[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 242 (Friday, December 15, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78440-78455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31748]



[[Page 78440]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Groups 3000, 3100, 3200, 3400, 3500, 3600, and 3800

[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: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
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 others. When 
necessary, the proposed rule would add citations to BLM's authority to 
charge fees. The proposed fee changes are BLM's response to 
recommendations made by the Department of the Interior's Office of the 
Inspector General (OIG) in a 1988 report. This report was part of a 
1980s presidential initiative which called for all Federal agencies to 
charge appropriate user fees for agency services, consistent with the 
law. The OIG recommended that BLM collect fees for processing minerals-
related documents whenever possible. The primary purpose of this 
rulemaking is to charge those who benefit from these minerals programs, 
rather than the general public, the costs of BLM minerals document 
processing.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received by February 13, 
2001 to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to Bureau of Land Management, 
Administrative Record, Room 401 LS, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 
20240. You may also hand-deliver comments to BLM at Room 401, 1620 L 
Street, NW, Washington, D.C. For information about filing comments 
electronically, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section under 
``Electronic access and filing address.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about fluid minerals 
(oil, gas, geothermal steam) call Kermit Witherbee at (202) 452-0335. 
For questions about solid minerals including coal call Brenda Aird at 
(202) 452-0350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Comment Procedures and Information
II. Background
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
IV. Procedural Matters

I. Public Comment Procedures and Information

Electronic Access and Filing Address

    You may view an electronic version of this proposed rule at BLM's 
Internet home page: www.blm.gov. You may also comment via the Internet 
to: [email protected]. Please also include ``Attention: AC-06'' and 
your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not 
receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your 
Internet message, contact us directly at (202) 452-5030.

Written Comments

    Written comments on the proposed rule should be specific, should be 
confined to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, and should explain 
the reason for any recommended change. Where possible, comments should 
reference the specific section or paragraph of the proposal which the 
commenter is addressing. BLM may not necessarily consider or include in 
the Administrative Record for the final rule comments which BLM 
receives after the close of the comment period (See DATES) or comments 
delivered to an address other than those listed above (See ADDRESSES). 
Comments, including names, street addresses, and other contact 
information of respondents, will be available for public review at 
BLM's offices at 1620 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. during regular 
business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. 
If you wish to request that BLM consider withholding your name, street 
address, and other contact information (such as: Internet address, FAX 
or phone number) from public review or from disclosure under the 
Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the 
beginning of your comment. BLM will honor requests for confidentiality 
on a case-by-case basis to the extent allowed by law. BLM will make 
available for public inspection in their entirety all submissions from 
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying 
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or 
businesses.

II. Background

What Laws Authorize BLM to Charge for its Document Processing Costs?

    Federal agencies are generally authorized to do this by the 
Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701.
    BLM 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). BLM interprets this definition to mean that a mineral lease or 
mineral materials disposal administered by BLM, or a mining claim (for 
which BLM determines validity), even in land where the surface is 
administered by another agency, is an ``interest in land'' for the 
purposes of FLPMA.
    [Before BLM disposes of mineral materials or issues a mineral lease 
on these lands, if the surface managing agency also exercises 
considerable authority over the mineral estate, that 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.'' Since 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 rulemaking, 
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.

What Policy Documents Deal with Charging Applicants for Processing 
Costs?

    These policies are explained in the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) Circular A-25, ``User Charges,'' and the Department of the 
Interior Departmental Manual, Part 346, ``Cost Recovery.''

[[Page 78441]]

What is the Basic Policy of these Documents?

    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 general public.'' (OMB 
Circular A-25.) The Department of the Interior Manual mirrors this 
policy (346 DM 1.2 A.) Certain activities may be exempted from these 
fees under certain conditions set out at 346 DM 1.2 C.

What Does ``Cost Recovery'' Mean in this Rulemaking?

    It means reimbursement to BLM of its costs of processing a document 
by charging a fee to the applicant/beneficiary.

What is the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)?

    This is an office within the Department of the Interior which 
studies Departmental economy and efficiency, and makes recommendations 
for improvement.

What OIG Reports Affected This Rulemaking?

    OIG reports No. 89-25 (1988) and 95-I-379 (1995).

What Did the 1988 OIG Report (No. 89-25) Recommend?

    The report recommended that BLM:
     List all the minerals-related document types for which it 
had authority to charge BLM processing costs to the applicant;
     Determine the BLM processing cost for each type of 
document and count how many were processed;
     Establish exemption standards and apply them to each type 
of document on the list;
     Prepare and maintain exemption documentation for exempted 
document types; and
     Establish and collect processing cost fees for all non-
exempt types of documents.

How Did BLM Begin Gathering Data in Response to the Report?

    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 (salable 
minerals such as sand and gravel).
    From this inventory BLM listed the types of documents for which it 
appeared we had authority to collect processing fees, and those that 
appeared to be exempt. BLM developed exemption standards in 1989 
comprised of the first four exemption categories in the Departmental 
Manual and two additional categories: documents primarily benefitting 
the public and documents related to appeals.

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 Montana State Office, 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 Departmental 
Manual, 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. 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. [The 1995 
OIG report, discussed below, cites the low end of the range for this 
document as $81.64. 1995 OIG Audit Report, p. 3. BLM has been unable to 
determine the source of this figure.] 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 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?

    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 with 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.

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, had partially implemented the second 
recommendation to determine the cost and number of each document filing 
processed, and had 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 later 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. Secondly, 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 went on to say that in the supplemental information 
provided in December 1994, BLM told the OIG that it had developed 
guidance/standards ``which were used by all state offices to achieve 
uniformity in data gathering and reporting.'' It also said that BLM had 
stated 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 
``we consider both recommendations resolved but not implemented.''

