unnecessary 
regulation. The formulation of alternatives is governed by NEPA 
procedures and this section is duplicative of those procedures and 
unnecessary to repeat in the planning regulations since it does not 
establish any additional or planning-specific procedures. This 
direction for NEPA compliance in the planning regulations was developed 
based on the BLM's interpretation of its obligations under the Council 
on Environmental Quality's regulations in effect at the time. Since 
then, the Council on Environmental Quality has amended and, most 
recently, rescinded its regulations. Similarly, the Department of the 
Interior has updated its NEPA procedures, including by amending its own 
NEPA regulations. To avoid duplication and inconsistency, and to reduce 
confusion and ensure compliance with statutory requirements and 
Department of the Interior NEPA procedures, the BLM proposes to remove 
sections addressing NEPA compliance from these regulations. The BLM is 
required to comply with NEPA when developing, revising, or amending 
land use plans.
Section 1610.4-6 Estimation of Effects of Alternatives
    The BLM is proposing to remove this section consistent with the 
overall intent of this deregulatory effort to remove procedures of 
other programs from the planning regulations and to reduce duplication, 
confusion, and unnecessary regulation. The estimation of effects of 
alternatives is governed by NEPA procedures. The existing regulations 
do not establish any additional or planning-specific procedures but 
instead repeat how the BLM will generally consider alternatives in an 
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. Removing 
this section would eliminate duplication, create consistency with NEPA 
requirements, and reduce confusion.
Section 1610.4-7 Selection of Preferred Alternatives
    The BLM is proposing to remove this section, consistent with the 
overall intent of this deregulatory effort to remove procedures for 
other BLM programs from the planning regulations

[[Page 72502]]

and to reduce duplication, confusion, and unnecessary regulation. The 
BLM's current planning regulations at this section direct the 
identification of a preferred alternative in a draft environmental 
impact statement. This is not required by NEPA or the Department's NEPA 
procedures and removing this provision would eliminate confusion caused 
by these discrepancies.
Section 1610.4-8 Selection of Resource Management Plan
    The BLM is proposing to retain this section, redesignate in the 
revised sequence as 1610.43, and retitle this section as ``Proposed 
land use plan, revision, or amendment.'' The BLM is proposing to remove 
internal administrative workflows in the existing regulation and focus 
this section on the requirement to prepare and release a proposed land 
use plan, revision, or amendment that is subject to protest. The 
existing regulations require a protest process for proposed land use 
plans and amendments, and the BLM is also proposing to clarify that 
proposed land use plans and amendments must establish intervals and 
standards as appropriate for future monitoring and evaluation of the 
plan. These changes would clarify and better organize the existing 
regulations and are not substantive.
Section 1610.4-9 Monitoring and Evaluation
    The BLM is proposing to remove this subsection and has incorporated 
the relevant text for development of a monitoring plan for the proposed 
land use plan, revision, or amendment into proposed Sec.  1610.43.
Section 1610.5 Resource Management Plan Approval, Use and Modification
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1610.50, insert 
``pre-decisional review'' into the section heading, and organize pre-
decisional review procedures that are currently scattered throughout 
the existing regulations in this section. This reorganization would 
clarify the procedures at this end-stage of the planning process prior 
to the BLM issuing a decision.
Section 1610.5-1 Resource Management Plan Approval and Administrative 
Review
    The BLM is proposing to relocate the provisions for land use plan 
approval to proposed Sec.  1610.54, ``Land use plan approval,'' to have 
the procedures occur sequentially in the regulation.
    In the relocated text in proposed Sec.  1610.54, the BLM proposes 
removing the internal administrative workflows contained in these 
regulations and NEPA procedures which were developed under the Council 
on Environmental Quality's NEPA now-rescinded regulations. The BLM is 
proposing to retain the language that clarifies approval must be 
withheld on any portion of a plan, revision, or amendment being 
protested until the protest is resolved through issuance of a response.
Section 1610.5-2 Protest Procedures
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1610.51 to 
appear sequentially to the land use planning process and to update its 
existing protest procedures to make them less burdensome to the public 
and the BLM. The changes proposed acknowledge technological and other 
changes since 1985 when these regulations were first promulgated and 
remove requirements that the Office of the BLM Director respond to 
protests via certified letter. Instead, the BLM's response to a protest 
would be made available to the public, generally through the <a href="http://BLM.gov">BLM.gov</a> 
website. The BLM is proposing to modify the current regulations, which 
permit protests to be submitted in hard copy or electronically, to 
require that all protests be submitted electronically through the BLM's 
NEPA register and be received by the BLM by the end of the 30-calendar-
day protest period. These changes would create a clear and efficient 
method for the public to submit protests and would allow the BLM to 
manage the land use planning process more efficiently by eliminating 
the time the BLM currently has to wait to receive protests that are 
postmarked by the close of the protest period, but not received until 
after the period has closed. Under the current regulations, the BLM has 
experienced delays of 10 business days or more closing out protest 
periods where few or no protests were received by the close of the 
period, while it awaited the possible receipt of a timely postmarked 
protest letter. The BLM welcomes comments on moving protest filings to 
an electronic-only format.
    The BLM is also proposing to reduce the paperwork the public must 
provide in a protest. Rather than requiring protesting parties to 
provide redundant copies of ``all documents addressing the issue or 
issues submitted during the planning process by the protesting party'' 
as currently required under Sec.  1610.5-2(a)(2)(iv), the BLM would 
require that protestors submit only that information necessary to 
address the protest. Specifically, the proposed regulations would 
require a protest to contain the name and interest of the person filing 
a protest, a statement of the issue or issues being protested, and a 
concise statement explaining why the proposed decision is believed to 
be inconsistent with relevant law, regulation, or policy. These 
proposed changes would retain the meaningful opportunity for 
involvement in the land use planning process, make it less burdensome 
to the BLM and the public, and build efficiencies by allowing the 
planning process to keep moving with better understanding of 
timeframes.
Section 1610.52 Governor's Consistency Review Procedures
    The BLM is proposing for Sec.  1610.52 to sequentially insert the 
procedures for the Governor's consistency review from existing Sec.  
1610.3-2(e) and to make changes addressing Governor's consistency 
review as part of general proposed changes to address FLPMA's direction 
in section 202(c)(9). The new proposed process to obtain information 
from States outlined in Sec.  1610.41 would provide an opportunity for 
States to provide information early where it is most helpful to 
consider and address in the BLM's planning process. Because the BLM 
would be able to consider and resolve issues earlier in the planning 
process, the BLM is proposing to shorten the Governor's consistency 
review period at the end of the planning process from 60 days to 30 
days and is proposing to eliminate the appeal opportunity to the BLM 
Director and associated procedures, including publication of the 
response by the Office of the BLM Director in the Federal Register. 
Under the proposed regulations, the BLM would coordinate earlier in the 
planning process with Governors to identify concerns and gain 
information than it does under the present regulations. This advanced 
coordination would better inform the BLM's development of management 
alternatives that address the issues and concerns raised by the 
Governor. The establishment of this early engagement process is 
expected to result in the BLM identifying and addressing concerns early 
in the planning process, leading to more informed decision-making and 
reduce the need for a separate Governor's appeal process at the end of 
the planning process.
    The BLM is also proposing to remove the existing requirement in 
Sec.  1610.3-2(e) for the State Director to provide the public with an 
opportunity to comment on any recommendations of the Governor that were 
not raised during the public participation process. The

