[Federal Register: July 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 137)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41531-41554]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19jy05-14]
[[Page 41531]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Land Management
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
43 CFR Parts 3000, 3100, 3120, et al.
Oil and Gas Leasing: Geothermal Resources Leasing; Coal Management;
Management of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal; Mineral Materials
Disposal; and Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws; Proposed
Rule
[[Page 41532]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Parts 3000, 3100, 3120, 3130, 3150, 3160, 3200, 3470, 3500,
3600, 3800, 3830, 3833, 3835, 3836, 3860, and 3870
[WO-610-4111-02-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AC64
Oil and Gas Leasing; Geothermal Resources Leasing; Coal
Management; Management of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal; Mineral
Materials Disposal; and Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is again proposing to
amend its mineral resources regulations to increase many fees and to
impose new fees to cover BLM's costs of processing certain documents
relating to its minerals programs. This would include costs for actions
such as environmental studies, monitoring activities, and other
processing-related costs. The BLM would establish some fixed fees and
some fees on a case-by-case basis. The proposed fee changes are based
on statutory authorities, which authorize BLM to charge for its
processing costs, and on policy guidance from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) requiring BLM
to charge these fees. The fee changes also respond to recommendations
issued in audit reports by the DOI's Office of Inspector General (OIG).
DATES: You should submit your comments on or before August 18, 2005.
The BLM may or may not consider comments postmarked or received by
messenger or electronic mail after the above date in the decision-
making process on the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Mail Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, Eastern
States Office, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153.
Personal or messenger delivery: 1620 L Street NW., Suite 401,
Washington, DC 20036. Email: Comments_washington@blm.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For issues related to BLM's Minerals
Program contact Tim Spisak, Fluid Minerals Group Manager (202) 452-5061
or Ted Murphy, Solid Minerals Division Manager (202) 452-0351. Contact
Cynthia Ellis (202) 452-5012 for issues relating to BLM's regulatory
matters. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
may contact these individuals through the Federal Information Relay
Service at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Comment Procedures
II. Background
III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
IV. Procedural Matters
I. Public Comment Procedures
A. How Do I File Comments?
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of
several methods.
Mail: Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, Eastern
States Office, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia, 22153.
Personal or messenger delivery: 1620 L Street NW., Suite
401, Washington, DC 20036.
Comments_washington@blm.gov.
Please make your comments on the proposed rule as specific as
possible, confine them to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, and
explain the reason for any changes you recommend. Where possible, your
comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the
proposal that you are addressing. Please include a reference to ``RIN
1004-AC64'' in your comments.
The DOI may or may not consider or include in the Administrative
Record for the final rule comments that we receive after the close of
the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address
other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES). BLM has set the comment
period for this proposed rule at 30 days. We believe this provides
sufficient time for public comment because most of this rule was
proposed in nearly identical form on December 15, 2000 (65 FR 78440-
78455). BLM extended the original comment period to over six months,
until July 2, 2001 (66 FR 19413, April 16, 2001). We believe that 30
days allows sufficient time to comment on the fees that are new in this
proposed rule. Moreover, this rule is necessary to implement the cost
recovery fee collection provisions included in the President's 2006
Budget, as passed by Congress. Because the revenue is needed to cover
BLM's operating expenses in FY 2006, it was determined that BLM could
not provide a longer comment period without jeopardizing the
government's ability to implement these fees in a timely manner.
B. May I Review Comments Others Submit?
If you want your comments to remain confidential, do not send us
your comments at the e-mail address. In addition, all comments,
including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available
for public review at the address listed under ADDRESSES: Personal or
messenger delivery'' during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15
p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Individual respondents may request confidentiality, which we will
honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish to withhold your name
or address, except for the city or town, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will make all
submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
If you provide comments on company or institutional letterhead, we
will assume those comments were given with the approval of the
organization and may identify them as such.
BLM received 135 comments in response to the original proposed rule
published on December 15, 2000, in the Federal Register (65 FR 78440-
78455). This reproposed rule has updated fees and clarifies several
issues that were in the 2000 proposed rule. If you provided comments in
response to the December 15, 2000, proposed rule you need not submit
those comments again. We will address those comments in any final rule.
II. Background
Federal agencies are authorized to charge processing costs by the
Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701.
The BLM also has specific authority to charge fees for processing
applications and other documents relating to public lands under section
304 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43
U.S.C. 1734. Public lands in FLPMA means all lands or interests in land
owned by the United States and administered by BLM, excluding outer
continental shelf lands and Native American lands (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)).
This applies to Federal mineral lands with private or state surface as
well as to lands where the United States owns both the surface and
mineral rights. The BLM interprets this definition to mean that a
mineral lease or mineral materials disposal administered by BLM, or a
mining claim
[[Page 41533]]
(for which BLM determines validity), even in land where another agency
administers the surface, is an ``interest in land'' for the purposes of
FLPMA. BLM is not proposing in this rule to recover costs for work we
perform in administering Indian leases.
Before BLM disposes of mineral materials or issues a mineral lease
on these lands, if the surface managing agency also exercises any
responsibility relating to disposal of the minerals, the mineral estate
may not be sufficiently under the administrative control of BLM to
qualify as public lands for purposes such as exchanges. However, once
BLM issues a mineral lease or proceeds with a mineral materials
disposal, we are administering an interest in the lands, and that
interest now falls under the FLPMA definition of public lands. Because
the Secretary of the Interior has primary jurisdiction over determining
the validity of mining claims, and BLM administers the mineral estate
covered by those claims, mining claims also qualify as public lands
under FLPMA. Of course, BLM also has authority under the IOAA to
collect fees for processing documents related to its administration of
the mineral estate in these instances.
The IOAA and section 304 of FLPMA authorize BLM to charge
applicants for the cost of processing documents through the rulemaking
process, which BLM is proposing to do through this rule. The IOAA also
states that these charges should pay for the agency services, as much
as possible.
Cost recovery policies are explained in OMB Circular No. A-25
(Revised) entitled ``User Charges.'' Part 346 of the Departmental
Manual (DM) also provides guidance. The general Federal policy is that
a charge will be assessed against each identifiable recipient for
special benefits derived from Federal activities beyond those received
by the public. (OMB Circular A-25.) The Circular establishes Federal
policy regarding fees assessed for government services and for sales or
use of government goods or resources. It provides information on the
scope and types of activities subject to user charges and the basis
upon which agencies set user charges. Finally, the Circular provides
guidance for agency implementation of charges and the disposition of
collections.
The DOI Manual provides guidance and reflects the OMB cost recovery
policy at 346 DM 1.2 A. Under that section, unless prohibited or
limited by statute or other authority, BLM must impose a charge that:
1. Recovers the bureau or office costs; and
2. Recovers costs for all categories of service that provide
special benefits to an identifiable recipient beyond those which accrue
to the public at large.
Certain activities may be exempted from these fees under conditions
set out at 346 DM 1.2 C.
In 1996, the Solicitor issued an M Opinion, entitled ``BLM's
Authority to Recover Costs of Minerals Document Processing'' (M-36987,
December 5, 1996), which analyzed the law related to BLM's cost
recovery authority. In considering how BLM could structure its cost
recovery, the Opinion noted, ``BLM could decide in certain instances to
structure a rule so that a new fee is phased in over a period of
time.'' M-36987 at page 36. This is based on the provision in Section
304(b) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1734 (b)) that the Secretary may consider
other factors relevant to determining reasonable costs. (See ``What are
the FLPMA Factors BLM Must Consider?'' below.) In this proposed rule,
BLM is proposing to phase in certain fees to give companies adequate
time to include all costs in their planning processes.
On December 15, 2000, BLM proposed a rule to amend our mineral
resource regulations to increase many fees and to impose new fees to
cover our costs of processing certain documents relating to our mineral
programs (65 FR 78440). The December 2000 proposed fee changes were
BLM's response to recommendations made in a 1988 OIG report (No. 89-
25). This report was part of a 1980s presidential initiative that
called for all Federal agencies to charge appropriate user fees,
consistent with the law, for agency services. The OIG recommended that
BLM collect fees for processing mineral-related documents whenever
possible.
In this proposed rule, we are reproposing the 2000 fees, and adding
the following fees that were not included in the 2000 proposed rule:
1. A processing fee for oil and gas applications for permit to
drill (APDs),
2. A processing fee for geothermal permits to drill (GPDs),
3. A processing fee for geothermal exploration permits, and
4. A processing fee for renewal of mineral materials competitive
contracts.
We are also proposing to charge a fixed fee for the processing of
oil and gas geophysical exploration applications, instead of the case-
by-case fee that we proposed in 2000.
For both the 2000 proposed rule and this proposed rule, we updated
existing fees. This proposed rule covers only some of the documents for
which BLM has the authority to recover processing costs. The BLM
intends to continue to work on establishing and collecting fees for
other documents including those addressed in the Solicitor's December
5, 1996, M Opinion on this subject (M-36987). In the future, we expect
to identify and propose fees for additional processing activities.
III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
What Does ``Cost Recovery'' Mean in This Rulemaking?
``Cost Recovery'' means reimbursing BLM for the costs of processing
applications and other documents relating to the public lands by
charging a fee to the applicant or beneficiary.
What Is the Office of Inspector General (OIG)?
This office, within the DOI, studies Departmental economy and
efficiency and makes recommendations for improvement.
What OIG Reports Affected This Rulemaking?
The OIG reports No. 89-25 (1988), No. 92-I-828 (1992), 95-I-379
(1995) and No. 97-I-1300 (1997).
What Did the 1988 OIG Report (No. 89-25) Recommend?
The report recommended that BLM:
1. List all the mineral-related document types for which it had
authority to charge BLM processing costs to the applicant;
2. Determine the BLM processing costs for each type of document and
count how many were processed;
3. Establish exemption standards and apply them to each type of
document on the list;
4. Prepare and maintain exemption documentation for exempted
document types; and
5. Establish and collect processing cost fees for all non-exempt
types of documents.
How Did BLM Gather Data for Cost Recovery in Response to the 1988 OIG
Report?
The BLM first conducted an inventory of about 130 types of
documents in all onshore energy and mineral program areas: fluid
minerals (including geothermal resources) leasing and operations; solid
leasable minerals (coal and non-energy minerals) leasing and
operations; mining law administration (locatable minerals); and mineral
materials (saleable minerals such as sand and gravel). The BLM used
this inventory to determine the types of documents for which it
appeared we had authority to collect processing costs.
[[Page 41534]]
How Did BLM Analyze Its Costs for Types of Documents That Appeared To
Be Eligible for Processing Fees?
We started with a pilot analysis in the BLM Montana State Office
and then surveyed all BLM State Offices in 1990. To ensure that the
State Offices used the same data-gathering approach, the BLM Washington
Office gave all State Offices a copy of Part 346 of the DM, three types
of standard forms to record the data, and detailed instructions
previously tested for clarity in the Montana Pilot Analysis.
Were There Differences in the Processing Costs and Number of Document
Filings Processed for Each State Office?
Yes. The BLM's preliminary review of the data showed large cost
differences among offices for processing certain types of documents, as
well as big differences in the numbers of documents filed and
processed. For example, office processing costs for a mineral materials
noncompetitive sale application ranged from $234 to $4,773. As
discussed below, BLM reconsidered the State Offices' estimated costs
for noncompetitive sales applications and determined that the
differences in estimates were attributable to unique site- or sale-
specific factors.
Similarly, the number of mining law affidavits of assessment filed
in State Offices for Fiscal Years (FY) 1988-1990 varied from about
2,761 to 251,564. For certain mineral-related document types, some
offices had no activity during the three years sampled.
What Did BLM Do To Reconcile the Differences in the Data?
The BLM decided to use a weighted average rather than a simple
average to determine a BLM-wide processing cost for each type of
document. This method gave greater weight to the processing cost data
from State Offices having a heavy workload, and thus more expertise, in
processing a particular type of document.
Between 1995 and 1999, we re-analyzed much of the data, conducted
spot checks to verify its continued validity, and adjusted it to
current prices. In 2003, we reviewed the processing details for the
different types of documents dating from 1995 and determined that the
information was current.
What Did the OIG's Follow-Up Report Find?
The report (No. 95-I-379, January 1995) found that, of the five
recommendations in the 1988 OIG report, BLM had:
Implemented the first, third, and fourth recommendations,
Partially implemented the second recommendation to
determine the cost and number of each document filing processed, and
Not yet implemented the fifth recommendation to establish
and collect BLM processing cost fees for non-exempt types of documents.
The OIG sent BLM a draft of this report to which we responded in
August 1994. We met with the OIG and discussed issues raised by the
report, including the issue of guidance and standards in data
gathering. We also provided supplemental information to the OIG in
December 1994 to resolve the issue.
What Observations and Recommendations Did the 1995 OIG Report Make?
The OIG noted the wide variations in estimates of the time and cost
needed to process types of documents among various BLM State Offices,
and made two recommendations to BLM from the draft report. First, BLM
should develop document processing standards, request cost information
from State Offices based on these standards and analyze and resolve
significant differences in the collected data, particularly for types
of documents which have major impacts on the total amount of money that
BLM can recover. Next, BLM should expedite the establishment and
collection of fees for processing types of documents which have major
impacts on the total amount of money that BLM can recover, and continue
efforts to establish and collect fees for other types of documents.
The report noted that in the supplemental information provided in
December 1994, BLM told the OIG that it had developed guidance/
standards that were used by all State Offices to achieve uniformity in
data gathering and reporting. It pointed out that BLM said we would
establish a multi-program team to continue examining fees to establish
a consistent cost recovery program. Based on our responses to the draft
report, the final 1995 OIG report concluded that both recommendations
were resolved but not implemented.