[[Page 78442]]

How did BLM Respond to the 1995 Report?

    After the 1995 report was issued, BLM created a 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 
minerals 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. Indirect costs were later 
added. 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. This method was used 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 State 
Offices which often process these particular categories of documents. 
We also sent these offices a summary of the cost data that 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 also 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 time period. 
This re-examination verified the current validity of BLM's data 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.
    Also, in mineral materials, the team reconsidered the State 
Offices' estimated costs for non-competitive sale applications which 
the 1995 report had highlighted. The team determined that the 
differences among State Offices were largely caused by unique site- or 
sale-specific factors, such as 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, BLM adjusted them to 
the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product for 1998 (the 
most recent year 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. 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 to work on establishing and collecting fees for 
other documents as well, including those addressed in the Solicitor's 
Dec. 5, 1996 M Opinion on this subject (M-36987). This satisfies the 
second part of the OIG's second recommendation.

III. Discussion

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.
    Fixed fee amounts set by rulemaking would not be appealable to the 
Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) because rulemaking actions are 
binding on the Department. Case-by-case fees could be appealed in 
accordance with the Department's general appeals rule at 43 CFR Part 4. 
BLM would not continue processing a document while an appeal is pending 
unless the applicant paid the fee under protest. In that case, if the 
final decision were that the fee was too high, BLM would refund the 
overpayment. See 43 U.S.C. 1734(c).

The FLPMA Factors

How Did BLM Set These Fees?

    Section 304(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA) lists six factors (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 like a lease. Actual costs include (but are not 
limited to) such costs as money spent on special studies, environmental 
impact statements and other analysis, and monitoring exploration 
activities, development, construction, production, 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 things 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 valuable 
tangible improvement, such as a road, or other direct service to the 
public. This is referred to in the statute as ``public service.'' 
However, a negative factor, such as an adverse impact on wildlife or 
surface drainage, may prevent an improvement from being a public 
service. Data collection that we need to monitor an activity is not a 
public service.
    (6) Any other relevant factors.

[[Page 78443]]

How Did BLM Consider the FLPMA Factors?

    We considered each of the FLPMA factors for each type of document 
for which we are proposing a fixed fee in this rule. We first estimated 
the actual cost for 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.
    This weighing of the factors would also be applied to fees that are 
determined on a case-by-case basis. 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 fee is set at 
less than our actual costs because of one of the FLPMA factors, 
processing could not proceed until funding for the shortfall became 
available through the BLM budget, contributions by the applicant, or 
other means.
    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. Also, 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 general 
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 
Comm'n, 601 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1102 
(1980).] We 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.
    Furthermore, the applicant's project usually provides little or no 
service to the public. If a project provides a small public service, it 
will usually be outweighed by the monetary value to the applicant of 
the right or privilege. Finally, there are usually no other relevant 
factors.

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 do this because it would require enormous 
effort and expense. Also, when we can reliably estimate costs for 
routine services, we believe applicants benefit from knowing fees in 
advance. We will therefore 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 like 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, suppose 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.
    When we set fees at actual cost in the proposed rule, we rounded 
the cost figures down to the nearest zero or five for amounts over $10. 
For example, a cost figure of $157 was rounded down to $155 and a 
figure of $153 was rounded down to $150. For amounts under $10, we 
rounded the cost figures down to the nearest dollar. We did not round 
any cost figures up, to avoid charging more than actual processing 
costs.

For What Types of Documents Would BLM Measure Actual Costs on a Case-
by-Case Basis?

 Geophysical exploration applications for oil and gas;
 Competitive lease applications for coal;
 Royalty rate reduction applications for coal;
 Logical mining unit 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;
 Non-competitive sale applications for mineral materials;
 Competitive sale 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. For a mineral validity examination/report, 
the mineral examiner would consider the cost to the claimant of the 
examination and report along with other costs of doing business in 
evaluating whether the claimant has 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 is 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

[[Page 78444]]

``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 operations 
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 the Proposed Fees Be Applied to Documents that BLM is Already 
Processing?

    If BLM accepted your documents before the final rules were in 
effect, and fees for such documents would have been subject to fixed 
fees under the new rules, you would not be required to pay such fees. 
If we accepted your document prior to a final rule, and fees for such a 
document would be calculated on a case-by-case basis under the new 
rule, you would be charged fees on that basis for any processing work 
that must still be done after the final regulations went into effect. 
This is because filing an application will not exempt you from 
subsequent regulations. See Hannifin v. Morton, 444 F.2d 200, 202-203 
(10th Cir. 1971). You would not be charged for the processing that took 
place prior to the regulations going into effect, however, unless a 
prior regulation or agreement required it.

Did BLM Consider Figuring and Charging Processing Costs on a Case-by-
Case Basis for Every Type of Document?

    Yes. We decided not to do this because it would require enormous 
effort and expense. Also, when we can reliably estimate costs for 
routine services, we believe applicants benefit from knowing fees in 
advance. We will therefore 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. To illustrate the case-by-case variation of BLM's processing 
cost, costs for processing a ``noncompetitive mineral material sales'' 
range from $282 to $5,747 with an average cost of $2,350.