[[Page 72503]]

BLM is proposing to remove this requirement to improve predictability 
in the duration of the land use planning process. Notably, since the 
establishment of this procedure in 1983, the BLM has only two recorded 
instances of initiating a public comment period due to receiving 
recommendations from the Governor's review that were not previously 
raised during the land use planning process. Further, the proposed 
changes that provide for enhanced early coordination create another 
opportunity for the Governor to raise recommendations that the BLM can 
address earlier in the process.
    The BLM is also proposing to remove the direction for the Governor 
to provide recommendations related to inconsistencies of local plans. 
Instead, a new procedure for local government officials to provide 
inconsistencies with local plans is proposed as described below.
Section 1610.53 Local Governments' Consistency Review Procedures
    The BLM is proposing a new section of Sec.  1610.53, titled ``Local 
governments' consistency review procedures.'' This new section 
establishes a new opportunity for local government officials to submit 
recommendations to resolve inconsistencies directly to the BLM prior to 
the BLM's approval of the plan, revision, or amendment. This process is 
separate from the Governor's consistency review process but would run 
concurrently with that process. Under the current regulations at Sec.  
1610.3-2(e), the BLM submits inconsistencies with local plans to the 
State Governor for resolution. The proposed change would provide local 
government officials the opportunity to directly present 
recommendations to the BLM to resolve inconsistencies without going 
through the Governor's office. The BLM welcomes comments on this new 
process for consistency review, including whether and how to define a 
local government official.
Section 1610.5-3 Conformity and Implementation
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as Sec.  1610.55 
and revise it to remove redundancy and non-planning program procedure 
in the existing regulation and to clarify the meaning of plan 
conformance. The BLM would retain the requirement in paragraph (a) that 
all future authorizations and actions must conform to the approved 
plan, which is consistent with direction in FLPMA. This requirement 
applies to all BLM implementation decisions, regardless of the BLM 
program making the decision. The BLM proposes to move language in 
existing Sec.  1601.0-5(b) that defines conformity and conformance to 
this section to integrate the definition and requirements for plan 
conformance in one section. If a proposed action is not in conformance 
with the approved plan, and warrants further consideration, the BLM 
should consider the action through a plan revision or amendment. This 
provision is retained in paragraph (b). The BLM is proposing in 
paragraph (c) to relocate direction in existing Sec.  1610.4-9 to 
monitor and evaluate land use plans in accordance with established 
intervals and standards and at other appropriate times and to add 
language to clarify the BLM may initiate an amendment or revision based 
on new data, new or revised policy, or a change in circumstances.
    The BLM is proposing to remove existing paragraphs (b) and (d) of 
this section because they are duplicative of the requirement in 
proposed paragraph (a) that all future BLM decisions and authorizations 
for all programs must conform to the approved plan. Existing direction 
relating to an appeal of future implementation decisions in paragraph 
(b) of this section is not a planning procedure and the appeal 
procedures for implementation decisions are duplicative of existing 
regulations in 43 CFR 4.400 that set forth the rules applicable to 
appeals before the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior Board of 
Land Appeals. Finally, the references to detailed plans for coal, oil 
shale, and tar sands resources in paragraph (b) are duplicative of the 
specific regulations for those resources and outside of the scope for 
these regulations; they would be removed in this proposed rule.
Section 1610.5-4 Maintenance
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this as Sec.  1610.56 and 
revise it to clarify the scope of plan maintenance. Under the existing 
regulations, maintenance must not result in an expansion in the scope 
of resource uses or restrictions, or change the terms, conditions and 
decisions of the approved plan. The BLM is proposing to remove the 
terminology of ``terms'' and ``conditions'' because land use plans 
typically do not include terms and conditions and the use of this term 
has caused confusion. The BLM is also proposing changes to this section 
to clarify that the BLM may maintain a plan to document management 
changes made for an area by a law or Presidential Proclamation. The BLM 
would maintain other features of this regulation, including that 
maintenance does not require public involvement, interagency 
coordination, or preparation of an environmental assessment, 
environmental impact statement, or any other environmental review.
Section 1610.5-5 Amendment
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this as Sec.  1610.57 and 
revise the section to clarify land use plan amendments. NEPA terms and 
NEPA compliance procedures in the existing regulations are also 
proposed for removal consistent with the need to remove duplicative 
regulations and to allow the BLM to comply with NEPA as appropriate for 
a plan amendment. The terminology of ``terms'' and ``conditions'' would 
also be removed because they are not typically included in land use 
plans and the use of this term has caused confusion.
Section 1610.5-6 Revision
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this as Sec.  1610.58 and 
revise the section to clarify when the BLM would undertake a land use 
plan revision and remove unnecessary statements from the text. The 
language would clarify that a revision is appropriate when the BLM 
contemplates substantial changes to the scope of planning decisions 
providing for the management of public lands. These changes address 
confusion about when a land use plan revision (as opposed to an 
amendment) is appropriate.
Section 1610.5-7 Situations Where Action Can Be Taken Based on Another 
Agency's Plan, or a Land Use Analysis
    The BLM is proposing to remove this section because the current 
procedures are either duplicative of NEPA or its implementing 
procedures or not required by law. These changes would allow the BLM to 
take appropriate steps to comply with NEPA and NEPA procedures.
    The BLM is proposing to remove subpart (c) of this section from the 
planning regulations to focus these regulations on planning procedures. 
The BLM planning regulations are not an appropriate location for this 
program-specific regulation. The BLM proposes relocating the last two 
sentences of (c) to appear verbatim at the end of the current paragraph 
at 43 CFR 3420.1-4(a). The BLM proposes to remove from regulation the 
first two sentences of paragraph (c) as duplicative of existing 43 CFR 
subpart 3420, which addresses coal resources. This change is not 
substantive and would not result in changes in the BLM's current 
program or practice; instead, it would reduce confusion by locating 
requirements specific to the coal program in the regulations governing 
that program.