How Did BLM Respond to the 1995 Report?
After the OIG issued the 1995 report BLM created a multi-program
team to update its processing cost data, with priority given to
establishing and collecting fees for types of documents with a
significant impact on the total amount of money that we can recover. To
update the existing data and verify its accuracy, the team gathered new
estimates of the number of annual filings, updated processing cost
estimates, and assigned BLM mineral experts to review the data in their
specialties.
How Did BLM Analyze the 1990 Cost Data for Oil, Gas, and Geothermal in
Response to the 1995 OIG Report?
BLM's fluid minerals program re-analyzed this data, comparing the
data and identifying the appropriate job position, salary level, and
time needed for each step indicated in BLM oil, gas, and geothermal
Handbooks to process each type of document. The 1990 data was also
based on the steps in the Handbooks. Based on this analysis, we
calculated a direct cost (see discussion of direct/indirect costs
below) for each step of the process, which was then adjusted to 1995
salary rates without a locality factor. BLM later added indirect costs.
We used these cost figures in this proposed rule as the actual cost
estimates for oil and gas and geothermal document types, from which the
fees were determined. The BLM relied on this method for oil and gas and
geothermal because the assigned program expert believed it would yield
accurate cost estimates.
How Did BLM Update the 1990 Cost Data for Mineral Materials, Coal,
Nonenergy Leasable Minerals, and Mining Law in Response to the 1995 OIG
Report?
We spot-checked the data by resubmitting it to selected BLM State
Offices that often process these particular categories of documents. We
also sent each of these offices a summary of the cost data that the
office had previously submitted for these types of documents, along
with the BLM-wide weighted average cost for each of them. We requested
that the State Offices review the cost data and report whether that
data, adjusted to current prices, remained reasonable. We requested
that the State Office re-estimate costs for that state if it found the
re-examined adjusted cost data to be unreasonable for that point in
time. Our re-examination verified that BLM's data continued to be valid
and ensured that figures, which varied significantly among offices, had
not been submitted in error. We used this method for these programs
because our program experts believed it would yield accurate data and
be cost-effective. In addition, for mineral materials, the team
reconsidered the State Offices' estimated costs for noncompetitive sale
applications that the 1995 report had
[[Page 41535]]
highlighted. The team determined that the differences among State
Offices were largely caused by unique site- or sale-specific factors.
BLM considered the amount and nature of surface disturbance, for
example, whether the sales are from existing or new pits, and how much
material is to be removed; the impact on other surface resources (which
may vary even within the same area); and National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) analysis.
To bring the figures in line with 1999 prices, in preparation for
the 2000 proposed rulemaking, BLM adjusted them to the Implicit Price
Deflator for Gross Domestic Product (IPD-GDP) for 1998 (the most recent
year then available) published by the U.S. Department of Commerce,
which economists generally consider to be the most reliable general
price index.
How Has BLM Implemented the 1995 OIG Recommendations?
As explained above, BLM resolved the first part of the OIG's first
recommendation about what standards we used by sending the OIG
information in response to the draft report about our use of concrete
standards in data collection. The BLM updated the proposed fees and
updated, analyzed, and verified the data, which responded to the second
part of the OIG's first recommendation. This rule proposes to implement
the first part of the second 1995 OIG recommendation: BLM would collect
fees for types of documents that have a significant impact on the
amount of money BLM can recover. This proposed rule covers only some of
the documents for which BLM has the authority to recover costs. BLM
intends to continue our work to establish and collect fees for other
documents as well, including those addressed in the Solicitor's
December 5, 1996 M Opinion on this subject (M-36987). This satisfies
the second part of the OIG's second recommendation.
The 2000 Proposal and This Proposed Rule
The BLM decided to propose the entire rulemaking again because we
are proposing a different type of processing fee for oil and gas
geophysical exploration applications, and new processing fees for APDs,
GPDs, geothermal exploration permits, and mineral materials competitive
contract renewals.
BLM has also determined it is appropriate to include an initial fee
schedule in the regulations. Fee revisions adjusted for inflation will
take place by way of publication in the Federal Register, with
subsequent posting on our Web site. For an explanation of how BLM
proposes to adjust fees in the future, see ``How Did BLM Address
Increased Costs Due to Inflation?'' below.
What Is the Proposed Processing Fee for Oil and Gas Geophysical
Exploration Applications?
In the 2000 proposed rule, we included a case-by-case processing
fee for geophysical exploration applications. Since that time, we have
implemented an activity-based coding system that allows us to better
track such costs. In reviewing the 2000 proposed fees in preparation
for this proposed rulemaking, we determined that the costs of
processing oil and gas geophysical exploration applications are quite
high, averaging approximately $8,000 to $10,000.
The BLM determined these amounts by analyzing data we collected for
two years (2002 and 2003) through the Management Information System
(MIS), BLM's activity-based coding system. One program element in MIS
(added in 2001) is dedicated to oil and gas geophysical exploration
applications. To determine our costs for oil and gas geophysical
exploration applications, we first considered the total cost to a Field
Office for processing these applications and divided that number by the
total number of geophysical exploration applications processed by that
Field Office. We repeated the procedure for each Field Office. However,
because we did not receive a significant number of geophysical
exploration applications in the two-year period analyzed, we have not
determined a final estimated average cost. We will continue to collect
and analyze cost data for geophysical exploration applications. At this
time we have decided to set a target fee of $2,500, which we are
confident is well below what the final estimated average cost will be,
based on the time it takes to complete an environmental assessment and
the fieldwork required. Because we propose to phase in this initial fee
over several years, as discussed below, we expect to be able to propose
a fee based on our final estimated average cost in a new rulemaking by
the end of the phase-in period. We considered the other FLPMA factors
and determined that the factors would not cause a reasonable fee to be
reduced below actual costs except as noted below. (See ``How Did BLM
Consider the ``FLPMA Factors?'' and the discussion following it
regarding each factor, below.)
As explained earlier, based on the ``other relevant factors''
criterion, in order to allow companies to plan for these potentially
significant new costs, we propose to phase in this fee, beginning with
a fixed fee of $500. The geophysical exploration application fee will
be raised $500 each year until it reaches $2,500 (as adjusted by the
IPD-GDP). The base fee will be adjusted for inflation every year by
applying the IPD-GDP. The new fee will apply to all applications filed
on or after October 1 each year. Further cost analysis will determine
the final estimated average cost that will be set through future
rulemaking. We invite comment on this proposed rule regarding whether
these initial fees are appropriate, or whether they should be higher or
lower.
What Is the Proposed Processing Fee for Applications for Geothermal
Exploration (e.g., Temperature Gradient Wells)?
The BLM determined the cost of processing geothermal exploration
applications by analyzing data we collected for two years (2002 and
2003) through the MIS. One project code (added in 2001) used in
conjunction with the program element in MIS (added in 2001) is
dedicated to geothermal exploration applications. To determine our
costs, we first considered the total cost to a Field Office for
processing geothermal exploration applications and divided that number
by the total number of geothermal exploration applications processed by
that Field Office. We repeated the process for each Field Office. Over
those two years, the average cost of processing a geothermal
exploration permit application was $3,200. However, we received only
three applications during the two-year period analyzed. Because we
believe additional data is required to come up with an accurate cost,
we have not determined a final estimated average cost. We will continue
to collect and analyze cost data for geothermal exploration
applications. At this time we have decided to set a target fee of
$2500, which we are confident is below what the final estimated average
cost will be based on the time required to complete an environmental
assessment. Because we propose to phase in this initial fee over
several years, as discussed below, we expect to be able to propose a
fee based on our final estimated average cost in a new rulemaking by
the end of the phase-in period. We considered the other FLPMA factors
and determined that the factors would not cause a reasonable fee to be
reduced below actual costs except as noted below. (See ``How Did BLM
Consider the ``FLPMA Factors?'' and the
[[Page 41536]]
discussion following it regarding each factor, below.)
As explained earlier, based on the ``other relevant factors''
criterion, in order to allow companies to plan for these potentially
significant new costs, we propose to phase in these fees, beginning
with a fixed fee of $500. The geothermal exploration application fee
will be raised $500 each year until it reaches $2,500 (as adjusted by
the IPD-GDP). The base fee will be adjusted for inflation every year by
applying the IPD-GDP. The new fee will apply to all applications filed
on or after October 1 each year. Further cost analysis will determine
the final estimated average cost that will be set through future
rulemaking. We invite comment on this proposed rule regarding whether
these initial fees are appropriate, or whether they should be higher or
lower.
What Is the Proposed Processing Fee for Oil and Gas Applications for
Permit To Drill (APDs)?
To determine BLM's costs to process APDs, we analyzed the data we
collected for that activity for four years (2001 through 2004) through
the MIS. One program element in MIS (added in 2000) is dedicated to
processing APDs.
To determine our costs for APDs, we first considered the total cost
to a Field Office of processing APDs and divided that number by the
total number of APDs processed by that Field Office. We repeated this
procedure for each Field Office. We determined that the average cost
for Field Offices that process more APDs did not vary significantly
from costs for other Field Offices. Therefore, we decided to use the
average cost from all field offices as our actual cost figure. Over the
four year-year period analyzed, we found that the average cost of
processing an APD was about $4,000.
We considered the other FLPMA factors, and determined that the
factors would not cause a reasonable fee for APDs to be reduced below
actual costs, except as noted below. (See ``How Did BLM Consider the
FLPMA Factors?'' based on the ``other relevant factors'' criterion
explained earlier, and the discussion following each factor, below.) As
with oil and gas geophysical exploration, and geothermal exploration,
we propose to phase in these fees, beginning with a fixed fee of $1600,
to give companies adequate time to include these potentially
significant new costs in their planning processes. The APD fee will be
raised $500 each year until it reaches $4,000 (as adjusted by the IPD-
GDP). The base fee will be adjusted for inflation every year by
applying the IPD-GDP. The new fee will apply to all applications filed
on or after October 1 each year. We invite comment on this proposed
rule regarding whether these initial fees are appropriate, or whether
they should be higher or lower. We also invite comment on what impacts,
if any the proposed APD fee could have on the level of a company's
operations on Federal lands. In particular, we are interested in how
the proposed fee might affect the competitiveness of Federal oil and
gas leases as compared to non-Federal leases.
What Is the Proposed Processing Fee for Geothermal Permits To Drill
(GPDs)?
We used the same process to determine BLM's costs to process GPDs.
We analyzed the data we collected for this activity for three years
(2001 through 2003) through the MIS. A project code in MIS (added in
2000) is also dedicated to processing GPDs. We followed the same
procedure that we did for APDs and determined that the average cost to
process a GPD over the past three years was $3,500. We considered the
other FLPMA factors, and determined that the factors would not cause a
reasonable fee for GPDs to be reduced below actual costs, except as
noted below. (See ``How Did BLM Consider the FLPMA Factors?'' based on
the ``other relevant factors'' criterion explained earlier and the
discussion following each factor, below.) As with oil and gas
geophysical exploration and geothermal exploration, we propose to phase
in these fees, beginning with a fixed fee of $1600, to give companies
adequate time to include these potentially significant new costs in
their planning processes. The GPD fee will be raised $500 each year
until it reaches $3,500 (as adjusted by the IPD-GDP). The base fee will
be adjusted for inflation every year by applying the IPD-GDP. The new
fee will apply to all applications filed on or after October 1 each
year. We invite comment on this proposed rule regarding whether these
initial fees are appropriate, or whether they should be higher or
lower.
What Is the Proposed Processing Fee for Mineral Materials Competitive
Contracts?
We are proposing to charge a case-by-case fee for applications to
renew mineral materials competitive contracts, consistent with the
proposed case-by-case fees for mineral materials competitive and
noncompetitive sales applications. The option to renew a mineral
materials competitive contract was added to the regulations in the
final rule that became effective on December 24, 2001 (66 FR 58892).
What Kinds of Fees Would This Rule Create?
This rule would establish fixed fees and fees based on BLM's case-
by-case processing costs. A fixed fee remains the same for each
document of a particular type. How BLM set these fixed fees is
explained below. A fee based on BLM's case-by-case processing costs
would be calculated by tracking the ongoing costs of processing an
individual document.
As this proposed rule was being prepared for publication, BLM
became aware that the case-by-case procedures outlined in proposed
section 3000.11 are not appropriate for fees charged to the successful
bidder in a lease sale or mineral materials sale context, because in
those situations BLM has already performed the work and has tracked its
costs for that work. We therefore intend to include in the final rule a
different set of procedures for charging a case-by-case fee to the
successful bidder in a lease sale or mineral materials sale, which will
include a provision allowing the successful bidder to comment on the
proposed fee before the fee is made final. These different procedures
would apply to the successful applicant for a competitive coal lease
(see proposed Sec. 3473.2(f)), a competitive solid minerals lease (see
proposed Sec. 33508.21(c)), and a competitive mineral materials sale
(see proposed Sec. 3602.44(f)). BLM solicits comments on how it should
draft the procedures for charging case-by-case fees to successful
bidders.
Are Fixed Fees Appealable?
No. The amount of a fixed fee is not appealable to the Interior
Board of Land Appeals because it is set by regulation. There is no
discretion to change it.
Does this Proposed Rule Contain Waivers or Reduction of Fixed Fees?
No. We have not included provisions in this proposed rule for
waiver or reduction of fixed fees because we believe that such
provisions are neither appropriate nor necessary for a rule that would
impose fees only on for-profit commercial enterprises. While payment of
the proposed fee could reduce an entity's profit level, waiving or
reducing the fee for that entity would simply mean that United States
taxpayers would bear the costs that the for-profit entity was not
bearing. However, we welcome comments on this issue and we will
consider further whether to include provisions for waiver or reduction
of fixed fees in the final rule.