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 are the New Proposed Fixed Fees?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Existing     Proposed
              Category-Fixed Fee                    fee          fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Gas:
    Noncompetitive lease application..........          $75         $305
    Competitive lease application.............           75          120
    Assignment and transfer...................           25           70
    Name change, corporate merger or transfer             0          160
     to heir/devisee..........................
    Lease consolidation.......................            0          335
    Lease renewals or exchanges...............           75          305
    Lease reinstatement, Class 1..............           25           60
    Leasing under right-of-way................           75          305
Geothermal:
    Noncompetitive lease application..........           75          305
    Competitive lease application.............            0          120
    Assignment and transfer...................           50           70
    Name change, corporate merger or transfer             0          160
     to heir/devisee..........................
    Lease reinstatement.......................            0           60
Nonenergy Leasable:
    Prospecting Permit application amendment..            0           50
    Extension of Prospecting Permit...........            0           80
    Lease Renewals............................           25          390
Mining Law Administration:
    Notice of Location........................           10           15
    Amendment to location.....................            5           10
    Transfer of Interest......................            5           10
    Affidavit of Assessment Work..............            5           10
    Notice of Intent to Hold..................            5           10
    Deferment of Assessment...................           25           80
    Mineral Patent Adjudication...............            0        2,290
    Adverse claim.............................           10           80
    Protest...................................           10           50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Data Did BLM Use to Calculate the Average Cost?

    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, 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.

What Processing Steps are Included in the Fixed Fees?

Oil & Gas
    For noncompetitive lease applications, fixed fees would include 
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 
preparing sale notices; noting title records; preparing and conducting 
sale auctions; preparing lease decisions; and entering and transmitting 
data updates. This fee does not at this point include steps leading to 
sorting parcels, i.e. developing parcel configuration/acreage, and 
preparing stipulations.
    For assignments and transfers, fixed fees would include receiving,

[[Page 78445]]

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 transfers of overriding royalties or payments out of 
production, fixed fees would include receiving, validating, and 
entering data.
    For lease consolidations, fixed fees would include receiving, 
validating, and entering data; examining requests, lease term 
conditions, and productions; preparing new leases and decisions; and 
entering and transmitting updates.
    For lease renewals, fixed fees would include 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 
receiving, validating, and entering data; examining eligibility; 
preparing decisions; and entering and transmitting updates.
Geothermal
    For noncompetitive lease applications, fixed fees would include 
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 
preparing sale notices; noting title records; preparing and conducting 
sale auctions; preparing lease decisions; and entering and transmitting 
data updates. This fee does not at this point include steps leading to 
sorting parcels, i.e. developing parcel configuration/acreage, and 
preparing stipulations.
    For assignments and transfers, fixed fees would include 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 receiving, 
validating, and entering data; examining eligibility; preparing 
decisions; and entering and transmitting updates.
Nonenergy Leasable Minerals
    For prospecting permit application amendments, fixed fees would 
include receiving, validating, and entering data; examining requests 
and rental payments; and entering and transmitting updates.
    For prospecting permit extensions, fixed fees would include 
receiving, validating, and entering data; examining requests and 
diligence; and approving, entering, and transmitting updates.
    For lease renewals, fixed fees would include 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 receiving data 
and validating land status; collecting statutory fees; and entering 
data.
    For amendments to a location, fixed fees would include receiving, 
validating, and entering data.
    For a mineral patent adjudication, fixed fees would include 
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.
    For assignments and transfers, fixed fees would include receiving, 
validating, and entering data.
    For affidavits of assessment work, fixed fees would include 
receiving, validating, and entering data.
    For notices of intent to hold, fixed fees would include receiving, 
validating, and entering data.
    For deferments of assessment work, fixed fees would include 
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 receiving and entering 
data; examining evidence; accepting or denying claims; and issuing 
decisions.
    For protests, fixed fees would include receiving and entering data; 
examining evidence; and issuing decisions either to dismiss or accept a 
protest. Fixed fees would not include costs associated with 
adjudications to correct errors or omissions uncovered by a protest.

How Would BLM Deal With Increased Costs Due to Inflation?

    We would adjust the fees periodically to the Implicit Price 
Deflator, discussed above, 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. When we do adjust fees, we will publish them in the 
Federal Register.

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 Dec. 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 when we receive new data or 
have another reason to believe that fees do not accurately reflect 
reasonable costs.

Monetary Value of the Right or Privilege

Did BLM Calculate Exact Figures for Monetary Values in Setting the 
Proposed Fixed Fees?

    No. We decided not to try to calculate exact figures either by 
document type or on a case-by-case basis because that would involve 
extensive time and resources, and because we can reasonably judge the 
magnitude of these values relative to our costs. We have considered 
monetary value in terms of fairness rather than precise figures before, 
in the preamble to the 1986 rights of way regulations (51 FR 26836).

[[Page 78446]]

How Did BLM Decide the Monetary Value of the Right or Privilege Granted 
by a Fixed Fee Document?

    We relied on the monetary value of past similar rights or 
privileges, which we believe is a good yardstick. We reviewed each type 
of document, and compared the proposed processing fee for a given type 
of document with our knowledge of the historical values of rights or 
privileges granted 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 impact the proposed project. Please note, 
the only fixed fee in this proposed rule that exceeds $390 is for the 
administrative processing of a mineral patent application (excluding 
the cost of the mineral examination and report), for which the proposed 
fee is $2,290. All other proposed fees range from $9 to $390. The costs 
this rule would recover pertain to documents related to the development 
of commercial minerals, so it is not surprising that the monetary value 
of the right or privilege is greater than these proposed fees. 
Therefore, we did not reduce any fees as a result of this factor. We 
will consider monetary value for case-by-cases fees in a similar 
manner.

What About Leases Which Are Found After Exploration To Have Less Value 
Than Previously Thought?