[[Page 72504]]

Section 1610.6 Management Decision Review by Congress
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1610.60 and 
make a minor change in terminology to revise the existing term 
``resource management plan'' to ``land use plan'' consistent with the 
changes to these terms throughout the regulations. The BLM is also 
proposing to add the term ``contiguous'' to clarify that contiguous 
tracts of 100,000 acres or more are subject to the reporting 
requirements if a planning decision totally eliminates one or more 
principal or major uses in the area. This is consistent with BLM's 
current practice.
Section 1610.7 Designation of Areas
    The BLM is proposing to remove this section as an organizational 
matter because this proposed rulemaking only addresses areas of 
critical environmental concern, which is the designation specifically 
defined in FLPMA.
Section 1610.7-1 Designation of Areas Unsuitable for Surface Mining
    The BLM is proposing to remove this subpart of these planning 
regulations as part of the intent of this revision is to focus these 
regulations on planning procedures. The BLM planning regulations are 
not an appropriate location for this program-specific instruction and 
are duplicative of procedures already established within the surface 
mining programs.
Section 1610.7-2 Designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1610.70 and 
remove burdensome requirements in the existing regulations for areas of 
critical environmental concern. Specifically, the BLM is proposing to 
eliminate the requirement in the existing regulations at Sec.  1610.7-
2(b) for the identification of areas of critical environmental concern 
in a draft land use plan, the associated 60-day comment period, and the 
existing requirement for a Federal Register notice publication. This 
60-day public comment period is redundant because there are other 
opportunities for public involvement in the planning process. The 
public would continue to be able to comment on areas of critical 
environmental concern during any public comment opportunity. To align 
with the statutory direction in FLPMA, the BLM is proposing language to 
clarify that special management attention is required to prevent or 
protect against irreparable damage in those areas designated as an area 
of critical environmental concern.
    The BLM is also proposing changes that would clarify when the BLM 
would consider areas of critical environmental concern in an amendment 
process, considerations for boundaries, and the agency's discretion to 
modify or un-designate an area previously designated as an area of 
critical environmental concern. Other edits to this section clarify 
terms for consistency with FLPMA. The BLM is also considering 
addressing public nominations received during the planning process and 
specifically seeks public comment on what a valid public nomination 
should include and when the public should submit nominations in the 
planning process to inform the consideration and designation of areas 
of critical environmental concern.

Section 1610.8 Transition Period

    The BLM is proposing to redesignate this section as 1610.80 and 
edit it to remove NEPA procedures and Environmental Protection Agency 
requirements that no longer apply. Some areas of the public lands are 
still managed under management framework plans (the predecessor to 
resource management plans) and some areas have no governing land use 
plan. The BLM is proposing changes to consolidate and clarify the 
sections of the regulations that provide procedures for areas managed 
under a management framework plan and where there is no governing land 
use plan.
Subpart 1611 Amending Land Use Plans To Address Emergencies
    The BLM is proposing to add a new subpart to address emergency 
procedures for land use planning.
Section 1611.10 Emergency Procedures
    The BLM is proposing a new section that would address emergency 
procedures to expedite the planning process for certain amendments 
necessary to review applications for projects that are submitted to 
address emergency circumstances. In emergency circumstances an officer 
in the Office of the Secretary that has been confirmed by the Senate 
could authorize modifications to otherwise-applicable procedural 
requirements in this Part to facilitate preparation of a land use plan 
amendment for the review of a proposed implementation action to address 
emergency circumstances. Modified procedures described in paragraphs 
(a)(1)-(3) could include: (1) reducing timeframes for public 
participation, or waiving the requirement for public participation at 
notice or protest, but not waiving both; (2) waiving some coordination 
procedures, as long as some remain; (3) reducing timeframes to respond 
to the BLM's request for approved plans at the outset of planning and 
consistency review timeframes for governor and local government 
consistency reviews, or (4) waiving the requirement to request plans or 
hold a governor or local government consistency review, but not both. 
Pursuant to paragraph (b), these procedures only apply for the duration 
of the emergency circumstances. If modified procedures under this 
section would be used, the BLM would be required to publish these 
procedures to inform the public and other agencies, State and local 
governments, and tribes how the requirements for public involvement, 
coordination, and consistency during planning would be met for the 
amendment. These new proposed procedures outline opportunities for 
officials to approve modified procedures to address emergency 
circumstances while still meeting the obligations for planning under 
FLPMA.