Are Case-by-Case Fees Appealable?
Yes. Applicants may appeal case-by-case fees to the Interior Board
of Land
[[Page 41537]]
Appeals in accordance with the Department's appeals rules at 43 CFR
part 4, subpart E.
What Are the FLPMA Factors BLM Must Consider?
Section 304(b) of FLPMA lists six factors (known as the FLPMA
reasonableness factors) that BLM must consider in deciding what is a
reasonable processing fee. They are:
(1) BLM's actual costs to process a document. This does not include
management overhead, which means costs of BLM State Directors and
Washington Office staff, except when a member of this group works on a
specific authorization such as a lease. Actual costs include (but are
not limited to) funds spent on special studies, environmental impact
statements and other analyses, and monitoring of exploration activities
and development, and of construction, operation, maintenance, or
termination of an authorized facility.
(2) The monetary value, or objective worth, of the right or
privilege that the applicant seeks.
(3) The efficiency with which BLM processes a document, meaning
with a minimum of waste by carefully managing agency expenses and time.
(4) Whether any of BLM's processing costs, for actions such as
studies or data collection, benefit the general public or the Federal
Government, rather than just the applicant. This is referred to in the
statute as ``benefit of the general public interest.''
(5) Whether the project provides any significantly tangible
improvement, such as a road, or other direct service to the public.
Occasionally, a negative factor, such as an adverse impact on wildlife
or surface drainage, may prevent an improvement from being regarded as
a public service. Data collection that we need you to perform so we can
monitor an activity is not a public service.
(6) Other relevant factors.
How Did BLM Consider the FLPMA Factors for Fees?
We considered each of the FLPMA factors for each type of document
for which we are proposing a fixed fee in this rule. The BLM first
estimated the actual cost to process a type of document and then
considered each of the other FLPMA factors to see if any of them might
cause a fee to be set at less than actual cost. If so, we then
considered whether any of the remaining factors acted as an enhancing
factor that would mitigate against setting the fee at less than actual
cost. We then decided the amount of the fee, which cannot be more than
our processing cost. For most minerals actions in this proposal, this
method resulted in fees set at our actual processing cost.
BLM would also weigh the FLPMA factors to determine case-by-case
fees. For those fees, BLM would give the applicant an estimate of the
proposed fee after estimating the actual cost of processing the
individual document and considering the other FLPMA factors. The
applicant could then comment on the proposed fee. We would consider the
applicant's comments and any work to be performed by the applicant, and
give the applicant a final fee estimate. We could re-estimate
reasonable costs whenever necessary. If the established fee you would
pay is less than our actual costs because of one of the FLPMA factors,
and we are not able to process the document promptly because of the
unavailability of funding or other resources, you would have the option
to pay BLM's actual costs to process your document.
In cases (including many environmental impact statements) where BLM
might hire a third-party contractor to perform part of the processing,
your payment of actual costs would allow BLM to hire the contractor
without waiting for the availability of funding. If all processing of
your document were to be done by BLM personnel, your place in the queue
of documents would not be affected by whether you paid actual (as
opposed to reasonable) costs.
In considering the FLPMA factors, we found several trends. First,
the monetary value of the right or privilege was much greater than the
processing cost. Next, our document processing procedures, which are
based on standard steps in internal BLM handbooks, are reasonably
efficient.
We also found that none of the studies or data collection performed
as part of BLM's document processing significantly benefits the public.
The courts have held that processing which an agency is required to
perform in connection with a specific request (for example, before
approving a permit) provides a special benefit to an applicant, even if
it also provides some benefit to the public. See, e.g., Mississippi
Power & Light Co. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 601
F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1102 (1980). BLM found
that any small benefit to the public provided by the processing of
fixed-fee documents in this rulemaking is speculative and outweighed by
the monetary value to the applicant of the right or privilege.
In addition, the applicant's project usually provides little or no
service to the public. Even if a project provides a small public
service, it usually is outweighed by the monetary value to the
applicant of the right or privilege. Finally, there rarely are other
relevant factors present. Our consideration of the FLPMA factors is
explained below:
Actual Costs
Did BLM Consider Figuring and Charging Processing Costs on a Case-by-
Case Basis for Every Type of Document?
Yes. We decided not to charge processing costs on a case-by-case
basis for every type of document because it would require enormous
effort and expense. In addition, when we can reliably estimate costs
for routine services, we believe applicants benefit from knowing fees
in advance. We would determine costs on a case-by-case basis only for
types of documents where the average processing cost may not be a
reasonably accurate estimate because costs may differ significantly in
each case.
How Does BLM Figure Its Costs To Process a Document?
Actual costs are the sum of both direct and indirect costs. Direct
costs include such things as labor, material, and equipment; BLM's
measurement of direct costs is explained below. Indirect costs include
items such as rent and overhead, excluding State Director and
Washington Office management overhead.
For an example of how BLM would determine the sum of direct and
indirect costs, assume the measured direct cost of processing a
document is $200. To estimate the indirect cost for processing that
document, the BLM office would use a ratio already determined in its
accounting system--perhaps, ten to one, meaning for every $10 of direct
costs there would be $1 of indirect costs. BLM would then estimate the
indirect cost using the ratio and direct cost figures. In this example,
since the direct cost was $200 and the ratio is ten to one, the
indirect cost is $20. BLM then would add the direct and indirect cost
figures to arrive at the actual cost figure of $220 to process the
document. This method is generally accepted in the private and public
sectors.
For What Types of Documents Would BLM Measure Actual Costs on a Case-
by-Case Basis?
Competitive lease applications for coal;
Royalty rate reduction applications for coal;
[[Page 41538]]
Logical mining unit (LMU) applications and applications
for LMU modifications for coal;
Applications for lease modifications for coal;
Prospecting permit applications for non-energy leasable
minerals;
Preference right lease applications for non-energy
leasable minerals;
Competitive lease applications for non-energy leasable
minerals;
Royalty rate reduction applications for non-energy
leasable minerals;
Noncompetitive sale applications for mineral materials;
Competitive sale applications for mineral materials;
Competitive contract renewal applications for mineral
materials;
Lease or sales applications when an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is required;
Mining plans of operations when an EIS is required; and
Mineral validity examinations/reports (includes field
mapping, field sampling, assays, determination of reserves and
marketability, etc.).
What Would Case-by-Case Fee Calculations Include?
They would include all costs we incur while processing your
document, such as the costs of studies BLM conducts to comply with
legal requirements like environmental laws, the mineral leasing laws,
or the Mining Law of 1872. When we conduct a mineral validity
examination/report as a result of your application for a plan of
operations or mineral patent, or your notice under 43 CFR 3809.301, the
mineral examiner would consider the cost to you for the examination and
report along with other costs of doing business in evaluating whether
you have made a valuable discovery of minerals on the claim. This is
because the cost of a mineral exam/report is a business cost similar to
the cost of complying with environmental requirements, which may be
significant in deciding whether there has been a discovery. See United
States v. Pittsburgh Pacific Co., 30 IBLA 388, 84 I.D. 282, 290 (1977);
United States v. Kosanke Sand Corp., 12 IBLA 282, 298-99, 80 I.D. 538,
546-47 (1973) (on reconsideration).
Also, although current proposed section 3800.5 refers to applicants
for a plan of operations or a mineral patent ``under this part,'' i.e.,
43 CFR part 3800, BLM may provide in the final rule that BLM will also
recover costs of validity examinations and reports performed in
connection with plan of operation applications that are submitted under
other parts of the CFR as well, such as 36 CFR part 9 (which implements
the Mining in the Parks Act).
How Would BLM Apply the Proposed Fees to Documents That BLM Is Already
Processing?
The BLM would not charge a fixed fee under this rule for processing
a document BLM accepted before the effective date of a final rule with
the appropriate fees under then-existing rules. Also, if we began
processing a document before the effective date of this rule that would
be subject to a case-by-case fee, we would charge fees under this rule
only for costs incurred after the rule's effective date.
How Did BLM Measure Its Direct Actual Costs for Types of Documents It
Proposes Not To Measure on a Case-by-Case Basis?
We used an agency-wide average cost figure for each type of
document. This is a reasonable approximation of our actual processing
cost for that document type, as well as an efficient method of
measuring the cost.
What Data Did BLM Use to Calculate the Average Cost?
Except for new fees, we used the data collected from State Offices
in 1990, as analyzed and updated in 1995-1996 and in 1999. In the areas
of oil and gas and geothermal, with the exception of oil and gas
geophysical exploration, geothermal exploration, APDs, and GPDs,
explained above, we used our re-analyzed direct cost estimate, to which
indirect costs were added, as the average cost figure. In other areas,
we used the weighted average cost, which included indirect costs, as
the average cost figure. As explained above, we adjusted the average
cost figures to account for inflation before proposing the rule in
2000. In this proposed rule, we again adjusted the fees to account for
inflation, using the IPD-GDP. (See ``How Did BLM Address Increased
Costs Due to Inflation?'' below.)
What Processing Steps Are Included in the Fixed Fees?
Oil and Gas
For applications for permit to drill (APDs), fixed fees would
include, but not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and
entering data; assigning case numbers; ascertaining land status;
identifying any special land status such as a Wilderness Study Area
(WSA) or an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC); ascertaining
the nature and extent of proposed activity, and verifying that the
project is technically feasible; surveying impacts on other resources,
including environmental review and field work; and accommodating other
land uses, as BLM deems necessary.
For applications for oil and gas geophysical exploration permits,
fixed fees would include, but not be limited to, costs for receiving,
validating, and entering data; assigning case numbers; ascertaining
land status; identifying any special land status such as a WSA or an
ACEC; ascertaining the nature and extent of proposed activity, and
verifying that the project is technically feasible; surveying impacts
on other resources, including environmental review and field work; and
accommodating other land uses, as BLM deems necessary.
For noncompetitive lease applications, fixed fees would include,
but not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering
data; examining land availability; sorting parcels (i.e., developing
parcel configuration/acreage); preparing stipulations; preparing sale
notices; noting title records; preparing and conducting sale auctions;
preparing lease decisions; and entering and transmitting data updates.
For competitive lease applications, fixed fees would include, but
not be limited to, costs for preparing sale notices; noting title
records; preparing and conducting sale auctions; preparing lease
decisions; and entering and transmitting data updates. At this point,
this fee does not include steps leading to sorting parcels, i.e.,
developing parcel configuration/acreage, and preparing stipulations.
For assignments and transfers, fixed fees would include, but not be
limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data;
examining assignment and transfer forms; reviewing leases and bonds;
and approving, entering, and transmitting updates.
For assignments and transfers due to name changes, corporate
mergers, or transfer to an heir or devisee, fixed fees would include,
but not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering
data; examining requests; determining successors-in-interest or other
special requirements; reviewing leases and bonds; preparing decisions;
and entering and transmitting updates.
For transfers of overriding royalties or payments out of
production, fixed fees would include, but not be limited to, costs for
receiving, validating, and entering data.
For lease consolidations, fixed fees would include, but not be
limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data;
examining requests, lease term conditions and production; preparing new
leases and decisions; and entering and transmitting updates.
[[Page 41539]]
For lease renewals, fixed fees would include, but not be limited
to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data; examining
requests and lease forms for compliance; preparing decisions; and
entering and transmitting updates.
For Class 1 lease reinstatements, fixed fees would include, but not
be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data;
examining eligibility; preparing decisions; and entering and
transmitting updates.
Geothermal
For applications for GPDs, fixed fees would include, but not be
limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data;
assigning case numbers; ascertaining land status; identifying any
special land status such as a WSA or an ACEC; ascertaining the nature
and extent of proposed activity and verifying that the project is
technically feasible; surveying impacts on other resources, including
environmental review and field work; and accommodating other land uses,
as BLM deems necessary.
For applications for geothermal exploration permits, fixed fees
would include, but not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating,
and entering data; assigning case numbers; ascertaining land status;
identifying any special land status such as a WSA or an ACEC;
ascertaining the nature and extent of proposed activity and verifying
that the project is technically feasible; surveying impacts on other
resources, including environmental review and field work; and
accommodating other land uses, as BLM deems necessary.
For noncompetitive lease applications, fixed fees would include,
but not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering
data; examining land availability; sorting parcels (i.e., developing
parcel configuration/acreage); preparing stipulations; preparing sale
notices; noting title records; preparing and conducting sale auctions;
preparing lease decisions; and entering and transmitting data updates.
For competitive lease applications, fixed fees would include, but
not be limited to, costs for preparing sale notices; noting title
records; preparing and conducting sale auctions; preparing lease
decisions; and entering and transmitting data updates. At this point,
this fee does not include steps leading to sorting parcels, i.e.,
developing parcel configuration/acreage, and preparing stipulations.
For assignments and transfers, fixed fees would include, but not be
limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data;
examining assignment and transfer forms; reviewing leases and bonds;
and approving, entering, and transmitting updates. For assignments and
transfers due to name changes, corporate mergers, or transfer to an
heir or devisee, fixed fees would include receiving, validating, and
entering data; examining requests; determining successors-in-interest
or other special requirements; reviewing leases and bonds; preparing
decisions; and entering and transmitting updates.
For lease reinstatements, fixed fees would include, but not be
limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data;
examining eligibility; preparing decisions; and entering and
transmitting updates.
Non-Energy Leasable Minerals
For prospecting permit application amendments, fixed fees would
include, but not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and
entering data; examining requests and rental payments; and entering and
transmitting updates.
For prospecting permit extensions, fixed fees would include, but
not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data;
examining requests and diligence; and approving, entering, and
transmitting updates.