    BLM bases its decision about the value of the right or privilege on 
monetary value at the time the lease application is submitted. All 
leases have relatively large monetary value before exploration compared 
to the proposed fees. The intrinsic value of the opportunity afforded 
by a lease to explore for minerals is shown by the willingness of 
industry to pay large sums before exploration for bonus bids (for coal 
leases), 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 Dec. 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, we 
believe this benefit is greatly outweighed by the benefits to the 
bidder who ultimately obtains the lease or sales contract and can 
develop the minerals on the parcel. Similarly, while all bidders get 
the chance to be 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 be sure 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 processed because that kind of 
cost tracking is simply inefficient--employees' 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. As discussed above, when 
fixed fees would be unreliable or unreasonable, 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. The processing procedures are based on standardized steps in 
BLM Handbooks in order to eliminate duplication and extraneous 
procedures. These detailed and measurable processing steps were 
developed 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 which BLM is required to 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 if the processing of an application 
requires that a study be done, the performance of that study 
necessarily benefits the applicant. See, e.g., Mississippi Power & 
Light Co. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 601 F.2d 223, 231 
(5th Cir. 1979). The most obvious benefit is that the application may 
be approved and the applicant can then operate. 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.
    There are other potential benefits, as were pointed out in the 
preamble to BLM's 1986 rights-of-way regulations:

    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 natural resource 
information about an area, and this is sometimes a public benefit, but 
its value 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.
    Also, except for fees determined on a case-by-case basis, BLM 
determined that for each type of document in this

[[Page 78447]]

rulemaking the monetary value to the applicant outweighs the possible 
benefit of such studies to the public. 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. But not every improvement provided by a project is 
considered a public service. A negative impact on such things as 
wildlife or surface drainage may prevent BLM from considering 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 nonenergy minerals are 
required to share with the government the mineral resource data 
obtained from exploration. If the information is valuable for mineral 
development, we expect the prospecting permit holder will use it. In 
that case, the monetary value of the information to the permittee would 
far outweigh its benefit to the public.
    We considered that even information which is not valuable to the 
prospecting permit holder for mineral development may still provide a 
small geological or geophysical information benefit to the government, 
which could sometimes be used in 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. 
Also, they must eventually be removed. These roads also often do not 
serve the public interest because they cause erosion and drainage 
problems and, if opened to the public, can bring too many people into 
sensitive areas. Thus, for fixed fee documents, the possibility of 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 reducing the potential for error in the patent process. The fee 
for processing patent protests was therefore set at $50, which is less 
than BLM's actual processing cost of $255.
    BLM did not find other factors that made it reasonable to adjust 
fees set in this proposed rulemaking. When BLM charges fees on a case-
by-case basis, applicants could raise other factors during the fee-
setting process.
    [Please note, the proposed regulatory language below is based on 
regulations as they now exist. However, BLM has recently proposed 
changes to parts 3100 (oil & gas) and 3809 (surface management) of this 
title. We may need to change any final regulations which result from 
this proposal to fit with new regulations at those parts, should BLM 
issue final rules in either program.]

IV. Procedural Matters

National Environmental Policy Act

    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 National Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to 
516 Departmental Manual (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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements that 
the Office of Management and Budget 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 Resources Operations: General;
1004-0134, Onshore Oil and Gas Operations: Non-form items;
1004-0135, Sundry Notices and Reports on Wells;
1004-0136, Oil and Gas Applications for Permits to Drill;
1004-0137, Oil and Gas Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log;
1004-0145, Oil and Gas Exploration and Leasing;
1004-0160, Geothermal Leasing Reports;
1004-0162, Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration Operations;
1004-0169, Use and Occupancy under the Mining Laws;
1004-0176, Surface Management Regulations at 3802 and 3809; and
1004-0184, Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing and Operations.

    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 Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), Form 83c, to reflect the new or changed 
fees established by the final rule.

[[Page 78448]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This 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,'' 
as defined by the Small Business Administration for mining (broadly 
inclusive of metal mining, coal mining, oil and gas extraction, and the 
mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals) is 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 of 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. SBA 
would consider many of the operators the BLM works with in the onshore 
minerals programs small entities. [We note 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 discussed in an analysis prepared by BLM and available 
as an attachment to our Record of Compliance for this proposed rule, 
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.
    For example, we estimate that under this rule oil and gas operators 
on public lands would pay an extra $2,052,000 in fees annually, but the 
small operators in the oil & gas program generate sales of $2.9 billion 
to $4.8 billion annually, so the increased fees would be 0.04% to 0.07% 
of sales, even assuming small operators bore the entire fee increase. 
The small operators developing mineral materials on public lands 
generate $60 million to $99 million in annual sales, while the total 
fees for the mineral materials industry would rise by about $866,000, 
or 0.875% to 1.443% of sales. This is the highest percentage of sales 
versus increased fees.
    Additionally, for mineral materials, based on data for FY96, FY97, 
FY98, this proposed rule would affect on average only about 13.5% of 
the disposals on public lands. The rule would not affect the remaining 
86.5% of disposals, consisting of small sales from community pits, and 
common use areas, and free use permits to government entities and non-
profit organizations. And, of course, this rule would not affect small 
operators on non-public lands.
    Finally, we note that most of the proposed fees are charged only 
once and, therefore, the impact is spread over several years of 
industry production. This has the effect of lessening the impact even 
further. Also, leasable and mineral materials sales are for fair market 
value, so we can expect bonus bids to decline in order to offset and 
neutralize the new or increased costs.
    Due to the size of the proposed fee increase, it is worth 
discussing 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 patent applications are set in this proposed rule at 
$2,290 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 hard rock 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.
    BLM is also operating under a moratorium for processing any new 
mineral patent applications and a Congressional Five-Year Plan (Public 
Law 104-134) which required the Secretary to establish a plan for how 
the Department would complete its review of 90% of grandfathered 
mineral patent applications by September 30, 2001. 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 and thus these fees will be rarely 
applied. 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 the moratorium were lifted.
    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 
(the Federal Land Policy and Management Act lists six factors which the 
BLM must consider in setting a reasonable processing fee, discussed 
above). 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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rulemaking will not result in any unfunded mandate to 
state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private 
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.

Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the proposed rule does 
not have significant effects on federalism, and 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 direct, substantive, or significant effects on 
states. It may result in a slight decrease in bonus bids which BLM 
shares on a 50-50 basis with the states. However, the effect would be 
negligible over the life of a lease.

Executive Order 12630

    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

[[Page 78449]]

concerns recovery of government processing costs for actions which 
benefit certain entities who acquire rights and extract publicly-owned 
resources. Therefore, the Department of the Interior 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 12866

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, the BLM 
has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. 
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes the final determination 
under Executive Order 12866. BLM has determined that the rule does not 
meet any of the criteria for a significant regulatory action. The 
proposed rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more or 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 an analysis 
which BLM prepared in conjunction with this proposed rule.
    This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions. This rule does not change the relationships of the onshore 
minerals programs with other agencies' actions. These relationships are 
all encompassed in agreements and memoranda of understanding that will 
not change with this proposed rule.
    In addition, this rule will 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. This occurs as a result 
of recommendations by the OIG (Report Nos. 89-25 and 95-I-379) as well 
as the policy of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 
(IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1734. The IOAA and section 304 of FLPMA 
authorize BLM to charge applicants the cost of processing documents 
through rulemaking; in addition, the IOAA states that these charges 
should cover the agency's costs for these services to the degree 
practicable. 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, this 
rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. Some of the proposed 
rule may be controversial (e.g., increased or new fees), but the issues 
are not novel. Some have been tried in the past and some are currently 
in use by some State governments.

Executive Order 12988

    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. BLM consulted with the 
Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor throughout the 
drafting process.

Author

    The principal authors of this rule are Durga Rimal, Roger Haskins, 
and John Bebout of Solids Group, and Mary Nagel and John Broderick of 
Fluids Group, assisted by Christopher Fontecchio of the Regulatory 
Affairs Group, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, 
1849 C Street, NW., Room 501L, Washington, DC 20240; Telephone: 202-
452-0372, and Ken Fitzpatrick of BLM's Eastern States Office.

    Dated: March 14, 2000.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

    Note: This document was received by the Office of the Federal 
Register on December 8, 2000.

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 
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

43 CFR Part 3120

    Government contracts, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands-mineral 
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

43 CFR Part 3130

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

43 CFR Part 3150

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Oil and gas 
exploration, Public lands mineral resources, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

43 CFR Part 3200

    Geothermal energy, Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Public 
lands-mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Surety bonds.

43 CFR Part 3220

    Geothermal energy, Government contracts, Public lands-mineral 
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

43 CFR Part 3240

    Geothermal energy, Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Public 
lands-mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Water resources.

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, Mineral royalties, Public lands-mineral 
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

43 CFR Part 3510

    Public lands-mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

43 CFR Part 3520

    Government contracts, Public lands-mineral resources.

43 CFR Part 3530

    Public lands-mineral resources.

43 CFR Part 3540

    Public lands-mineral resources.

43 CFR Part 3550

    Public lands-mineral resources.

43 CFR Part 3560

    Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Public lands-mineral 
resources, Surety bonds.

43 CFR Part 3570

    Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Mines, Public lands-
mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety 
bonds.

[[Page 78450]]

43 CFR Part 3580

    Administrative practice and procedure, Mines, Public lands-mineral 
resources, Surety bonds.

43 CFR Part 3590

    Administrative practice and procedure, Indian lands-mineral 
resources, Mineral royalties, Mines, Public lands-mineral resources, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

43 CFR Part 3600

    Public lands-mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

43 CFR Part 3610

    Government contracts, Public lands-mineral resources, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

43 CFR Part 3800

    Public lands-mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Surface management.

43 CFR Part 3830

    Public lands-mineral resources, Location of Mining Claims, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

43 CFR Part 3850

    Public lands-mineral resources, Assessment Work, 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 we explained in the preamble and the 
authorities stated below BLM proposes to amend 43 CFR Groups 3000, 
3100, 3200, 3400, 3500, 3600, and 3800 as follows:

Group 3000--Minerals Management

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. and 
351-359; 31 U.S.C. 483a; 40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 6508; 43 
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 301-306; and Pub. L. 97-35, 95 Stat 
357.

Subpart 3000--General

    2. A new Sec. 3000.10 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 3000.10  What do I need to know about fees in general?

    (a) Fees must be included as required with documents filed 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. BLM 
considers the factors for each type of document when the processing fee 
is a fixed fee, and for each 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 is submitted without the 
proper filing or processing fee amounts except for documents where the 
fee will be set on a case-by-case fee 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 
the document is rejected or withdrawn completely or partially.
    3. A new Sec. 3000.11 is added 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 as either case-by-case 
fees or fixed fees. However, if BLM decides at any time that a 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) BLM may, in our discretion, allow you, the applicant, to do all 
or part of any special study according to standards we specify.
    (c) 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) Before performing any case processing, we will give you an 
estimate of the proposed fee for reasonable processing costs after we 
consider the FLPMA section 304(b) factors.
    (2) You may comment on the proposed fee.
    (3) 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 unanticipated expenses or lower processing 
costs than anticipated, we will re-estimate our reasonable processing 
costs following the procedure in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) 
of this section.
    (ii) If the fee is less than BLM's actual costs, as a result of 
consideration of the FLPMA section 304(b) factors, we will not process 
the document until funding for the shortfall is available either 
through appropriated funds or other means. You may pay the shortfall by 
contributing funds, and once processing is complete we will refund any 
money to you that we did not spend on processing costs.
    (4)(i) We will periodically estimate what our reasonable processing 
costs will be for a specific period and will bill you for that period. 
BLM will not process a document further until this bill amount is paid.
    (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.
    (5) You must pay the entire fee before we will issue the final 
document.
    (6) 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 (c)(4)(i) of this 
section, unless you pay the fee under protest while the appeal is 
pending. In that case, if the appeal results in a decision that the fee 
was too high, we will refund the overpayment in accordance with 
paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section.
    (d) Unless otherwise directed by statute, we will periodically 
adjust fees 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. BLM will publish these fee changes in the 
Federal Register.