III. Procedural Matters

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the reasons why the action is being considered, a 
statement of the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule, and 
estimate of the number of small entities the proposed rule would apply 
to, a description of reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and an 
identification of overlapping rules and laws. 5 U.S.C. 603(b). The 
reasons, objectives, and legal basis for the proposed rescission are 
described above. The BLM prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) that estimates the number of small entities that could 
be impacted by this deregulatory action and the impacts to those small 
entities. Based on the IRFA, the BLM does not expect the proposed rule 
to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
However, the BLM solicits comments from affected small entities to 
improve BLM's estimation for the final rule. The BLM will undertake 
that estimation process in consultation with the Office of Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration. This proposed rule

[[Page 72505]]

would not modify any reporting or recordkeeping requirements. There are 
no rules or laws that conflict with this proposed rescission that the 
BLM has identified.

Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866

    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this rulemaking is significant under E.O. 12866.
    BLM is required to conduct an economic analysis in accordance with 
section 6(a)(3)(B) of E.O. 12866. More can be found in the document 
titled, ``Economic Analysis for Proposed Rule: Revision of Regulations 
for Planning, Programming, Budgeting,'' which is part of the 
eRulemaking docket.

Review Under Executive Order 13175

    In accordance with E.O. 13175 (``Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments''), and the Department of the Interior's 
manual at 512 DM 2, 512 DM 4 and 512 DM 6, we acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized 
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on a government-to-government 
basis. Through this notice we invite Tribes and Alaska Native 
Corporations to participate in government-to-government consultation on 
this proposed rule. Consultation may be arranged by contacting the 
individual listed in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section 
above and may take the form of an in-person meeting or via 
teleconference or virtual web meeting. In addition, we will send 
communication via electronic mail to all 575 federally recognized 
Indian Tribes in and to approximately 200 Alaska Native Corporations 
soliciting their input as to whether or not they would like the BLM to 
consult with them on the proposed changes to the regulations at 43 CFR 
part 1600, Planning, Programming, Budgeting and to notify them of the 
opportunity to participate in an informational webinar. The opportunity 
for government-to-government consultation will remain open for the 
duration of the rulemaking, and BLM welcomes Tribal input at any time 
before the final rule is issued. Tribes may be particularly interested 
in reviewing Sec. Sec.  1610.30 ``Coordination of planning efforts;'' 
1610.32 ``Seeking consistency with State and local plans;'' 1610.41 
``Preparing for planning;'' and 1611.10 ``Emergency procedures.''

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, not 
withstanding 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)).
    OMB has approved the existing information-collection requirements 
contained in 43 CFR part 1600 under OMB control number 1004-0212. The 
proposed rule would add one new information collection and revise two 
existing information collections. These changes, along with the 
associated information-collection burden impacts, are discussed below.
Proposed New Information Collection
    Section 1610.41(a)(2)--Preparing for Planning--State, Local, or 
Tribal Resource Plans: This proposed section would provide that State 
and local governments and Indian tribes and that the State and local 
governments or Indian tribes identify uses germane to the development 
of land use plans for public lands which are prohibited in the approved 
resource-related plans. State and local governments and Indian tribes 
would have 45 calendar days to provide the requested information for it 
to be considered by the BLM. This proposed information collection is 
expected to result in 16 new annual responses and 975 new annual burden 
hours.
Proposed Revised Information Collections
    Section 1610.51--Protest procedures: The proposed rule would reduce 
the amount of information collected when filing a protest. The proposed 
rule would reduce redundancy and streamline the information 
requirements for protests. This proposed change would result in a 
reduction of 520 annual burden hours (from 1,560 to 1,040).
    Section 1610.52--Governor's consistency review procedures: The 
proposed rule would reduce a governor's timeframe to respond to a 
proposed land use plan, revision, or amendment in which to identify 
additional inconsistencies and provide recommendations from 60 to 30 
calendar days. This change is not expected to change the burden hours 
associated with this IC.
    Section 1610.53--Local governments' consistency review procedures: 
The proposed rule would establish a 30-day timeframe for local 
governments to respond to a proposed land use plan, revision, or 
amendment in which to identify any inconsistencies and provide 
recommendations. This proposed change is not expected to change the 
burden hours associated with this IC.
Summary of Burden Changes
    Currently, 131 annual response and 1,965 annual burden hours are 
approved under this OMB Control Number. The proposed change would 
result in 16 new annual responses (from 131 to 147) and 455 new annual 
burden hours (from 1,965 to 2,420). Therefore, the new burden under 
this OMB Control Number would be 147 total annual responses and 2,420 
total annual burden hours.
    As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on 
new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This 
helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements 
and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public 
understand our information collection requirements and provide the 
requested data in the desired format.
    We are especially interested in public comments addressing the 
following:
    (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether 
the information will have practical utility;
    (2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection 
of information, including the validity of the methodology and 
assumptions used;
    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    (4) How the agency might minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on those who are to respond, including the use of 
appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., 
permitting electronic submission of response.
    The new total annual estimated burdens for OMB Control Number 1004-
0041 are provided below.
    Title of Collection: Resource Management Planning.
    OMB Control Number: 1004-0212.
    Form Number: None.