For lease renewals, fixed fees would include, but not be limited
to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data; examining
requests; determining changes in bonds and stipulations; preparing
decisions; and entering and transmitting updates.
Mining Law Administration
For notices of location, fixed fees would include, but not be
limited to, costs for receiving data and validating land status;
collecting statutory fees; and entering data. For amendments to a
location, fixed fees would include costs for receiving, validating, and
entering data.
For a mineral patent adjudication, fixed fees would include, but
not be limited to, costs for receiving and entering data; examining
mineral surveys, statements required by statute, initial descriptions
of geology and mineral evidence, and status of adverse claims; ensuring
sufficiency of title evidence (title opinion or abstract with certified
copies of location certificates and all amendments); publishing legal
notices; receiving and examining final proofs and statements for
sufficiency; accepting purchase monies; forwarding the application to
the Secretary for review; and issuing decisions. Fixed fees would not
include the cost of a mineral examination and report, which would be
covered by a case-by-case fee.
For transfers, fixed fees would include, but not be limited to,
costs for receiving, validating, and entering data. BLM's costs are
calculated for each transferee if a mining claim or site is transferred
to more than one person. It has been BLM's policy to charge this fee
for each transferee. We propose to clarify this in Sec. 3833.32(c) by
changing the wording from ``You as transferee'' to ``Each transferee.''
For affidavits of assessment work, fixed fees would include, but
not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data.
For notices of intent to hold, fixed fees would include, but not be
limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data.
For deferments of assessment work, fixed fees would include, but
not be limited to, costs for receiving and entering data; examining
requests; determining eligibility; approving or rejecting requests;
entering and transmitting updates; and issuing decisions.
For adverse claims, fixed fees would include, but not be limited
to, costs for receiving and entering data; examining evidence;
accepting or denying claims; and issuing decisions.
For protests, fixed fees would include, but not be limited to,
costs for receiving and entering data; examining evidence; and issuing
decisions to either dismiss or accept a protest. Fixed fees would not
include costs associated with adjudications to correct errors or
omissions uncovered by a protest.
How Did BLM Address Increased Costs Due to Inflation?
For this proposed rule we applied the IPD-GDP, discussed above, for
the fourth quarter of 2003 to the fees in the 2000 proposed rule to
account for inflation. At the time, we began preparing this proposed
rule, that information was the most recent data available. Because we
did not know when the proposed rule would be published, we did not
update the fees again before publication. We will again adjust the fees
in this proposed rule by using the IDP-GDP for the fourth quarter of
the most recent year available before issuing the final rule.
The BLM proposes to adjust the fees annually to the IPD-GDP, to
bring them in line with current costs. We chose this method because the
alternative is to collect data periodically to adjust fees to
inflation, which is inefficient, costly, and impractical. BLM proposes
that it amend the fees by publication in the Federal Register and post
the adjusted fees on its Web site prior to October 1 each year, and
that the posted fees would become effective each year on October 1. BLM
selected October 1 as the appropriate date to increase fees and
[[Page 41540]]
service charges in the fee schedule because it is the beginning of the
fiscal year for government agencies and is the common implementation
date for various fees. Because we are proposing to establish the
process for changing fees in this rule, and the application of that
process is simply a mathematical calculation, a new rulemaking will not
be necessary. If we decide to amend fees based on something other than
the IPD-GDP, we would do so through proposed notice and comment
rulemaking.
We note that some fees for documents in the 2000 proposed rule were
not processing fees, but were already-existing filing fees that we did
not propose to change. They were included in that proposed rule, and we
are proposing to retain them in this proposed rule, because they are
part of the section under revision that addresses fees. We also are
proposing to adjust the existing filing fees at this time. The
Solicitor's Opinion on cost recovery explains, ``[n]ominal `filing'
fees * * * serve to limit filings to serious applicants [and] are not
intended to reimburse the United States for its processing costs.'' (M-
36987 at p.4) It makes sense to adjust these filing fees periodically
to account for inflation as well, so we have applied the IPD-GDP to the
filing fees that were included in the 2000 proposed rule. These filing
fees will also be adjusted annually using the IPD-GDP, as explained
above.
How Did BLM Round Fees?
Although in this proposed rule, we have rounded estimated costs to
the nearest dollar, in the final rule we propose to round fees down or
up to the nearest $5, for ease of payment and administration. This is
consistent with general business practices.
Might BLM Adjust Its Average Cost Figures and Revise Fees in the Future
for Reasons Other Than Inflation?
Yes. The fees in this rule do not include certain internal steps
for which we believed costs could not be recovered when we initially
collected data. For example, the costs for processing an oil and gas or
geothermal competitive lease sale parcel do not include the steps
required to prepare an individual sale parcel prior to preparing the
sale notice, because we assumed those costs were not recoverable.
However, the Solicitor's December 5, 1996 Opinion on cost recovery
concluded that we can recover costs for those steps, so in future rules
we will propose fees that attempt to capture these costs and other
costs not captured here so that fees will accurately reflect our
reasonable costs. We may also amend fees in future rulemakings when we
receive new data or have another reason to believe that fees do not
accurately reflect reasonable costs. As opposed to simple adjustments
for inflation based on the IPD-GDP, any such changes to the fees would
be through a notice and comment rulemaking process.
Monetary Value of the Right or Privilege
Did BLM Calculate Exact Figures for the Monetary Value to the Applicant
in Setting the Proposed Fixed Fees?
No. We decided not to try to calculate precise dollar values to the
applicant of receiving the benefit applied for, either by document type
or on a case-by-case basis, because that would involve extensive time
and resources. Instead, we made an effort to judge the magnitude of
these values. We have used this approach before. For example, in the
preamble to the 1986 rights-of-way regulations (51 FR 26836), we
considered monetary value in a general sense rather than precise
figures.
How Did BLM Consider the Monetary Value of the Right or Privilege
Granted by a Fixed Fee Document?
To gauge the monetary value, BLM considered the monetary value of
similar rights or privileges, granted to applicants historically. We
reviewed each type of document and compared the proposed processing fee
for a given type of document with our sense of the historical values of
rights or privileges we have granted that are similar to those sought
by the applicant. In each case, we believe the value of the right or
privilege is clearly so much greater than the processing cost that a
fee set at the average actual cost would not significantly affect the
proposed action. This is not surprising considering that the costs
pertain to documents related to the development of commercial minerals.
We did not reduce any fees because of this factor. We would consider
the monetary value of the benefit to the applicant for case-by-case
fees in a similar manner.
Do Fees Change if Leases Are Found After Exploration To Have Less Value
Than Previously Thought?
No. BLM bases its decision about the monetary value of the benefit
to the applicant on the value at the time the applicant submits its
lease application. All leases have relatively large monetary value
before exploration compared to the proposed fees. The basic value of
the opportunity provided by a lease to explore for minerals is shown by
the willingness of applicants to pay large sums before exploration for
bonus bids, for lease transfers, and for exploration activities such as
drilling. We therefore decided that it is reasonable to charge a fee
equal to our processing costs for all lease applications.
How Did BLM Consider the Value of Requests for Lease Sales, Requests
for Sales, or Expressions of Interest?
In accordance with the Solicitor's December 5, 1996, Opinion on
cost recovery, BLM considers that its processing costs to prepare
parcels for sale or lease sale benefit three classes of beneficiaries:
the party who requests that the parcel be included in the sale or lease
sale; all parties who bid on the parcel; and the successful bidder.
While the party who requests that a parcel be included in a sale or
lease sale benefits by influencing the selection of parcels offered,
BLM believes this benefit is greatly outweighed by the benefit to the
bidder who ultimately obtains the lease or sales contract and can
develop the minerals on the parcel. Similarly, while all bidders
receive the benefit of being considered for a lease or sales contract,
BLM believes this benefit is greatly outweighed by the benefits to the
bidder who obtains the lease or sales contract. We would therefore
charge all processing costs to prepare a parcel for lease or sale to
the successful bidder.
The Efficiency Factor
What Did BLM Consider When It Looked at Efficiency in Relation to the
Proposed Fixed Fees?
We wanted to ensure that the process of collecting fees is not
itself overly costly. For example, we would not collect cost data on a
case-by-case basis for each document we process because that kind of
cost tracking is simply inefficient--employee tracking time spent on
each document just adds to the processing costs. We looked for other
ways to establish fees and decided that for most documents in this
rulemaking, it was more efficient and sufficiently reliable to set a
fixed fee based on our average costs. However, as discussed above, when
fixed fees would be unreliable, we would track costs on a case-by-case
basis.
Did BLM Determine That the Documents for Which Fees Are Charged in This
Rulemaking Are Processed Efficiently?
Yes. BLM based the processing procedures on standardized steps in
BLM Handbooks in order to eliminate duplication and extraneous
procedures. We developed these detailed and
[[Page 41541]]
measurable processing steps to be efficient.
Public Benefit Factor
Are There Some BLM Activities That Only Benefit the Public and Do Not
Benefit Any Particular Applicant?
Yes. Activities that only benefit the public are those that are not
done in connection with processing a particular document. These would
include studies that BLM must perform whether or not it receives an
application or other document-processing request, such as land use
planning studies and programmatic environmental analyses prepared by an
agency at its own instigation. We would not recover the costs of such
studies from applicants. Therefore, BLM did not consider studies or
data that only benefit the public when it considered the public benefit
factor in establishing the fixed fees proposed in this rule.
If Processing a Document Requires That a Study Be Done, Does That Study
Always Benefit the Applicant?
Yes. Courts have held that when processing an application requires
a study, then the performance of that study necessarily benefits the
applicant. See, e.g., Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 601 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1979), cert.
denied 444 U.S. 1102 (1980). The most obvious benefit is that the
agency may approve the application, allowing the applicant to operate.
That is, if a study is required, we cannot approve an application
unless the study is performed, and if we do not approve an application,
the applicant cannot take the action for which it seeks approval.
Such studies can provide other potential benefits to an applicant,
as the preamble to BLM's 1986 rights-of-way regulations pointed out:
Public comment on environmental issues often helps to [defuse]
political opposition to a project. An environmental impact statement
may uncover an environmentally acceptable alternative which may
allow an otherwise unacceptable project to be built. Special studies
of seismic and climatic conditions sometimes reveal that the
applicant's original proposal would not meet necessary engineering
standards or is otherwise flawed. When an accident is prevented or
money saved because higher standards are used, an applicant benefits
because the [project] is not interrupted. These types of benefits
are difficult to measure and may not be apparent until after a
project has been completed and has operated for many years (51 FR
26836, 26837-38).
These benefits of environmental studies are also applicable to
minerals actions. Although they are speculative, substantial benefits
such as these can exist.
How Did BLM Consider the Public Benefit From Its Document Processing?
Possible public benefits from BLM processing activities such as
studies or data collection are also speculative. For example, studies
related to document processing often provide information about an
area's natural resources, and this is sometimes a public benefit, but
the value of the information, or whether there will be a benefit at
all, is not predictable. BLM concluded that document processing for
types of fixed fee documents in this rulemaking does not usually
produce studies or data significantly beneficial to the public.
In addition, except for fees determined on a case-by-case basis,
BLM determined that for each type of document in this rulemaking the
monetary value to the applicant outweighs the possible benefit of such
studies to the public. The BLM analysts used their knowledge of the
historical values of such cases to make these determinations. We have
therefore decided that this factor does not warrant setting any fee in
this rulemaking at less than its actual processing cost.
Public Service Factor
How Is a Project's Service to the Public (Public Service) Different
From Benefits the General Public Derives From BLM's Processing (Public
Benefit)?
A project's service to the public concerns whether the applicant's
project itself, as opposed to BLM's processing the related documents,
provides some significant direct service or benefit to the general
public. This is referred to in the statute as public service. Examples
would be improvements such as roads, trails, or recreation facilities.
Occasionally, a negative factor, such as an adverse impact on wildlife
or surface drainage, may prevent BLM from regarding an improvement as a
public service.
Does Exploration Data Shared With the Government for Purposes Other
Than Monitoring Constitute a Public Service?
Yes. Applicants for prospecting permits for non-energy minerals are
required to share with the government the mineral resource data they
derive from exploration. However, if the information is valuable for
mineral development, we expect the prospecting permit holder would use
it. In that case, the monetary value of the information to the
permittee would outweigh its value to the public.
We considered the suggestion that even information that is not
valuable to the prospecting permit holder for mineral development might
still provide some geological or geophysical information of value to
the government, which BLM could sometimes use for some types of
resource management such as land classifications. However, because
there is very little information obtained in this way and because its
use is unpredictable, the potential benefits of the information to the
public are too small to warrant an adjustment to the proposed fee.
Do Projects in This Proposed Rule Subject to a Fixed Fee Generally
Provide a Public Service?
No. Large projects could include road construction, but such roads
are rarely open to the public or built to public safety standards. In
addition, they eventually must be removed. Consequently, for fixed fee
documents, the likelihood of providing such a public service is too
remote and speculative to warrant charging a fee less than actual
costs. If any projects do provide such a public service, it is more
likely to be those that require an environmental impact statement. For
those projects, we will consider all of the reasonableness factors,
including public service, on a case-by-case basis.
Other Factors
Are There Any Other Factors That Made It Reasonable To Set a Fee in
This Proposed Rulemaking at Less Than Actual Cost?
Yes. Protests of mineral patent applications provide a benefit to
BLM by affording us an opportunity to review the protestor's concerns
and ensure that the applicant has complied with the law. Therefore, BLM
proposes to set the fee for processing patent protests at $53, which is
less than BLM's actual processing cost of $271. In addition, as
explained above, BLM decided to phase in the fees for APDs and GPDs, as
well as for geothermal and oil and gas geophysical exploration
applications to allow the industry time to include these costs in their
planning process.