Group 3100--Oil and Gas Leasing

PART 3100--OIL AND GAS LEASING

    4. 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. 1733 
and 1740.

Subpart 3105--Cooperative Conservation Provisions

    5. Section 3105.6 is amended by revising the first sentence and 
adding a new sentence after the first sentence as follows:

[[Page 78451]]

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 the payment of a 
processing fee of 
$335.* * *

Subpart 3106--Transfers by Assignment, Sublease, or Otherwise

    6. Section 3106.3 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 3106.3  Fees.

    Each transfer of record title or of operating rights (sublease) for 
each lease must include the payment of a processing fee of $70. Each 
request for a transfer to an heir or devisee, request for a change of 
name, or notification of a corporate merger under Sec. 3106.8, must 
include the payment of a processing fee of $160. Each transfer of 
overriding royalty or payment out of production must include the 
payment of a processing fee of $9 for each lease to which it applies.
    7. Section 3106.4-3 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 3106.4-3  Mass transfers.

* * * * *
    (d) Include with your mass transfer a processing fee payment of $70 
for each such interest transferred for each lease.


Sec. 3106.8-1  [Amended]

    8. Section 3106.8-1(a) is amended by removing the sentence ``No 
filing fee is required.'' and adding in its place a new sentence to 
read: ``Include a processing fee payment of $160 with your request to 
transfer lease rights.''
    9. Section 3106.8-2 is amended by removing the sentence ``No filing 
fee is required.'' and adding in its place a new sentence to read: 
``Include a processing fee payment of $160 with your notice of name 
change.''


Sec. 3106.8-2  [Amended]

    10. Section 3106.8-3 is amended by removing the sentence ``No 
filing fee is required.'' and adding in its place a new sentence to 
read: ``Include a processing fee payment of $160 with your notification 
of a corporate merger.''


Sec. 3106.8-3  [Amended]

Subpart 3107--Continuation, Extension or Renewal


Sec. 3107.7  [Amended]

    11. Section 3107.7 is amended by removing the next to the last 
sentence and adding in its place two new sentences to read: ``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 the payment of a processing fee of 
$305.''
    12. Section 3107.8-2 is revised 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 a processing fee payment of $305.

Subpart 3108--Relinquishment, Termination, Cancellation

    13. Section 3108.2-2(a) is amended 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, a processing fee of $60, 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

    14. Section 3109.1-2 is revised by removing the first three 
sentences and adding in their place the following:


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 office. 
Include a processing fee payment of $305. If the transferee files an 
application it must also include an executed transfer of the right to 
obtain a lease. * * *

PART 3110--NONCOMPETITIVE LEASES

    15. 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. 483a; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; and Pub. L. 97-35, 
95 Stat. 357.

Subpart 3110--Noncompetitive Leases

    16. Section 3110.4(a) is amended 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 a 
processing fee of $305. * * * A noncompetitive offer to lease a future 
interest applied for under Sec. 3110.9 must include a processing fee 
payment of $305. * * *
* * * * *

PART 3120--COMPETITIVE LEASES

    17. 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. Attny. Gen. 41).

    18. Section 3120.5-2 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 3120.5-2  Payments required.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) A processing fee of $120 per parcel.
* * * * *

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

    19. The authority citation for part 3130 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6508 and 1701 et seq.

    20. Section 3132.3(a) is amended 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 a processing fee of $120 in addition to other remaining bonus 
and rental payments. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart 3135--Transfers, Extensions and Consolidations

    21. Section 3135.1-2(a)(2) is amended by revising the first two 
sentences to read as follows:


Sec. 3135.1-2  Requirements for filing of transfers.

* * * * *
    (a)(1) * * *
    (2) An application for approval of any instrument which the 
regulations

[[Page 78452]]

require you to file must include a processing fee payment of $70. Any 
document which the regulations in this part do not require you to file 
but which you submit for record purposes must also include a processing 
fee payment of $70 per lease affected. * * *
* * * * *
    22. Section 3135.1-6(a) is amended 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 a 
processing fee payment of $335.
* * * * *

PART 3150--ONSHORE OIL AND GAS GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION

    23. The authority citation for part 3150 is revised 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. 483a; 42 U.S.C. 6504 and 6508; and 43 U.S.C.1701 
et seq.
    24. Section 3151.1 is amended by adding a new sentence between the 
second and third sentences to read as follows:


Sec. 3151.1  Notice of intent to conduct oil and gas geophysical 
exploration operations.

    * * * BLM will charge a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as 
described in Sec. 3000.11. * * *
    25. Section 3152.1 is amended by removing the last sentence and 
adding in its place the following:


Sec. 3152.1  Application for oil and gas geophysical exploration 
permit.

* * * * *
    The application must be submitted to the Field Office Manager of 
the proper BLM office. BLM will charge a processing fee on a case-by-
case basis as described in Sec. 3000.11.

Group 3200--Geothermal Resource Leasing

PART 3200--GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE LEASING

    26. The authority citation for part 3200 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1001-1027; and 43 U.S.C. 1733 and 1740.