[[Page 72506]]

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection of 
information.
    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal governments; 
individuals/households; businesses; and associations.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    Estimated Completion Time per Response: 10 to 15 hours depending on 
activity.
    Number of Respondents: 147.
    Annual Responses: 147.
    Annual Burden Hours: 2,420.
    Annual Burden Cost: None.
Comments on Proposed Information-Collections in Proposed Rule
    If you want to comment on the information-collection requirements 
of this proposed rule, please send your comments and suggestions on 
this information-collection by the date indicated in the DATES and 
ADDRESSES sections as previously described.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The BLM intends to apply the Departmental categorical exclusion at 
43 CFR 46.210(i) to comply with NEPA. This categorical exclusion covers 
policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are of an 
administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature or 
whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural 
to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to 
the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case. Further, the 
proposed rule does not implicate any of the extraordinary circumstances 
listed in 43 CFR 46.215. The BLM plans to document the applicability of 
the categorical exclusion concurrently with development of the final 
rule.

Review Under Executive Orders 14154 and 14192

    DOI has examined this proposed rulemaking and has tentatively 
determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives 
outlined in E.O. 14154 ``Unleashing American Energy,'' and E.O. 14192, 
``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.'' This proposed rule, if 
finalized as proposed, is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory 
action.

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

    Under E.O. 13211, agencies are required to prepare and submit a 
Statement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
for those matters identified as 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 increased use of foreign supplies) should 
the proposal be implemented'' and ``reasonable alternatives to the 
action with adverse energy effects and the expected effects of such 
alternatives on energy supply, distribution, and use.''
    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.''
    This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is not expected to 
have a significant adverse effect on the Nation's energy supply, energy 
distribution, or use of energy.
Severability
    Each of the BLM's proposed changes to its regulations has 
independent utility. If any section or portion therein is stayed or 
determined to be invalid, or the applicability of any section to any 
person or entity is held invalid, it is the BLM's intention that the 
validity of the remainder of those parts will not be affected. The 
remaining sections and portions therein, should continue in effect.

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 1600

    Administrative practice and procedure, Coal, Environmental impact 
statements, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, 
Public lands.

Lanny E. Erdos,
Director, Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement, 
Exercising Authority of the Assistant Secretary--Land and Minerals 
Management.

43 CFR Chapter II

    Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the preamble, the Bureau of 
Land Management proposes to revise 43 CFR part 1600 to read as follows:

PART 1600--PLANNING

Subpart 1601--Planning
Sec.
1601.10 Purpose.
1601.20 Objective.
1601.30 Authority.
1601.40 Environmental compliance.
1601.50 Scope.
1601.60 Principles.
1601.70 Administrative remedy.

Subpart 1610--Land Use Planning

1610.10 Land use plans.
1610.20 Public participation.
1610.30 Coordination with other Federal agencies, State and local 
governments, and Indian tribes.
1610.31 Coordination of planning efforts.
1610.32 Seeking consistency with State and local plans.
1610.40 Land use planning process.
1610.41 Preparing for planning.
1610.42 Public notice of planning.
1610.43 Proposed land use plan, revision, or amendment.
1610.50 Land use plan pre-decisional review, approval, use, and 
modification.
1610.51 Protest procedures.
1610.52 Governor's consistency review procedures.
1610.53 Local governments' consistency review procedures.
1610.54 Land use plan approval.
1610.55 Conformity and implementation.
1610.56 Maintenance.
1610.57 Amendment.
1610.58 Revision.
1610.60 Management decision review by Congress.
1610.70 Designation of areas of critical environmental concern.
1610.80 Transition period.

Subpart 1611--Amending Land Use Plans To Address Emergencies

1611.10 Emergency procedures.

    Authority:  43 U.S.C. 1702, 1711-1712, 1740.

PART 1600--PLANNING

Subpart 1601--Planning


Sec.  1601.10  Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to establish in regulations a 
process for the approval of the development, revision, amendment, and 
maintenance of land use plans, as provided for by the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act of 1976, for public lands administered by the 
Bureau of Land Management.


Sec.  1601.20  Objective.

    The objective of land use planning by the Bureau of Land Management 
is to provide by tracts or areas for the use of public lands through 
procedures that promote multiple use and sustained yield management and 
ensure participation by the public, state and local governments, Indian 
tribes, and appropriate Federal agencies.

[[Page 72507]]

Sec.  1601.30  Authority.

    This part is issued under the authority of sections 103, 201, 202, 
and 310 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
U.S.C. 1702, 1711-1712, 1740).


Sec.  1601.40  Environmental compliance.

    The Bureau of Land Management will comply with the National 
Environmental Policy Act for the proposed plan, revision, or amendment 
as part of the land use planning process and, wherever possible, the 
proposed plan, revision, or amendment and related environmental 
compliance shall be published in a single document.


Sec.  1601.50  Scope.

    (a) This part applies to all public lands subject to section 202 of 
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
    (b) This part also governs the development, revision, amendment, or 
maintenance of land use plans when the only public land interest is the 
mineral estate.


Sec.  1601.60  Principles.

    The development, revision, and amendment of land use plans will 
provide for public involvement and, unless otherwise provided by law, 
shall be consistent with the principles of multiple use and sustained 
yield described in sections 103 and 202 of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976.


Sec.  1601.70  Administrative remedy.

    A decision issued pursuant to the procedures in this Part is the 
final decision for the Department of the Interior and is not reviewable 
by the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Subpart 1610--Land Use Planning


Sec.  1610.10  Land use plans.