The BLM did not find other factors that made it reasonable to
adjust fees in this proposed rulemaking. When BLM charges fees on a
case-by-case basis, applicants could raise other factors during the
fee-setting process.
[[Page 41542]]
Table 1.--Proposed Fees for FY 2006
[Note that fees will be adjusted annually by publication in the Federal Register for inflation according to the
IPD-GDP and posted on BLM's Web site. Revised fees are effective each October 1]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fees based on
implicit price
Proposed fees in deflator 4th
Document/action Existing fee 2000 rule Qtr 2003 Proposed fee
(106.244)
indexed to 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Gas (Group 3100)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncompetitive lease $75.................... $305.............. $324.04 $324
application.
Competitive lease application. 75..................... 120............... 127.49 127
Assignment and transfer....... 25..................... 70................ 74.37 74
Overriding royalty transfer, 25..................... 9................. 9.56 10
payment out of production.
Name change, corporate merger 0...................... 160............... 169.99 170
or transfer to heir/devisee.
Leases consolidation.......... 0...................... 335............... 355.92 356
Lease renewal or exchange..... 75..................... 305............... 324.04 324
Lease reinstatement, Class I.. 25..................... 60................ 63.75 64
Leasing under right-of-way.... 75..................... 305............... 324.04 324
Geophysical exploration notice 0...................... Case-by-case...... N/A 500
of intent--outside Alaska.
Geophysical exploration permit 25..................... Case-by-case...... N/A 500
application--Alaska.
Application for Permit to 0...................... Not included...... N/A 1600
Drill APD).
-------------------------------
Geothermal (Group 3200)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncompetitive lease 75..................... 305............... 324.04 324
application.
Competitive lease application. 0...................... 120............... 127.49 127
Assignment and transfer of 50..................... 70................ 74.37 74
record title or operating
right.
Name change, corporate merger 0...................... 160............... 169.99 170
or transfer to heir/devisee.
Lease consolidation........... 0...................... 335............... 355.92 356
Lease reinstatement........... 0...................... 60................ 63.75 64
Exploration operations permit 0...................... Not included...... N/A 500
application.
Geothermal Permit to Drill 0...................... Not included...... N/A 1600
(GPD).
-------------------------------
Coal (Group 3400)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
License to mine application... 10..................... 10................ 10.62 11
Exploration license 250.................... 250............... 265.68 266
application.
Lease or lease interest 50..................... 50................ 53.12 53
transfer.
Competitive coal lease........ 250.................... Case-by-case...... N/A Case-by-case
Coal lease modification....... 250.................... Case-by-case...... N/A Case-by-case
Logical mining unit formation 0...................... Case-by-case...... N/A Case-by-case
or modification.
Royalty reduction application. 0...................... Case-by-case...... N/A Case-by-case
-------------------------------
Nonenergy Leasable (Group 3500)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications other than those 25..................... 25................ 26.57 27
listed below.
Prospecting permit application 0...................... 50................ 53.12 53
amendment.
Extension of prospecting 25..................... 80................ 85.00 85
permit.
Lease renewal................. 25..................... 390............... 414.35 414
Prospecting permit application 25..................... Case-by-case...... N/A Case-by-case
Preference right lease 0...................... Case-by-case...... N/A Case-by-case
application.
Successful competitive lease.. 0...................... Case-by-case...... N/A Case-by-case
Application to suspend, waive 0...................... Case-by-case...... N/A Case-by-case
or reduce your rental,
minimum royalty, production
royalty or royalty rate.
Future or fractional interest 25..................... Case-by-case...... N/A Case-by-case
lease application.
-------------------------------
Mineral Materials Disposal (Group 3600)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncompetitive sale (excluding 0...................... Case-by-case...... N/A Case-by-case
sales from community pits or
common use areas).
Competitive sale.............. 0...................... Case-by-case...... N/A Case-by-case
Competitive contract renewal.. 0...................... N/A............... N/A Case-by-case
-------------------------------
Mining Law Administration (Group 3800)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Location \1\........ 10..................... 15................ 15.94 16
Amendment of location......... 5...................... 10................ 10.62 11
Transfer of mining claim/site. 5...................... 10................ 10.62 11
Recording an annual FLPMA 5...................... 10................ 10.62 11
filing (Sec. 3835.30).
Deferment of Assessment....... 25..................... 80................ 85 85
Mineral Patent Adjudication... 1st claim--$250;....... 2,290............. 2,433.00 2,433
Each additional claim--
$50.
Adverse claim................. 10..................... 80................ 85 85
[[Page 41543]]
Protest....................... 10..................... 50................ 53.12 53
Mineral Patent Exam Report 0...................... Case-by-case...... N/A Case-by-case
Requiring an EIS.
3809 Plan of Operations or 0...................... Case-by-case...... N/A Case-by-case
Notice with EIS.
3809 Plan of Operations, 0...................... Case-by-case...... N/A Case-by-case
Notice of Mineral Patent with
Validity Exams.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The existing fee for recording a mining claim or site location (43 CFR 3833) is a total of $165. This
includes the initial maintenance fee of $125 and one time $30 location fee required by Statute and a $10
service charge. The service charge would become a processing fee and would increase to $16 under the proposed
rule making the total fee $171. In the 2005 Department of the Interior Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
Congress required that the $125 maintenance fee be lowered to $100 for mining claims or sites that are
recorded with BLM on or after December 8, 2004 until BLM establishes a nationwide permit tracking system and
files a report with Congress, at which point the fee will revert to $125.
IV. Procedural Matters
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
OMB has determined that this proposed rule is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. BLM has determined that
the proposed rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. It will not adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal
governments or communities. This determination is based on the analysis
that BLM prepared in conjunction with this proposed rule. Please
contact one of the persons listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT: section above for instructions on how to view a copy of the
analysis.
This rule will not create inconsistencies or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency. This proposed rule
does not change the relationships of the onshore minerals programs with
other agencies' actions. These relationships are included in agreements
and memoranda of understanding that would not change with this proposed
rule.
In addition, this proposed rule would not materially affect the
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, loan programs, or the rights
and obligations of their recipients. However, this rule does propose to
increase existing fees, and create new fees, for processing documents
associated with the onshore minerals programs because of
recommendations made by the OIG (Report Nos. 89-25, 92-I-828, 95-I-379,
and 97-I-1300) as well as the IOAA of 1952, 31 U.S.C. 9701, and FLPMA,
43 U.S.C. 1734. As stated earlier in this preamble, the IOAA and
section 304 of FLPMA authorize BLM to charge applicants the cost of
processing documents. In addition, the IOAA states that these charges
should cover the agency's costs for these services to the degree
practicable. OMB Circular A-25 and the Department Manual require the
collection of processing fees.
The OIG reports documented the budgetary impact of delaying
collection of fees to reimburse agency costs and strongly admonished
BLM to collect the fees proposed in this rule. Finally, although this
rule will not raise novel legal issues, it may raise novel policy
issues because under this rule we would charge processing fees that we
do not currently impose.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide
is not required. For the purposes of this section, a small entity is
defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for mining (broadly
inclusive of metal mining, coal mining, oil and gas extraction, and the
mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals) as an individual, limited
partnership, or small company considered to be at arm's length from the
control of any parent companies, with fewer than 500 employees. The SBA
defines a small entity differently, however, for leasing Federal land
for coal mining: a coal lessor is a small entity if it employs not more
than 250 people, including people working for its affiliates. The SBA
would consider many of the operators the BLM works with in the onshore
minerals programs to be small entities. The BLM notes that this
proposed rule does not affect service industries, for which the SBA has
a different definition of ``small entity.''
The proposed rule will affect a large number of small entities
since nearly all of them will face fee increases for activities on
public lands. However, we have concluded that the effects will not be
significant. As presented in the analysis prepared by BLM, and
available as an attachment to the Record of Compliance for this
proposed rule, except for mineral materials, when the total fees paid
by these entities are expressed as a percentage of their sales value it
is clear that the relative size and effect of the fees are very small
and that they will have no measurable effect on these entities. We
completed a threshold analysis which is available for public review in
the administrative record for the rule. Please contact one of the
persons listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: section above
for instructions on how to view a copy of the analysis.
For example, when the total fee increases are compared to the oil
and gas receipt data, the fee increases are 0.34 percent of receipts
from Federal lands. Assuming the burden of the fee increases are
distributed evenly among all firms operating on Federal lands the fee
increases would be 1.50 percent of receipts attributable to small
entities. The proposed fee increases for oil and gas filings range from
$39 to $4000 (when fees are fully phased-in). These fee increases will
not cause a significant impact on the small entities working in the oil
and gas industry on Federal lands.
In the area of mineral materials, the proposed fee increases only
apply to exclusive mineral materials sales. The proposed fee increases
do not apply to nonexclusive sale applications (community pits and
common use areas) or to free use permit applications. The proposed fee
increases are estimated to
[[Page 41544]]
be 25.65 percent of the reported production value for exclusive mineral
materials sales. Assuming the burden of the fee increases is
distributed evenly among all firms operating on Federal lands, the fee
increases for exclusive mineral materials sales would be 48.4 percent
of receipts attributable to small entities. Without further analysis,
these percentages would suggest the potential of a significant impact
on operators, including small entities, operating on Federal lands.
However, a number of factors mitigate this potential impact.
The most significant factor in mitigating the potential impact of
the proposed fee increases is that mineral materials are sold for fair
market value. To the extent the proposed fee increases the cost of
obtaining mineral materials from BLM, the appraised value will reflect
these higher costs. Any fee increases will be offset by lower appraised
values resulting in no effect on operators, including small entities,
on Federal lands.
Additionally, for mineral materials, based on data for Fiscal Years
96, 97, and 98 (the most recent data available), this proposed rule
would affect on average only about 13.5 percent of the disposals on
public lands. The rule would not affect the remaining 86.5 percent of
disposals, consisting of non-exclusive sales. Although exclusive sales
applications account for only about 13.5 percent of all filings, the
value of the material sold to the operators was 57 percent of all
mineral materials sold by BLM. In short, these exclusive sales are
generally for larger, high value operations.
Finally, all proposed fee increases for mineral materials filings
are to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The applicant/operator
has the opportunity to present data to BLM on the reasonableness of the
fees. For exclusive sale applications involving a small operation, the
monetary value factor (FLPMA factor 2--``the monetary value of the
rights or privileges sought'') may affect the amount of the fee. In
addition, non-exclusive sales continue to be an option for small
entities that wish to obtain mineral materials while avoiding the fees
associated with exclusive sales.
We note that in all areas, most of the proposed fees are charged
only once and, therefore, generally the impact is spread over several
years of industry production. This has the effect of lessening the
impact even further. In addition, as with mineral materials, lease
sales are for fair market value, so we can expect bonus bids to decline
in response to the new or increased costs.
The amount of the proposed fee increases calls for a discussion
about mineral patent adjudication and associated mineral examination
fees and their possible effect on small entities. These fees apply to
hardrock mineral patent applications under the Mining Law of 1872,
which, when approved, result in a transfer of title from the United
States to the mining claimant. Patenting is a voluntary process and is
not required under the law. Mining claimants who have found a valuable
mineral discovery on the public lands and properly located a claim may
mine and market the minerals on the claim without a patent and without
paying any royalties to the United States.
Fixed fees for mineral patent applications are set in this proposed
rule at $2,433 for adjudication of title and sufficiency of the
application, plus a case-by-case fee for the actual mineral examination
of the mining claims or sites in the application. Although this is an
appreciable increase, it is not significant compared to the capital
expenditures associated with many hardrock mining ventures, which may
range from hundreds of thousands of dollars for small operations to
hundreds of millions of dollars for large ventures. The smaller the
entity, the more likely it is that the application will seek to patent
fewer mining claims, reducing the time needed for BLM's mineral
examination. Because fees for the mineral examination are based largely
on a case-by-case tracking of our actual time and the costs to us,
applications with fewer claims will generally be charged fees at the
low end of the possible range.
Since 1994, every Interior Appropriations Act has contained a
moratorium for processing any new mineral patent applications. Because
of the patenting moratorium, future activity in the adjudication and
mineral examination of mineral patent applications is expected to
decline significantly in the near future. Therefore, these fees will be
applied rarely. Moreover, because claimants have a recognized property
interest in a valid unpatented mining claim and can enjoy the benefits
of mining and marketing from their claims without ever applying for a
patent, a claimant could avoid these fees simply by not filing a patent
application even if future appropriation acts did not contain a
moratorium.
For many document types, BLM will establish charges on a case-by-
case basis. In these situations, the applicant/operator has the
opportunity to present data to BLM on the reasonableness of the fees
using the FLPMA factors. If, for example, the entity is small and has a
small operation, the monetary value factor may cause BLM to reduce the
fee(s). When the entity is small but has large operations that are high
in monetary value, it must have access to large amounts of capital and
the increased fees will not have a significant detrimental effect. In
any case, the entities may appeal case-by-case fees if they believe BLM
is being unreasonable in its calculations.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The proposed rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined at 5 U.S.C.
