| OCR Text |
Show porary withdrawals in aid of legislation have remained in effect although (1) the legislation was never introduced; or (2) it was rejected by Congress; or (3) the purpose of the proposed legislation could no longer be realized. With increasing pressure for the highest and best use of the nation's resources, time limits on the duration of temporary withdrawals should not only be imposed as previously recommended, but the duration of proposed withdrawals within the mandatory time limits should be explained and clearly justified. Current uncertainty as to the effective date of withdrawals should be remedied by requiring that a withdrawal order be published within a definite time and specifically state its effective date.28 This would conform withdrawal practice to that with respect to classifications under the Classification and Multiple Use Act and eliminate uncertainty about the validity of entries made before the specified date. Knowledge that an application for withdrawal does segregate the covered lands from entry has frequently led to administrative inertia in completing action on the proposed withdrawal. The Commission is aware of the need for immediate segregation of lands for Federal programs in some circumstances. However, there appears to be no valid reason for substantial delay in completing action once an application has been filed. We, therefore, recommend that a time limit of not more than 6 months be imposed upon the segregative effect of withdrawal applications and that safeguards be imposed against multiple application renewals. Review Program Recommendation 9: Congress should establish a formal program by which withdrawals would be periodically reviewed and either rejustified or modified. With nearly all public domain land now subject to some form of withdrawal, a continuation of these withdrawals in their existing form could defeat the purpose of the Commission recommendations. Therefore, it is essential to the operation of a new withdrawal system that existing withdrawals be phased 28 Under present practice, the filing of a notice of a proposed withdrawal with the appropriate land office and the notation thereof on the land office records is deemed the effective date of withdrawal. Although the notice of a proposed withdrawal is published in the Federal Register, the publication date is not construed as the effective date of the segregative effect of the notice. This position may well be inconsistent with sections 5 (a) and 7 of the Federal Register Act which appear to require publication in the Federal Register as the effective date of a notice to the public. 44 U.S.C. §§ 3O5(a), 307 (1964). 56 out and reinstated where warranted under the new system. Only in one period of time-1956-1961-has there been a vigorous program of withdrawal review. This did produce a relatively significant number of revocations or downward adjustments in the size of outstanding withdrawals while it was operative. However, the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to effect modifications or revocations of withdrawals of lands administered by an agency outside the Department of the Interior is limited. Existing procedures give the administering agency a veto power over any modifications or changes in a withdrawal made for its benefit. Thus, the effectiveness of any agency review is dubious unless legislation is enacted requiring mandatory reconsideration on a periodic basis. The responsibility for review and, where required, the modification and termination of withdrawals, should rest with the same officer who is given the delegated authority to effect withdrawals. Agencies having the administrative jurisdiction over withdrawn lands should be required to supply information periodically, at least once every 5 years, concerning land uses and a justification for continuance of each withdrawal. A comprehensive periodic report of the findings made by the reviewing agency in respect to continuances and renewals should be submitted to Congress. If any agency desires to renew a withdrawal for a period of more than ten years from the date of the initial withdrawal, renewal should be subject to legislative approval. This could be done either by Act of Congress-possibly an annual omnibus act- or by allowing the officer executing the delegated power to renew such withdrawals, subject to reporting the action to Congress with detailed justification, and neither house disapproving within a specified period of time. Executive Withdrawal Authority Recommendation 10: All Executive withdrawal authority, without limitation, should be delegated to the Secretary of the Interior, subject to the continuing limitation of existing law that the Secretary cannot re-delegate to anyone other than an official of the Department appointed by the President, thereby making the exercise of this authority wholly independent of public land management operating agency heads. In 1952 29 the President delegated all of his withdrawal authority from all sources to the Secretary of the Interior, but with certain limitations. The delega- 29 Exec. Order No. 10355, May 26, 1952, 3 C.F.R., 1949-1953 Comp., p. 873. |