    (a) Land use plans are described by the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 and document the Bureau of Land Management's 
decisions for the use of public lands. A decision to approve the 
development, revision, or amendment of a land use plan guides and 
controls future management actions and does not generally authorize any 
uses of the public lands, which are usually approved through project-
specific implementation decisions. A land use plan, in contrast, 
establishes a framework for the Bureau of Land Management to consider 
proposed uses of public lands, and consists of:
    (1) Desired resource use and condition objectives;
    (2) Designations identified by statute, regulation, or national 
policy of land areas for exclusive purposes or uses;
    (3) Lands allocated for allowable resource uses; and
    (4) Management direction for the general management practices or 
program constraints needed to achieve the resource use and condition 
objectives.
    (b) The Bureau of Land Management will establish intervals and 
standards for monitoring and evaluating the plan to determine the 
effectiveness of the plan and the need for amendment or revision.
    (c) State Directors will provide quality control and supervisory 
review, including plan approval, for the development, revision, and 
amendment of plans and related environmental review.
    (d) The Bureau of Land Management refers to land use plans as 
resource management plans.


Sec.  1610.20  Public participation.

    (a) The public shall be provided opportunities to meaningfully 
participate in and comment on the development, revision, and amendment 
of plans. Opportunity for public participation in land use planning 
shall be appropriate for the areas and people involved. Opportunities 
for public participation shall at a minimum be provided at the 
following specific points in the planning process:
    (1) General notice at the outset of the process consistent with 
Sec.  1610.42; and
    (2) Publication of the proposed land use plan, revision, or 
amendment, which triggers the opportunity for protest consistent with 
Sec.  1610.51.
    (b)(1) Any public comment period provided will be 30 calendar days 
beginning the day after the notice. The Bureau of Land Management may 
extend a public comment period for a period not to exceed an additional 
30 calendar days.
    (2) The Bureau of Land Management may offer a public meeting or 
hearing in lieu of providing a public comment period identified at 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section when adequate notice is provided, 
except when a comment period is required by the National Environmental 
Policy Act.
    (c) Public opportunity to protest on the proposed land use plan, 
revision, or amendment pursuant to Sec.  1610.51 will be 30 calendar 
days beginning the day after the publication of the proposed land use 
plan, revision, or amendment and cannot be extended.


Sec.  1610.30  Coordination with other Federal agencies, State and 
local governments, and Indian tribes.

    The following sections outline the coordination and consistency 
procedures for land use planning.


Sec.  1610.31  Coordination of planning efforts.

    (a) In addition to the public involvement prescribed by Sec.  
1610.20, the Bureau of Land Management will coordinate with other 
Federal agencies, state and local governments, and federally recognized 
Indian tribes consistent with section 202(c)(9) of the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act.
    (1) Coordination during the land use planning process means 
inviting the participation of Federal agencies, State and local 
governments, and Indian tribes germane to the planning area in the 
development, revision, or amendment of a land use plan to advise on the 
general approach of the planning effort as representatives of people 
and institutions that are affected by decisions made in land use plans.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) When developing, revising, or amending land use plans, State 
Directors shall consider approved resource-related plans in the land 
resource management programs of State, local, and federally recognized 
Tribal governments submitted by these entities in the land use planning 
coordination process.
    (1) Approved resource-related plans means plans and policies for 
resource management programs germane to the development of land use 
plans for public lands prepared and approved pursuant to and in 
accordance with authorization provided by State, local, or Tribal 
constitutions, legislation, or charters for the relevant governmental 
entity.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) State Directors shall, to the extent practicable, keep apprised 
of approved State and local governmental and Indian tribal plans that 
are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands, but 
they shall not be accountable for considering plans if they have not 
been provided to the Bureau of Land Management in a timely manner by 
State and local governments or Indian tribes.


Sec.  1610.32  Seeking consistency with State and local plans.

    (a) The development, revision, or amendment of a land use plan 
shall be consistent to the maximum extent consistent with Federal law 
and the purposes of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act with 
approved

[[Page 72508]]

resource-related plans of State and local governments, so long as these 
plans are consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of 
Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands.
    (1) Consistent means that, as a general rule, no use of public land 
should be permitted which is prohibited by approved resource-related 
plans of State or local governments that are germane to the development 
of land use plans for public lands, unless such use is found by the 
Bureau of Land Management to be in the national interest.
    (2) Approved resource-related plans means plans and policies for 
resource management programs germane to the development of land use 
plans for public lands prepared and approved pursuant to and in 
accordance with authorization provided by State or local constitutions, 
legislation, or charters for the relevant governmental entity.
    (b) State Directors shall not be accountable for ensuring 
consistency if they have not been notified in a timely manner, in 
writing, by State and local governments of an apparent, specific 
inconsistency.


Sec.  1610.40  Land use planning process.

    The following sections outline procedures for conducting the land 
use planning process.


Sec.  1610.41  Preparing for planning.

    (a) In preparing for planning, the Bureau of Land Management will:
    (1) Assemble existing resource, environmental, social, economic, 
and institutional data and information. Inventory data and information 
shall be assembled in a manner that aids application in the planning 
process, including subsequent monitoring requirements.
    (2) Request approved resource-related plans of State and local 
governments and Indian tribes. The Bureau of Land Management will ask 
State and local governments and Indian tribes to identify plans they 
have approved that are germane to the Bureau of Land Management's 
development of land use plans, as well as a summary of the uses that 
each such government plan generally prohibits or restricts. State and 
local governments and Indian tribes have 45 calendar days to provide 
the requested information for it to be considered by the Bureau of Land 
Management.
    (3) For the development or revision of a land use plan, document a 
profile of the planning area and analysis framework to inform the 
planning process. This will include the current conditions, trends, and 
forecasts for resources, resource uses, existing designated uses of 
public lands, and social and economic conditions within the planning 
area. The Bureau of Land Management will provide a framework for the 
analysis to avoid unnecessary data collection and analysis and will 
present the preliminary alternatives under consideration for the 
planning effort. The State Director will make this document publicly 
available.
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec.  1610.42  Public notice of planning.