804(2). The proposed rule would not have an annual effect on the
economy greater than $100 million; it would not result in major cost or
price increases for consumers, industries, government agencies, or
regions; and it would not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. We completed a threshold analysis, which is available for
public review in the administrative record for the rule.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The BLM has determined that this proposed rule is not significant
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Section 1532,
because it will not result in state, local, private sector, or tribal
government expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year. This
proposed rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, BLM is not required to prepare a statement
containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
Executive Order 12630, Government Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
The proposed rule does not represent a government action capable of
interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. The rule
has no bearing on property rights, but only concerns recovery of
government processing costs for actions that benefit certain entities
that acquire rights and extract publicly owned resources. Therefore,
the DOI has determined that the rule would not cause a taking of
private property or require further discussion of takings implications
under this Executive Order.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the proposed rule does
not have significant effects on federalism, and
[[Page 41545]]
therefore a federalism assessment is not required. The proposed rule
does not change the role or responsibilities between Federal, state,
and local government entities. The rule does not relate to the
structure and role of states and will not have substantial, direct
effects on states. It may result in a slight decrease in bonus bids,
which BLM shares with the states and other revenue recipients. However,
the effect would be negligible over the life of a lease.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation, and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM has determined that
this proposed rule would not include policies that have tribal
implications. A key factor is whether the rule would have substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes. The BLM has not found any
substantial direct effects. Consequently, BLM did not utilize the
consultation process set forth in section 5 of the Executive Order.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, BLM finds that this rule
does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements
of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The BLM consulted with DOI's
Office of the Solicitor throughout the drafting process.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
the OMB must approve at this time under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rule potentially affects the
following information requirements approved under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.:
1004-0025, Mineral Surveys, Mineral Patent Applications, Adverse
Claims, Protests, and Contests;
1003-0034, Oil and Gas Lease Transfers;
1004-0073, Coal Management;
1004-0074, Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources Leasing;
1004-0103, Mineral Materials Disposal;
1004-0114, Payment and Recordation of Location Notices and Annual
Filings for Mining Claims, Mill Sites, Tunnel Sites;
1004-0121, Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale;
1004-0132, Geothermal Leasing Reports and Resources Leasing and
Drilling Operations;
1004-0137, Requirements for Operating Rights Owners and Operators;
1004-0145, Oil and Gas Exploration and Leasing;
1004-0162, Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration Operations;
1004-0169, Use and Occupancy under the Mining Laws;
1004-0185, Onshore Oil and Gas Exploration, Leasing and Drainage
Operations;
1004-0194, Surface Management Activities Under the General Mining
Law.
This rule affects the information collections just listed not by
decreasing or increasing the information requirements described in
these collections but by establishing or changing the costs of filing
the applications and reports included in these collections. When this
rule becomes final, BLM will file change notices with the OMB, Form
83c, to reflect the new or changed fees established by the final rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
The BLM has determined that this proposed rule is administrative
and involves only procedural changes addressing fee requirements.
Therefore, it is categorically excluded from environmental review under
section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA, pursuant to 516 DM 2.3A and 516 DM 2,
Appendix 1, Item 1.10.
In addition, the proposed rule does not meet any of the 10 criteria
for exceptions to categorical exclusions listed in 516 DM 2, Appendix
2. Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR
1508.4) and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department
of the Interior, the term `categorical exclusions' means categories of
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment and which have no such effect in
procedures adopted by a Federal agency and therefore require neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement.
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
In accordance with Executive Order 13211, BLM finds that this
proposed rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. The distribution of or use of
energy would not be unduly affected by this proposed rule.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order No. 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are simple and easy to understand. We invite your comments on how
to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including
answers to questions such as the following: Are the requirements in the
proposed regulations clearly stated? Do the proposed regulations
contain technical language or jargon that interferes with their
clarity?
Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their
clarity? Would the regulations be easier to understand if we divided
them into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold
type and is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading,
for example: Sec. 3000.10 What do I need to know about fees in
general?
Is the description of the proposed regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this preamble helpful in understanding the
proposed regulations? How could this description be more helpful in
making the proposed regulations easier to understand?
Please send any comments you have on the clarity of the regulations
to the address specified in the ADDRESSES section.
Authors
The principal authors of this rule are Tim Spisak from the Fluid
Minerals Group, and the Solid Minerals Group. They were assisted by the
Office of the Solicitor and Cynthia Ellis of the Regulatory Affairs
Group, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, 1620 L
Street NW., Room 401 Washington, DC 20036; Telephone (202) 452-5030.
Dated: June 28, 2005.
Rebecca W. Watson,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
List of Subjects
43 CFR Part 3000
Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
43 CFR Part 3100
Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration,
Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Surety bonds.
43 CFR Part 3110
Government contracts, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands--
mineral
[[Page 41546]]
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
43 CFR Part 3120
Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration,
Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
43 CFR Part 3130
Alaska, Government contracts, Oil and gas exploration, Public
lands--mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Surety bonds.
43 CFR Part 3150
Administrative practice and procedures, Alaska, Oil and gas
exploration, Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
43 CFR Part 3160
Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts,
Indians-lands, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Penalties,
Public lands--mineral resources, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
43 CFR Part 3200
Environmental protection, Geothermal energy, Government contracts,
Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands--mineral
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
43 CFR Part 3470
Coal, Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Mines, Public
lands--mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Surety bonds.
43 CFR Part 3500
Government contracts, Hydrocarbons, Mineral royalties, Mines,
Phosphate, Potassium, Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sodium, Sulfur, Surety bonds.
43 CFR Part 3600
Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
43 CFR Part 3800
Administrative practices, Environmental protection,
Intergovernmental relations, Mines, Public lands--mineral resources,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Wilderness areas.
43 CFR Part 3830
Mineral royalties, Mines, Public lands--mineral resources,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
43 CFR Part 3833
Mines, Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
43 CFR Part 3835
Mines, Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
43 CFR Part 3836
Mines, Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
43 CFR Part 3860
Mines, Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
43 CFR Part 3870
Public lands--mineral resources, Adverse claims, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble and the
authorities stated below BLM amends parts 3000, 3100, 3120, 3130, 3150,
3160, 3200, 3470, 3500, 3600, 3800, 3830, 3833, 3835, 3836, 3860, and
3870 of Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Groups 3000, 3100,
3200, 3400, 3500, 3600, 3800) as set forth below:
SUBCHAPTER C--MINERALS MANAGEMENT (3000)
PART 3000--MINERALS MANAGEMENT GENERAL
1. The authority citation for part 3000 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., 301-
306, and 351-359; 30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 40 U.S.C.
471 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 6508; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; and Pub. L. 97-
35, 95 Stat., 357.
Subpart 3000--General
2. Add Sec. 3000.10 to read as follows:
Sec. 3000.10 What do I need to know about fees in general?
(a) You must include the required fees with documents you file
under this subchapter. Fees may be statutorily set fees, relatively
nominal filing fees, or processing fees intended to reimburse BLM for
its reasonable processing costs. For processing fees, BLM takes into
account the factors in section 304 (b) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1734(b)) before deciding a fee. The
BLM considers the factors for each type of document when the processing
fee is a fixed fee and for each individual document when the fee is
decided on a case-by-case basis, as explained in 43 CFR 3000.11.
(b) BLM will not accept a document that you submit without the
proper filing or processing fee amounts except for documents where BLM
sets the fee on a case-by-case basis. Fees are not refundable except as
provided for case-by-case fees in 43 CFR 3000.11. BLM will keep your
fixed filing or processing fee as a service charge even if we do not
approve your application or you withdraw it completely or partially.
(c) We will periodically adjust fees established in this subchapter
according to the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product,
which is published annually by the U.S. Department of Commerce for the
previous year. Because the fee recalculations are simply based on a
mathematical formula, we will change the fees in final rules without
opportunity for notice and comment.
(d) We will not charge a fixed fee under this rule for processing a
document BLM accepted before the effective date of this final rule with
the appropriate fees under then-existing rules.
3. Add Sec. 3000.11 to read as follows:
Sec. 3000.11 When and how does BLM charge me processing fees on a
case-by-case basis?
(a) Fees in this subchapter are designated either as case-by-case
fees or as fixed fees. The fixed fees are established in this
subchapter for specified types of documents. However, if BLM decides at
any time that a particular document designated for a fixed fee will
have a unique processing cost, such as the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement, we may set the fee under the case-by-
case procedures in this section.
(b) For case-by-case fees, BLM measures the ongoing processing cost
for each individual document and considers the factors in section
304(b) of FLPMA on a case-by-case basis according to the following
procedures:
(1) You may ask BLM's approval to do all or part of any study or
other activity according to standards BLM specifies, thereby reducing
BLM's costs for processing your document.
(2) Before performing any case processing, we will give you a
written estimate of the proposed fee for reasonable processing costs
after we consider the FLPMA section 304(b) factors.
(3) You may comment on the proposed fee.
[[Page 41547]]
(4) We will then give you the final estimate of the processing fee
amount after considering your comments and any BLM-approved work you
will do.
(i) If we encounter higher or lower processing costs than
anticipated, we will re-estimate our reasonable processing costs
following the procedure in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4)
of this section.
(ii) If the established fee you would pay is less than BLM's actual
costs as a result of consideration of the FLPMA section 304(b) factors,
and we are not able to process your document promptly because of the
unavailability of funding or other resources, you will have the option
to pay BLM's actual costs to process your document. This will enable
BLM to process your document sooner. Once processing is complete, we
will refund to you any money that we did not spend on processing costs.
(5) (i) We will periodically estimate what our reasonable
processing costs will be for a specific period and will bill you for
that period. Payment is due to BLM 30 days after you receive your bill.
BLM will stop processing your document if you do not pay the bill by
the date payment is due.
(ii) If a periodic payment turns out to be more or less than BLM's
reasonable processing costs for the period, we will adjust the next
billing accordingly or make a refund. Do not deduct any amount from a
payment without our prior written approval.
(6) You must pay the entire fee before we will issue the final
document.
(7) You may appeal BLM's estimated processing costs in accordance
with 43 CFR part 4. We will not process the document further until the
appeal is resolved, in accordance with paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this
section, unless you pay the fee under protest while the appeal is
pending. If the appeal results in a decision changing the proposed fee,
we will adjust the fee in accordance with paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this
section.
(c) If we began processing a document subject to a case-by-case fee
before the effective date of this rule, we will charge fees only for
costs we incur after the effective date.
4. Add Sec. 3000.12 to read as follows:
Sec. 3000.12 What is the fee schedule for fixed fees?
(a) The table in this section shows the fixed fees that you must
pay to BLM for the services listed for Fiscal Year 2006. These fees are
nonrefundable. Fees will be adjusted annually for inflation according
to the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product (IPD-GDP) by
way of publication of a document in the Federal Register and will
subsequently be posted on the BLM Web site (http://www.blm.gov) before
October 1 each year. Revised fees are effective each year on October 1.
FY 2006 Processing Fee Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document/action Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Gas (Parts 3100, 3100, 3110, 3120, 3130, 3150, 3160)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncompetitive lease application........................... $324
Competitive lease application.............................. 127
Assignment and transfer.................................... 74
Overriding royalty transfer, payment out of production..... 10
Name change, corporate merger or transfer to heir/devisee.. 170
Leases consolidation....................................... 356
Lease renewal or exchange.................................. 324
Lease reinstatement, Class I............................... 64
Leasing under right-of-way................................. 324
Geophysical exploration notice of intent--outside Alaska... 500
Geophysical exploration permit application--Alaska......... 500
Application for Permit to Drill (APD)...................... 1,600
------------------------------------------------------------
Geothermal (Part 3200)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncompetitive lease application........................... 324
Competitive lease application.............................. 127
Assignment and transfer of record title or operating right. 74
Name change, corporate merger or transfer to heir/devisee.. 170
Lease consolidation........................................ 356
Lease reinstatement........................................ 64
Exploration operations permit application.................. 500
Geothermal Permit to Drill (GPD)........................... 1,600
------------------------------------------------------------
Coal (Parts 3400, 3470)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
License to mine application................................ 11
Exploration license application............................ 266
Lease or lease interest transfer........................... 53
------------------------------------------------------------
Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale (Part 3500)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications other than those listed below................. 27
Prospecting permit application amendment................... 53
Extension of prospecting permit............................ 85
Lease renewal.............................................. 414
------------------------------------------------------------
Mining Law Administration (Parts 3800, 3830, 3850, 3860, 3870)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Location *....................................... 16
Amendment of location...................................... 11
Transfer of mining claim/ site............................. 11
[[Page 41548]]
Recording an annual FLPMA filing (Sec. 3835.30).......... 11
Deferment of Assessment.................................... 85
Mineral Patent Adjudication................................ 2,433
Adverse claim.............................................. 85
Protest.................................................... 53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The existing fee for recording a mining claim or site location (43 CFR
3833) is a total of $165. This includes the initial maintenance fee of
$125 and one-time $30 location fee required by Statute and a $10
service charge. The service charge would become a processing fee and
would increase to $16 under the proposed rule making the total fee
$171. In the 2005 Department of the Interior Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, Congress required that the $125 maintenance fee be
lowered to $100 for mining claims or sites that are recorded with BLM
on or after December 8, 2004 until BLM establishes a nationwide permit
tracking system and files a report with Congress, at which point the
fee will revert to $125.
(b) The fee schedule will be posted on the BLM Web site (http://www.blm.gov
). It will also be available at BLM State and field offices.
(c) The amount of a fixed fee is not subject to appeal to the
Interior Board of Land Appeals pursuant to 43 CFR part 4, subpart E.
PART 3100--OIL AND GAS LEASING
5. The authority citation for part 3100 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq. and 351-359; and 43 U.S.C. 1701
et seq.
Subpart 3105--Cooperative Conservation Provisions
6. Amend Sec. 3105.6 by revising the first sentence and adding a
new sentence after the first sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 3105.6 Consolidation of leases.