Subpart 3204--Noncompetitive Leasing


Sec. 3204.12  [Amended]

    27. Section 3204.12 is amended by revising the first sentence to 
read as follows:
    Submit a non-refundable processing fee of $305 for each lease 
offer, and an advance rent in the amount of $1 per acre (or fraction of 
an acre). * * *

Subpart 3205--Competitive Leasing


Sec. 3205.16  [Amended]

    28. Section 3205.16(a) is amended by removing the word ``and'' in 
paragraph (a)(3), redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as paragraph (a)(5), 
and adding a new paragraph (a) (4) to read as follows:
    (a) * * *
    (4) The processing fee of $120; and
* * * * *

Subpart 3210--Additional Lease Information

    29. Section 3210.12 is amended 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 payment of a $335 processing fee with your 
request to consolidate leases.

Subpart 3211--Fees, Rent, and Royalties

    30. Section 3211.10 is amended by revising the section heading, the 
table heading, paragraph (b) introductory text, and entries (1) and 
(3), by redesignating entries (4) through (9) as entries (5) through 
(10) and by adding a new entry (4) to 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Competitive
              Type                   leases       Noncompetitive leases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Lease Application                      $120          $305 (includes
 Processing fee.                                  future interest
                                                  leases)
 
*                  *                  *                  *
                  *                  *                  *
(3) Transfer of Record Title or              70          70
 Operating Rights.
(4) Transfer of Interest to                 160          160
 Heir or Devisee, Name Change,
 or Notification of Corporate
 Merger.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart 3213--Relinquishment, Termination, Cancellation, and 
Expiration.

    31. Section 3213.19 is revised 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, rather than due to a lack of 
diligence. In addition to your petition, you must also include any past 
rent owed, any rent which has accrued from the termination date, and a 
processing fee of $60.

Subpart 3216--Transfers

    32. Section 3216.14 is revised 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. When you calculate your fee, make 
sure it covers the full amount. For example, if you are transferring 
record title for three leases, submit $210 with the application. Use 
the following chart to determine forms and fees:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Specific form                                              Transfer fee
           Type of form                   required?           Form No.        Number of copies      (per lease)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Record Title..................  Yes..................          3000-3  2 executed copies....             $70
(b) Operating Rights..............  Yes..................       3000-3(a)  2 execuited copies...              70
(c) Estate Transfers..............  No...................             N/A  1 List of Leases.....             160

[[Page 78453]]

 
(d) Corporate mergers.............  No...................             N/A  1 List of Leases.....             160
(e) Name Changes..................  No...................             N/A  1 List of Leases.....             160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 3470--COAL MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS

    33. 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. 1733 and 1740.

Subpart 3473--Fees, Rentals, and Royalties


Secs. 3473.2-1 and 3473.2-2  [Removed]

    34. Sections 3473.2-1 and 3473.2-2 are removed and section 3473.2 
is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 3473.2  General fee provisions.

    (a) An application for a license to mine must include payment of a 
filing fee of $10. 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 a filing fee of $250.
    (c) An instrument of transfer of a lease or an interest in a lease 
must include payment of a filing fee of $50.
    (d) BLM will charge applicants for a royalty rate reduction a 
processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 3000.11.
    (g) BLM will charge the successful applicant for modification of a 
coal lease a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 
Sec. 3000.11.

PART 3500--LEASING OF SOLID MINERALS OTHER THAN COAL AND OIL SHALE

    35. The authority citation for part 3500 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority U.S.C. 552; 30 U.S.C. 189 and 192c; 43 U.S.C. 1733 and 
1740; and sec. 402, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 
appendix).

Subpart 3500--Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil 
Shale: General

    36. Section 3501.1(e) is revised 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

    37. A new Sec. 3504.10 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 3504.10  What fees must I pay?

    (a) Filing fees. Include a non-refundable filing fee of $25 with 
each application you submit to BLM that is not charged a processing fee 
as described in paragraph (b) of this section. Exploration license 
applications do not require a fee except as provided in 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 Sec.  3000.11.
(2) Prospecting permit application       $50.
 amendment.
(3) Prospecting permit extension.......  $80.
(4) Preference right lease application.  case-by-case basis as described
                                          in Sec.  3000.11.
(5) Successful competitive lease         case-by-case basis as described
 application.                             in Sec.  3000.11.
(6) Lease renewal application..........  $390.
(7) Application to waive, suspend, or    case-by-case basis as described
 reduce your rental, minimum royalty,     in Sec.  3000.11.
 or royalty rate.
(8) Future or fractional interest lease  case-by-case basis as described
 application.                             in Sec.  3000.11.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. Section 3504.12(a) is revised 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 which 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. See 30 
CFR part 218 for MMS's payment procedures.
* * * * *

Subpart 3505--Prospecting Permits

    39. Section 3505.12 is revised 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 Sec. 3000.11. For more information on fees and rentals, 
see subpart 3504 of this part.
    40. Section 3505.30 is amended 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 a 
processing fee of $50 with your amended application. * * *
    41. Section 3505.31 is amended by revising the last sentence to 
read as follows:

[[Page 78454]]

Sec. 3505.31  May I withdraw my application after I file it?

    * * * BLM will retain any fees associated with processing already 
performed on the application.
    42. Section 3505.50 is amended 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 reject your application, we will refund your rental 
payment. We will retain any fees associated with processing already 
performed on the application.


Sec. 3505.51  [Removed]

    43. Section 3505.51 is removed.
    44. Section 3505.64 is amended by revising the last sentence to 
read as follows:


Sec. 3505.64  How do I apply for an extension?

    * * * Include your processing fee of $80 and the first year's 
rental, in accordance with Secs. 3504.10, 3504.15, and 3504.16 of this 
part.

Subpart 3507--Preference Right Lease Applications

    45. Section 3507.16 is revised 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 rent with your application 
according to the provisions in Sec. 3504.15. BLM will also charge a 
processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in Sec. 3000.11.