    The State Director will provide public notice when the Bureau of 
Land Management initiates the development, revision, or amendment of a 
land use plan and will request public participation consistent with 
Sec.  1610.20(a) and (b).


Sec.  1610.43  Proposed land use plan, revision, or amendment.

    Prior to approving a land use plan, revision, or amendment, the 
State Director will publish a proposed land use plan, revision, or 
amendment, which will be subject to public protest pursuant to Sec.  
1610.51. The proposed land use plan, revision, or amendment shall 
establish intervals and standards, as appropriate, for monitoring and 
evaluation of the plan.


Sec.  1610.50  Land use plan pre-decisional review, approval, use, and 
modification.

    The following sections describe the procedures for pre-decisional 
review, approval, use, and modification of approved land use plans.


Sec.  1610.51  Protest procedures.

    (a) Any person who participated in the planning process and has an 
interest which is or may be adversely affected by the approval of a 
land use plan, revision, or amendment may protest such proposed land 
use plan, revision, or amendment. A protest may raise only those issues 
submitted to the Bureau of Land Management during the planning process 
or issues concerning substantial changes to a proposed plan, revision, 
or amendment made by the State Director and that could not previously 
have been raised during the planning process.
    (1) Any protest shall be in writing and filed electronically with 
the Bureau of Land Management Headquarters through the agency's 
national register for National Environmental Policy Act related 
documents. Consistent with Sec.  1610.20(c), any protest must be 
received within 30 calendar days following the publication of the 
proposed plan, revision, or amendment on the agency's national register 
for National Environmental Policy Act related documents.
    (2) The protest shall contain:
    (i) The name and interest of the person filing the protest;
    (ii) A statement of the issue or issues being protested; and
    (iii) A concise statement explaining why the State Director's 
proposed decision is believed to be inconsistent with relevant law, 
regulation, or policy.
    (3) The Office of the Bureau of Land Management Director shall 
render a decision on each protest before the Bureau of Land Management 
approves a plan, revision, or amendment.
    (b) The Office of the Bureau of Land Management Director will 
publish written responses to any protests it received, setting forth 
the reasons for the Bureau of Land Management Director's resolution of 
the protest.


Sec.  1610.52  Governor's consistency review procedures.

    (a) Prior to the public release of a proposed land use plan, 
revision, or amendment, the State Director shall submit to the Governor 
of the State involved, the proposed land use plan, revision, or 
amendment and shall identify known inconsistencies with approved State 
plans.
    (b) The Governor shall have 30 calendar days beginning the day 
after receipt of the proposed land use plan, revision, or amendment to 
identify additional inconsistencies and provide recommendations for 
resolving inconsistencies in writing to the State Director. 
Recommendations from the Governor must be received within 30 calendar 
days to be considered by the Bureau of Land Management. If the Governor 
does not provide a recommendation to resolve inconsistencies, they are 
presumed resolved.


Sec.  1610.53  Local governments' consistency review procedures.

    (a) Prior to the public release of a proposed land use plan, 
revision, or amendment, the State Director shall submit to the 
appropriate officials for the local governments within the planning 
area, the proposed land use plan, revision, or amendment and shall 
identify known inconsistencies with approved local plans.
    (b) The local government official shall have 30 calendar days 
beginning the day after receipt of the proposed land use plan, 
revision, or amendment to identify additional inconsistencies and 
provide recommendations for resolving inconsistencies in writing to the 
State Director. Recommendations from the local government official must 
be received within 30 calendar days to be considered by the Bureau of 
Land Management. If the local government

[[Page 72509]]

official does not provide a recommendation to resolve inconsistencies, 
they are presumed resolved.


Sec.  1610.54  Land use plan approval.

    (a) Following the resolution of any protest under Sec.  1610.51, 
and the resolution of any inconsistencies identified by the Governor 
under Sec.  1610.52 or local government officials under Sec.  1610.53, 
the State Director will issue a decision concerning the approval of the 
plan, revision, or amendment.
    (b) The Bureau of Land Management's decision concerning the 
approval of a plan, revision, or amendment under paragraph (a) of this 
section is the final decision of the Department of the Interior.


Sec.  1610.55  Conformity and implementation.

    (a) All future authorizations and actions shall conform to the 
Bureau of Land Management's approved plan. Conformance means that the 
use, authorization, or action is provided for by the land use plan or, 
if not provided for, shall be consistent with the decisions of the 
approved land use plan, unless specifically authorized otherwise by 
law.
    (b) If a proposed action is not in conformance and warrants further 
consideration before a plan revision is scheduled, such consideration 
shall be through a plan amendment in accordance with the provisions of 
Sec.  1610.57.
    (c) The Bureau of Land Management shall be responsible for 
monitoring and evaluating its approved land use plans in accordance 
with the established intervals and standards and at other times as 
appropriate to determine whether there is sufficient cause to warrant 
amendment or revision of the plan based on new data, new or revised 
policy, or a change in circumstances.


Sec.  1610.56  Maintenance.

    (a) In circumstances when the President or Congress establishes 
land uses or restrictions of land uses on public lands either through 
proclamation or law, the Bureau of Land Management will document 
maintenance to update applicable land use plans to reflect the decision 
of the higher-level authority. Any other changes to established land 
use planning decisions other than those expressly made by the 
proclamation or law must be reviewed through planning procedures for 
amendment or revision pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1610.57 and 1610.58.
    (b) The Bureau of Land Management may document maintenance to 
correct errors and is limited to further refining the documentation of 
a decision of the approved plan. Maintenance shall not result in 
expansion in the scope of resource uses or restrictions, or change the 
decisions of the approved plan.
    (c) Maintenance is not considered a plan amendment and shall not 
require the formal public involvement and interagency coordination 
process described under Sec. Sec.  1610.20 and 1610.30 or environmental 
review.
    (d) Maintenance shall be documented in plans and supporting 
records.