BLM may approve consolidation of leases if it determines that there
is sufficient justification and it is in the public interest. Each
application for a consolidation of leases must include payment of the
processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. * * *
Subpart 3106--Transfers by Assignment, Sublease, or Otherwise
7. Revise Sec. 3106.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 3106.3 Fees.
Each transfer of record title or of operating rights (sublease) for
each lease must include payment of the processing fee found in the fee
schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. Each request for a transfer to an heir or
devisee, request for a change of name, or notification of a corporate
merger under 43 CFR 3106.8, must include payment of the processing fee
found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. Each transfer of
overriding royalty or payment out of production must include payment of
the processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 for each
lease to which it applies.
8. Amend Sec. 3106.4-3 by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 3106.4-3 Mass transfers.
* * * * *
(d) Include with your mass transfer the processing fee payment
found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 for each such interest
transferred for each lease.
9. Amend Sec. 3106.8-1(a) by removing the sentence ``No filing fee
is required.'' and adding in its place a new sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 3106.8-1 Heirs and devisees.
(a) * * * Include the processing fee payment found in the fee
schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 with your request to transfer lease rights.
* * *
* * * * *
10. Amend Sec. 3106.8-2 by removing the sentence ``No filing fee
is required.'' and adding in its place a new sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 3106.8-2 Change of name.
* * * Include the processing fee payment found in the fee schedule
in 43 CFR 3000.12 with your notice of name change. * * *
11. Amend Sec. 3106.8-3 by removing the sentence ``No filing fee
is required.'' and adding in its place a new sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 3106.8-3 Corporate merger.
* * * Include the processing fee payment found in the fee schedule
in 43 CFR 3000.12 with your notification of a corporate merger. * * *
Subpart 3107--Continuation, Extension or Renewal
12. Amend Sec. 3107.7 by removing the next to the last sentence
and adding in its place two new sentences to read as follows:
Sec. 3107.7 Exchange leases: 20-year term.
* * * The lessee must file an application to exchange a lease for a
new lease, in triplicate, at the proper BLM office. The application
must show full compliance by the applicant with the terms of the lease
and applicable regulations, and must include a payment of the
processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. * * *
13. Revise Sec. 3107.8-2 to read as follows:
Sec. 3107.8-2 Application.
File your application to renew your lease in triplicate in the
proper BLM office at least 90 days, but not more than 6 months, before
your lease expires. Include the processing fee payment found in the fee
schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12.
Subpart 3108--Relinquishment, Termination, Cancellation
14. Amend Sec. 3108.2-2(a) by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a) (3) to read as follows:
Sec. 3108.2-2 Reinstatement at existing rental and royalty rates:
Class I reinstatements.
(a) * * *
(3) A petition for reinstatement, the processing fee found in the
fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12, and the required rental, including any
back rental that has accrued from the date of the termination of the
lease, are filed with the proper BLM office within 60 days after
receipt of Notice of Termination of Lease due to late payment of
rental. * * *
* * * * *
Subpart 3109--Leasing Under Special Acts
15. Revise Sec. 3109.1-2 by removing the first three sentences and
adding in their place four new sentences to read as follows:
Sec. 3109.1-2 Application.
No approved form is required for an application to lease oil and
gas deposits underlying a right-of-way. The right-of-way owner or his/
her transferee must file the application in the proper BLM
[[Page 41549]]
office. Include the processing fee payment found in the fee schedule in
43 CFR 3000.12. If the transferee files an application, it must also
include an executed transfer of the right to obtain a lease. * * *
PART 3110--NONCOMPETITIVE LEASES
16. The authority citation for part 3110 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq. and
351-359; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; and Pub. L. 97-35,
95 Stat. 357.
Subpart 3110--Noncompetitive Leases
17. Amend Sec. 3110.4(a) by revising the fourth and sixth
sentences to read as follows:
Sec. 3110.4 Requirements for offer.
(a) * * * The original copy of each offer must be typed or printed
plainly in ink, signed in ink and dated by the offeror or an authorized
agent, and must include the payment of the first year's rental and the
processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. * * * A
noncompetitive offer to lease a future interest applied for under 43
CFR 3110.9 must include the processing fee payment found in the fee
schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. * * *
* * * * *
PART 3120--COMPETITIVE LEASES
18. The authority citation for part 3120 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq. and
351-359; 40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; and the
Attorney General's Opinion of April 2, 1941 (40 Op. Atty. Gen. 41).
19. Amend Sec. 3120.5-2 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 3120.5-2 Payments required.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) The processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12
for each parcel.
* * * * *
PART 3130--OIL AND GAS LEASING; NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE, ALASKA
20. The authority citation for part 3130 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6508 and 43 U.S.C.1701 et seq.
21. Amend Sec. 3132.3(a) by revising the first sentence and adding
a new sentence after the first sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 3132.3 Payments.
(a) Make payments of bonuses including deferred bonuses, first
year's rental, other payments due upon lease issuance, and fees to
BLM's Alaska State Office. Before we issue a lease, the highest bidder
must pay the processing fee for competitive lease application found in
the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 in addition to other remaining bonus
and rental payments. * * *
* * * * *
Subpart 3135--Transfers, Extensions, Consolidations, and
Suspensions
22. Amend Sec. 3135.1-2(a)(2) by revising the first two sentences
to read as follows:
Sec. 3135.1-2 Requirements for filing of transfers.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) An application for approval of any instrument that the
regulations require you to file must include the processing fee payment
found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. Any document that the
regulations in this part do not require you to file, but which you
submit for record purposes, must also include the processing fee
payment for assignment and transfer found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR
3000.12 for each lease affected. * * *
* * * * *
23. Amend Sec. 3135.1-6(a) by adding a sentence at the end as
follows:
Sec. 3135.1-6 Consolidation of leases.
(a) * * * Include with each request for a consolidation of leases
the processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12.
* * * * *
PART 3150--ONSHORE OIL AND GAS GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION
24. The authority citation for part 3150 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq. and
351-359; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 6504 and 6508; and 43 U.S.C.1701
et seq.
Subpart 3151--Exploration Outside of Alaska
25. Amend Sec. 3151.1 by revising the second sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 3151.1 Notice of intent to conduct oil and gas geophysical
exploration operations.
* * * File the notice of intent with the Field Office Manager of
the proper BLM office on the form approved by the Director along with
the processing fee payment found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12.
On October 1 of each year, this processing fee will be raised by not
more than $500 until it has reached $2,500 (as adjusted for the change
in the IPD-GDP). * * *
Subpart 3152--Exploration in Alaska
26. Amend Sec. 3152.1 by removing the undesignated sentence at the
end of the section; redesignating paragraphs (a) through (f) as (1)
through (6); redesignating introductory text as paragraph (a)
introductory text; and adding new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 3152.1 Application for oil and gas geophysical exploration
permit.
* * * * *
(b) The applicant must submit an application, along with the
processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12, to the
Field Office Manager of the proper BLM office. On October 1 of each
year, this processing fee will be raised by not more than $500 until it
has reached $2,500 (as adjusted for the change in the IPD-GDP).
PART 3160--ONSHORE OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS
27. The authority citation for part 3160 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 25 U.S.C. 369d and 2107; 30 U.S.C. 181, 189 et seq.,
306, 359, 1751; 31 U.S.C 9701, and 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.
Subpart 3162--Requirements for Operating Rights Owners and
Operators
28. Amend Sec. 3162.3-1 by adding a new sentence at the end of
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 3162.3-1 Drilling applications and plans.
* * * * *
(c) * * * You must include a processing fee found in the fee
schedule 43 CFR 3000.12 with your application for a permit to drill. On
October 1 of each year, this processing fee will be raised by not more
than $500 until it has reached $4,000 (as adjusted for the change in
the IPD-GDP).
Group 3200--Geothermal Resources Leasing
PART 3200--GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE LEASING
29. The authority citation for part 3200 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1001-1028; and 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.
Subpart 3204--Noncompetitive Leasing
30. Amend Sec. 3204.12 by revising the first sentence to read as
follows:
[[Page 41550]]
Sec. 3204.12 What fees must I pay with my lease offer?
Submit the processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR
3000.12 for each lease offer, and an advance rent in the amount of $1
per acre (or fraction of an acre). * * *
Subpart 3205--Competitive Leasing
31. Amend Sec. 3205.16(a) by removing the word ``and'' at the end
of paragraph (a)(3), redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as paragraph
(a)(5), and adding a new paragraph (a) (4) to read as follows:
Sec. 3205.16 How will I know whether my bid is accepted?
(a) * * *
(3) The first year's advance rent;
(4) The processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12
for competitive lease application; and
* * * * *
Subpart 3210--Additional Lease Information
32. Amend Sec. 3210.12 by adding a new sentence at the end of the
section to read as follows:
Sec. 3210.12 May I consolidate leases?
* * * You must include the payment found in the fee schedule in 43
CFR 3000.12 with your request to consolidate leases.
Subpart 3211--Fees, Rent, and Royalties
33. Amend Sec. 3211.10 by:
A. Revising the section heading;
B. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
C. Revising paragraph (b) table heading and entries (1) and (3);
D. Redesignating paragraph (b) table entries (4) through (9) as (5)
through (10); and
E. Adding a new paragraph (b) table entry (4).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 3211.10 What are the fees, rent, and minimum royalties for
leases?
* * * * *
(b) Use the following table to determine the fees, rents, and
minimum royalties owed for your lease:
Fees, Rent, and Royalties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncompetitive
Type Competitive leases leases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Lease Application As found in the fee As found in the fee
Processing fee. schedule in 43 CFR schedule in 43 CFR
3000.12. 3000.12 (includes
future interest
leases).
* * * * * * *
(3) Transfer of Record Title As found in the fee As found in the fee
or Operating Rights. schedule in 43 CFR schedule in 43 CFR
3000.12. 3000.12.
(4) Transfer of Interest to As found in the fee As found in the fee
Heir or Devisee, Name schedule in 43 CFR schedule in 43 CFR
Change, or Notification of 3000.12. 3000.12.
Corporate Merger.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Subpart 3213--Relinquishment, Termination, Cancellation, and
Expiration.
34. Revise Sec. 3213.19 to read as follows:
Sec. 3213.19 What must I do to have my lease reinstated?
Send BLM a petition requesting reinstatement. Your petition must
include the serial number for each lease and an explanation of why the
delay in payment was justifiable. Lack of diligence on your part is not
a justification for delaying payment. In addition to your petition, you
must also include any past rent owed, any rent that has accrued from
the termination date, and the processing fee found in the fee schedule
in 43 CFR 3000.12.
Subpart 3216--Transfers
35. Revise Sec. 3216.14 to read as follows:
Sec. 3216.14 What fees and forms does a transfer require?
With each transfer request send us the correct form, if required,
and pay the transfer processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR
3000.12. When you calculate your fee, make sure it covers the full
amount. For example, if you are transferring record title for three
leases, submit three times the listed fee with the application. Use the
following chart to determine forms and fees:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific form Transfer fee (per
Type of form required Form No. Number of copies lease)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Record title................ Yes............... 3000-3............ 2 executed copies. As found in the
fee schedule in
43 CFR 3000.12.
(b) Operating rights............ Yes............... 3000-3(a)......... 2 executed copies. As found in the
fee schedule in
43 CFR 3000.12.
(c) Estate transfers............ No................ N/A............... 1 List of Leases.. As found in the
fee schedule in
43 CFR 3000.12.
(d) Corporate mergers........... No................ N/A............... 1 List of Leases.. As found in the
fee schedule in
43 CFR 3000.12.
(e) Name changes................ No................ N/A............... 1 List of Leases.. As found in the
fee schedule in
43 CFR 3000.12.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart 3251--Exploration Operations: Getting a Permit
36. Amend Sec. 3251.12 by redesignating paragraphs (b) through (h)
as paragraphs (c) through (i), and adding a new paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 3251.12 What does BLM need to approve my exploration permit?
* * * * *
(b) Include the processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR
3000.12.
[[Page 41551]]
On October 1 of each year, this processing fee will be raised by not
more than $500 until it has reached $2,500 (as adjusted for the change
in the IPD-GDP).
* * * * *
Subpart 3261--Drilling Operations: Getting a Permit
37. Amend Sec. 3261.10(a) by adding two new sentences between the
first and second sentences to read as follows:
Sec. 3261.10 How do I get approval to begin well pad construction?
(a) * * * You must submit the processing fee found in the fee
schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 with your sundry notice. On October 1 of
each year, this processing fee will be raised by not more than $500
until it has reached $3,500 (as adjusted for the change in the IPD-
GDP). * * *
* * * * *
Group 3400--Coal Management
PART 3470--COAL MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS
38. The authority citation for part 3470 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 189 and 359; and 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.
Subpart 3473--Fees, Rentals, and Royalties
39a. Revise Sec. 3473.2 to read as follows:
Sec. 3473.2 Fees.
(a) An application for a license to mine must include payment of
the filing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. BLM may
waive the filing fee for applications filed by relief agencies as
provided in Sec. 3440.1-1(b) of this chapter.
(b) An application for an exploration license must include payment
of the filing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12.
(c) An instrument of transfer of a lease or an interest in a lease
must include payment of the filing fee found in the fee schedule in 43
CFR 3000.12.
(d) BLM will charge applicants for a royalty rate reduction a
processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 43 CFR 3000.11.
(e) BLM will charge applicants for logical mining unit formation or
modification a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in
43 CFR 3000.11.
(f) BLM will charge the successful applicant for a competitive coal
lease a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 43 CFR
3000.11.
(g) BLM will charge applicants for modification of a coal lease a
processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 43 CFR 3000.11.
Sec. Sec. 3473.2-1 and 3473.2-2 [Removed]
39b. Remove Sec. Sec. 3473.2-1 and 3473.2-2.