Subpart 3508--Competitive Lease Applications

    46. Section 3508.21 is amended 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 Sec. 3000.11.

Subpart 3509--Fractional and Future Interest Lease Applications

    47. Section 3509.16 is amended 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 Sec. 3000.11.
    48. Section 3509.30 is amended 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 associated with processing already 
performed on the application.
    49. Section 3509.46 is amended 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 Sec. 3000.11.
    50. Section 3509.51 is amended 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 associated with processing already 
performed on the application.

Subpart 3511--Lease Terms and Conditions

    51. Section 3511.27 is amended 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 
$390 processing fee 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

    52. Subpart 3513 is amended by adding 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 Sec. 3000.11.

Group 3600--Mineral Materials Disposal

PART 3600--MINERAL MATERIALS DISPOSAL: GENERAL

PART 3610--SALES

    53. The authority citation for part 3610 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: U.S.C. 601 and 602; and 43 U.S.C. 1733 and 1740.

Subpart 3610--Mineral Material Sales

    54. Section 3610.1-1 is amended by redesignating the existing text 
as paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 3610.1-1  Request for sale.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Each requestor for a sale, other than from a community pit or 
common use area, must pay a processing fee as provided in Sec. 3610.2-
1(a) or Sec. 3610.3-4(e) before BLM awards the contract.
    55. Section 3610.2-1 is amended by revising the section heading and 
adding at the end of paragraph (a) a new sentence to read as follows:


Sec. 3610.2-1  Limitations in volume and fees.

    (a) * * * BLM will charge the purchaser a processing fee on a case-
by-case basis as described in Sec. 3000.11.
* * * * *
    56. Section 3610.3-4 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 3610.3-4  Bid deposits.

* * * * *
    (e) BLM will charge the successful bidder a processing fee on a 
case-by-case basis as described in Sec. 3000.11.

PART 3800--MINING CLAIMS UNDER THE GENERAL MINING LAWS

Subpart 3800--General

    57. 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.

    54. Part 3800 is amended by adding new subpart 3800, to read as 
follows:

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 Sec. 3000.11 
whenever BLM decides that approval 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

[[Page 78455]]

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 Sec. 3000.11 for 
any validity examination and report performed in connection with the 
application or notice.

PART 3830--LOCATION OF MINING CLAIMS

    58. The authority citation for part 3830 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1901 and 1907; 30 U.S.C. 22, 28 and 242; 31 
U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1201, 1740 and 1744; 50 U.S.C. Appendix 565; 
Pub. L. 103-23, 107 Stat. 60; and Pub. L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 405.

Subpart 3833--Recordation of Mining Claims, Mill Sites, and Tunnel 
Sites and Payment of Service Charges; and Payment of Rental Fees


Sec. 3833.1  Recordation of Mining Claims.

    59. Section 3833.1-4 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), 
(d), and (e) as follows:


Sec. 3833.1-4  Service charges and location fees.

    (a) As the applicant you must include payment of a $15 processing 
fee for each notice or certificate of location of a mining claim, mill 
site, or tunnel site filed for recordation.
    (b) * * *
    (c) Annual filings submitted under Sec. 3833.2 must include payment 
of a $10 processing fee for each mining claim, mill site, or tunnel 
site. You do not have to pay a processing fee when paying a maintenance 
fee under Sec. 3833.1-5 or filing a maintenance fee waiver under 
Sec. 3833.1-7.
    (d) For amendments to a previously recorded notice or certificate 
of location, you must submit a $10 processing fee for each mining 
claim, mill site, or tunnel site.
    (e) For each transfer of interest document filed under Sec. 3833.3, 
you must submit a $10 processing fee for each mining claim, mill site, 
or tunnel site.
* * * * *

PART 3850--ASSESSMENT WORK

    60. The authority is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 22 et seq. and 28-28k; 50 U.S.C. Appendix 
565; and Pub. L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 405.

Subpart 3852--Deferment of Assessment Work

    61. Section 3852.2 is amended by revising the last sentence of 
paragraph (a) as follows:


Sec. 3852.2  Filing of petition for deferment, contents.

    (a) * * * Each petition must include payment of a $80 processing 
fee.
* * * * *

PART 3860--MINERAL PATENT APPLICATIONS

    62. The authority citation for part 3860 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 22 et seq. and 552.

    63. Part 3860 is amended by adding new subpart 3860 to read as 
follows:

Subpart 3860--General


Sec. 3860.1  Fees.

    (a) Each mineral patent application must include payment of a 
$2,290 processing fee to cover BLM's preliminary application processing 
costs.
    (b) BLM will charge a separate processing fee on a case-by-case 
basis as described in Sec. 3000.11 to cover its processing costs for 
the mineral examination and report.

Subpart 3862--Lode Mining Claim Patent Applications

    64. Section 3862.1-2 is revised 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

    65. Section 3863.1 is amended 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


Sec. 3864.1  Millsite patents: General.

    66. Section 3864.1-5 is is added 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

    67. The authority citation for part 3870 is added to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 30; and 43 U.S.C. 1201 and 1457.

Subpart 3871--Adverse Claims

    68. Section 3871.1 is amended by revising paragraph (d) as follows:


Sec. 3871.1  Filing of claim.

* * * * *
    (d) Each adverse claim filed must include an $80 processing fee.

Subpart 3872--Protests, Contests, and Conflicts

    69. In Sec. 3872.1 paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 3872.1  Protest against mineral applications.

* * * * *
    (b) A protest by any party, except a Federal agency, must include 
payment of a $50 processing fee.

[FR Doc. 00-31748 Filed 12-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P