Sec.  1610.57  Amendment.

    A land use plan may be changed through amendment to maintain 
decisions providing for the management of public lands that are 
current. An amendment shall be initiated, as appropriate, by the Bureau 
of Land Management's consideration of monitoring and evaluation 
findings (Sec.  1610.55(c)) or a proposed action that would result in a 
change in the scope of resource uses or a change in a limited scope of 
the decisions of the approved plan. If the amendment is being 
considered in response to a specific proposal, the analysis required 
for the proposal and for the amendment may occur simultaneously and in 
the same documentation.


Sec.  1610.58  Revision.

    A land use plan shall be revised when the Bureau of Land Management 
contemplates substantial changes to the scope of the planning decisions 
providing for the management of public lands. A revision shall be 
initiated, as appropriate, based on the Bureau of Land Management's 
consideration of monitoring and evaluation findings (Sec.  1610.55(c)) 
affecting the entire plan or major portions of the plan.


Sec.  1610.60  Management decision review by Congress.

    Any Bureau of Land Management planning decision that totally 
eliminates one or more principal or major uses listed at section 103(l) 
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act for two or more years 
with respect to contiguous tracts of 100,000 acres or more, shall be 
reported to Congress. This report shall not be required prior to 
approval of a land use plan which, if fully or partially implemented, 
would result in such an elimination. The required report shall be 
submitted as the first action step in implementing that portion of a 
land use plan which would require elimination of such a use.


Sec.  1610.70  Designation of areas of critical environmental concern.

    (a) The Bureau of Land Management shall identify and evaluate if 
public lands have the potential for areas of critical environmental 
concern designation and management for protection against irreparable 
damage. The Bureau of Land Management evaluates and considers 
designation only through the process of developing or revising a land 
use plan, or when amending a land use plan when the evaluation and 
consideration falls within the scope of the amendment. If a nomination 
for an area of critical environmental concern is received outside of 
the planning process, the evaluation and consideration will be deferred 
to an upcoming planning process.
    (b) In order for the Bureau of Land Management to designate an area 
of critical environmental concern, it must find that an area of public 
lands meets all three of the following criteria:
    (1) Relevance. There shall be present historic, cultural, or scenic 
values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or 
processes, or natural hazards.
    (2) Importance. The resource, system, process, or hazard that the 
Bureau of Land Management determines to be relevant shall also have 
substantial value. This generally requires characteristics that 
demonstrate qualities of more than localized distinctiveness, 
especially when compared to similar resources. A natural hazard can be 
important if it is a threat to human life or property.
    (3) Special management attention. The area requires special 
management to protect and prevent irreparable damage from a reasonably 
foreseeable use to those values that the Bureau of Land Management 
determines to be relevant and important.
    (c) The boundaries of designated areas of critical environmental 
concern shall encompass the smallest area of public lands necessary to 
protect and prevent irreparable damage of the relevant and important 
values.
    (d) The State Director, through the land use planning process, may 
in whole or in part remove or modify the designation of an area of 
critical environmental concern.


Sec.  1610.80  Transition period.

    (a) Proposed management actions must conform to approved management 
framework plans until such time as those plans are superseded by land 
use plans or amended under Sec.  1610.57.
    (b) The Bureau of Land Management is not required to initiate land 
use planning in areas with no land use plan

[[Page 72510]]

or a management framework plan, except to consider the sale of lands 
consistent with section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act. The Bureau of Land Management will consider proposed actions on 
unplanned public lands consistent with applicable Federal statutes and 
procedures.

Subpart 1611--Amending Land Use Plans To Address Emergencies


Sec.  1611.10  Emergency procedures.

    (a) To address emergency circumstances, any individual in the 
Office of the Secretary who has been appointed by the President, by and 
with the advice and consent of the Senate, may, consistent with the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act and other applicable law, 
authorize modified procedural requirements that depart from those 
otherwise required by this subpart for amending land use plans, to 
facilitate review of a proposed implementation action to address the 
emergency circumstances. Modified procedures may include:
    (1) Public participation. Reducing the timeframes required for 
public participation described at Sec.  1610.20(b) or (c), or waiving 
the requirement for public participation at notice described at Sec.  
1610.20(a)(1) or protest described at Sec.  1610.20(a)(2), but not 
waiving both.
    (2) Coordination. Waiving the specific procedures for invitation to 
participate in coordination described at Sec.  1610.31(a) and the 
review of plans for consideration described at Sec.  1610.31(b). If 
these procedures are waived, communications tailored to collect only 
the information needed to support the plan amendment under review must 
occur.
    (3) Consistency. Reducing the timeframes required to respond to the 
Bureau of Land Management's request for approved resource-related plans 
of State and local governments and Indian tribes and statement of 
prohibited uses described at Sec.  1610.41(a)(2) and for the Governor's 
consistency review described at Sec.  1610.52(b) and local governments' 
consistency review described at Sec.  1610.53(b), or waiving the 
requirement to request plans or hold consistency reviews for the 
Governor and local governments, but not waiving both.
    (b) The authority to apply emergency procedures of paragraph (a) of 
this section applies only for the duration of emergency circumstances 
and only for the preparation of land use amendments supporting the 
review of a project(s) that respond to the emergency circumstances.
    (c) At the start of the planning effort, the State Director will 
publish the modified planning procedures to inform the public and other 
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes how 
the requirements for public involvement, coordination, and consistency 
during planning on public lands will be met for the amendment.

[FR Doc. 2026-22860 Filed 11-9-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-27-P


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