PART 3500--LEASING OF SOLID MINERALS OTHER THAN COAL AND OIL SHALE
40. The authority citation for part 3500 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 30 U.S.C. 189 and 192c; 43 U.S.C. 1733,
1734 and 1740; and sec. 402, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5
U.S.C. appendix).
Subpart 3501--Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil
Shale: General
41. Amend Sec. 3501.1(e) by adding a new first sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 3501.1 What is the authority for this part?
* * * * *
(e) Fees. Section 304 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1734) authorizes the Secretary to establish
reasonable filing and service fees for applications and other documents
relating to the public lands. * * * * *
Subpart 3504--Fees, Rental, Royalty and Bonds
42. A new Sec. 3504.10 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 3504.10 What fees must I pay?
(a) Filing fees. Include the filing fee for ``applications other
than those listed below'' found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12
with each application you submit to BLM that is not charged a
processing fee as described in paragraph (b) of this section (for
example, transfers, assignments, and subleases). Fees for exploration
licenses are not administered under this section, but are administered
under part 2920 of this chapter.
(b) Processing fees. The following table shows processing fees for
various documents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Processing fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Prospecting permit application..... Case-by-case basis as described
in 43 CFR 3000.11.
(2) Prospecting permit application As found in the fee schedule in
amendment. 43 CFR 3000.12.
(3) Prospecting permit extension....... As found in the fee schedule in
43 CFR 3000.12.
(4) Preference right lease application. Case-by-case basis as described
in 43 CFR 3000.11.
(5) Successful competitive lease Case-by-case basis as described
application. in 43 CFR 3000.11.
(6) Lease renewal application.......... As found in the fee schedule in
43 CFR 3000.12.
(7) Application to waive, suspend, or Case-by-case basis as described
reduce your rental, minimum royalty, in 43 CFR 3000.11.
or royalty rate.
(8) Future or fractional interest lease Case-by-case basis as described
application. in 43 CFR 3000.11.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. Revise Sec. 3504.12(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 3504.12 What payments do I send to BLM and what payments do I
send to MMS?
(a) Fees and rentals. (1) Pay all filing and processing fees, all
first-year rentals, and all bonus bids for leases to the BLM State
office that manages the lands you are interested in. Make your
instruments payable to the Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land
Management.
(2) Pay all second-year and subsequent rentals and all other
payments for leases to the Minerals Management Service (MMS). See 30
CFR part 218 for MMS's payment procedures.
* * * * *
Subpart 3505--Prospecting Permits
44. Revise Sec. 3505.12 to read as follows:
Sec. 3505.12 How do I obtain a prospecting permit?
Deliver three copies of the BLM application form to the BLM office
with jurisdiction over the lands you are interested in. Include the
first year's rental with your application. You will also be charged a
processing fee, which BLM will determine on a case-by-case basis as
described in 43 CFR 3000.11. For more information on fees and rentals,
see subpart 3504 of this part.
[[Page 41552]]
45. Amend Sec. 3505.30 by removing the last sentence and by
revising the second full sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 3505.30 May I amend or change my application after I file it?
* * * You must include the rental for any added lands and the
processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 with your
amended application.
46. Amend Sec. 3505.31 by revising the last sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 3505.31 May I withdraw my application after I file it?
* * * BLM will retain any fees already paid for processing the
application.
47. Amend Sec. 3505.50 by redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively, redesignating the
introductory text as paragraph (a), and adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 3505.50 How will I know if BLM has approved or rejected my
application?
* * * * *
(b) If we do not accept your application, we will refund your
rental payment. We will retain any fees already paid for processing the
application.
Sec. 3505.51 [Removed]
48. Section 3505.51 is removed.
49. Amend Sec. 3505.64 by revising the last sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 3505.64 How do I apply for an extension?
* * * Include the processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43
CFR 3000.12 and the first year's rental, in accordance with Sec. Sec.
3504.10, 3504.15, and 3504.16 of this part.
Subpart 3507--Preference Right Lease Applications
50. Revise Sec. 3507.16 to read as follows:
Sec. 3507.16 Is there a fee or payment required with my application?
Yes. You must submit the first year's rental with your application
according to the provisions in Sec. 3504.15 of this part. BLM will
also charge a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 43
CFR 3000.11.
Subpart 3508--Competitive Lease Applications
51. Amend Sec. 3508.21 by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 3508.21 What happens if I am the successful bidder?
* * * * *
(c) BLM will charge you a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as
described in 43 CFR 3000.11.
Subpart 3509--Fractional and Future Interest Lease Applications
52. Amend Sec. 3509.16 by removing the second sentence and adding
a new last sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 3509.16 How do I apply for a future interest lease?
* * * BLM will charge you a processing fee on a case-by-case basis
as described in 43 CFR 3000.11.
53. Amend Sec. 3509.30 by revising the last sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 3509.30 May I withdraw my application for a future interest
lease?
* * * BLM will retain any fees already paid for processing the
application.
54. Amend Sec. 3509.46 by removing the second sentence and adding
a new last sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 3509.46 How do I apply for a fractional interest prospecting
permit or lease?
* * * BLM will charge you a processing fee on a case-by-case basis
as described in 43 CFR 3000.11.
55. Amend Sec. 3509.51 by revising the last sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 3509.51 May I withdraw my application for a fractional interest
prospecting permit or lease?
* * * BLM will retain any fees already paid for processing the
application.
Subpart 3511--Lease Terms and Conditions
56. Amend Sec. 3511.27 by revising the last sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 3511.27 How do I renew my lease?
* * * Send us three copies of your application together with the
processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12, and an
advance rental payment of $1 per acre or fraction of an acre.
Subpart 3513--Waiver, Suspension or Reduction of Rental and Minimum
Royalties
57. Add Sec. 3513.16 to read as follows:
Sec. 3513.16 Do I have to pay a fee when I apply for a waiver,
suspension, or reduction of rental, minimum royalty, production
royalty, or minimum production?
Yes. BLM will charge you a processing fee on a case-by-case basis,
as described in 43 CFR 3000.11.
Group 3600--Mineral Materials Disposal
PART 3600--MINERAL MATERIALS DISPOSAL
58. The authority citation for part 3600 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 1201, 1732, 1733,
1734, 1740; Sec. 2, Act of September 28, 1962 (Pub. L. 87-713, 76
Stat. 652).
59. Amend Sec. 3602.11 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 3602.11 How do I request a sale of mineral materials?
* * * * *
(c) You must pay a processing fee provided in 43 CFR 3602.31(a) and
3602.44(f). If the request is for mineral materials that are from a
community pit or common use area, this requirement does not apply.
60. Amend Sec. 3602.31 by revising the section heading and adding
at the beginning of paragraph (a) introductory text a new sentence to
read as follows:
Sec. 3602.31 What volume limitations and fees generally apply to
noncompetitive mineral materials sales?
(a) BLM will charge the purchaser a processing fee on a case-by-
case basis as described in 43 CFR 3000.11. * * *
* * * * *
61. Amend Sec. 3602.44 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 3602.44 How do I make a bid deposit?
* * * * *
(f) BLM will charge the successful bidder a processing fee on a
case-by-case basis as described in 43 CFR 3000.11.
62. Amend Sec. 3602.47 by revising the section heading and adding
a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 3602.47 When and how may I renew my competitive contract and
what is the fee?
* * * * *
(e) Fee. BLM will charge a processing fee on a case-by-case basis
as described in 43 CFR 3000.11.
Group 3800--Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws
PART 3800--MINING CLAIMS UNDER THE GENERAL MINING LAWS
63. The authority citation for part 3800 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 351 and 460y-4; 30 U.S.C. 22 and 28k; 31
U.S.C. 9701; and 43 U.S.C. 1201 and 1740.
64-65. Add a new Subpart 3800, consisting of Sec. 3800.5, to read
as follows:
[[Page 41553]]
Subpart 3800--General
Sec. 3800.5 Fees.
(a) An applicant for a plan of operations under this part must pay
a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 43 CFR 3000.11
whenever BLM decides that consideration of the plan of operations
requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.
(b) An applicant for a plan of operations or a mineral patent under
this part, or a notice operator who may not conduct operations under
this part until a validity examination is performed, must pay a
processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 43 CFR 3000.11
for any validity examination and report performed in connection with
the application or notice.
(c) An applicant for a mineral patent also is required to pay a
processing fee under Sec. 3860.1.
PART 3830--LOCATING, RECORDING, AND MAINTAINING MINING CLAIMS OR
SITES; GENERAL PROVISIONS
66. The authority citation for part 3830 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 1001, 3571; 30 U.S.C. 22 et seq., 242, 611;
31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 2, 1201, 1212, 1457, 1474, 1734, 1740,
1744; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 115 Stat. 414.
67. Revise entries (a), (b), (c), (e), and (f) in the table at
Sec. 3830.21 to read as follows:
Sec. 3830.21 What are the different types of service charges and
fees?
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount due per mining Waiver
Transaction claim or site available
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Recording a mining claim or (1) A total sum which
site location (part 3833). includes:
(i) The processing fee No.
for notice of
location found in the
fee schedule in 43
CFR 3000.12.
(ii) A one-time $30 No.
location fee.
(iii) An initial $125 No.
maintenance fee.
(b) Amending a mining claim or The processing fee No.
claim site location (Sec. found in the fee
3833.20). schedule in 43 CFR
3000.12.
(c) Transferring a mining claim The processing fee No.
or site (Sec. 3833.30). found in the fee
schedule in 43 CFR
3000.12.
* * * * * * *
(e) Recording an annual FLPMA The processing fee No.
filing (Sec. 3835.30). found in the fee
schedule in 43 CFR
3000.12.
(f) Submitting a petition for The processing fee No.
deferment of assessment work found in the fee
(Sec. 3836.20). schedule in 43 CFR
3000.12.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 3833--RECORDING MINING CLAIMS AND SITES
68a. The authority citation for part 3833 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 22 et seq., 621-625; 43 U.S.C. 2, 1201,
1457, 1740, 1744; 62 Stat. 162; 115 Stat. 414.
68b. Revise Sec. 3833.11(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 3833.11 How do I record mining claims and sites?
* * * * *
(c) When you record a notice or certificate of location, you must
pay a processing fee, location fee, and initial maintenance fee as
provided in Sec. 3830.21 of this chapter.
* * * * *
69. Revise Sec. 3833.22(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 3833.22 How do I amend my location?
* * * * *
(b) You must pay a processing fee for each claim or site you amend.
See the table of fees and service charges in Sec. 3830.21 of this
chapter.
* * * * *
70. Revise Sec. 3833.32(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 3833.32 How do I transfer a mining claim or site?
* * * * *
(c) Each transferee must pay a processing fee per mining claim or
site you were transferred. See the table of fees and service charges in
Sec. 3830.21 of this chapter.
* * * * *
PART 3835--WAIVERS FROM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FEES
71a. The authority citation for part 3835 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 22, 28, 28f-28k; 43 U.S.C. 2, 1201, 1457,
1740, 1744; 50 U.S.C. App. 501, 565; 115 Stat. 414.
71b. Revise Sec. 3835.33(e) to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 3835.33 What should I include when I submit a notice of Intent
to Hold?
* * * * *
(e) A processing fee for each mining claim or site affected. (See
the table of fees and service charges in Sec. 3830.21 of this
chapter.)
PART 3836--ANNUAL ASSESSMENT WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR MINING CLAIMS
71a. The authority citation for part 3836 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 22, 28, 28b-28e; 43 U.S.C. 2, 1201, 1457;
50 U.S.C. App. 501, 565.
72b. Revise Sec. 3836.23(g) to read as follows:
Sec. 3836.23 How do I petition for deferment of assessment work?
* * * * *
(g) You must pay a processing fee with each petition. (See the
table of fees and service charges in Sec. 3830.21 of this chapter.)
PART 3860--MINERAL PATENT APPLICATIONS
73. The authority citation for part 3860 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.
74-75. Amend part 3860 by adding new subpart 3860, consisting of
Sec. 3860.1, to read as follows:
[[Page 41554]]
Subpart 3860--General
Sec. 3860.1 Fees.
(a) Each mineral patent application must include the processing fee
found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 to cover BLM's adjudication
costs for the application.
(b) As provided at Sec. 3800.5, BLM will charge a separate
processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in Sec. 3000.11 to
cover its costs for conducting the validity examination and report.
Subpart 3862--Lode Mining Claim Patent Applications
76. Revise Sec. 3862.1-2 to read as follows:
Sec. 3862.1-2 Fees.
An applicant for a lode mining claim patent must pay fees as
described in Sec. 3860.1 of this part.
Subpart 3863--Placer Mining Claim Patent Applications
77. Amend Sec. 3863.1 by adding new paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 3863.1 Placer mining claim patent applications: General.
* * * * *
(c) An applicant for a placer mining claim patent must pay fees as
described in Sec. 3860.1 of this part.
Subpart 3864--Millsite Patents
78. Add Sec. 3864.1-5 to read as follows:
Sec. 3864.1-5 Fees.
An applicant for a millsite patent must pay fees as described in
Sec. 3860.1 of this part.
PART 3870--ADVERSE CLAIMS, PROTESTS, AND CONFLICTS
79. The authority citation for part 3870 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 30; 43 U.S.C. 1201, 1457, 1701 et seq.
Subpart 3871--Adverse Claims
80. Amend Sec. 3871.1 by revising paragraph (d) as follows:
Sec. 3871.1 Filing of claim.
* * * * *
(d) Each adverse claim filed must include the processing fee found
in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12.
Subpart 3872--Protests, Contests, and Conflicts
81. Amend Sec. 3872.1 by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 3872.1 Protest against mineral applications.
* * * * *
(b) A protest by any party, except a Federal agency, must include
the processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12.
[FR Doc. 05-13613 Filed 7-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P