[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 19, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41532-41554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13613]



[[Page 41531]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Bureau of Land Management



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



43 CFR Parts 3000, 3100, 3120, et al.



Oil and Gas Leasing: Geothermal Resources Leasing; Coal Management; 
Management of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal; Mineral Materials 
Disposal; and Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 19, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 41532]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Parts 3000, 3100, 3120, 3130, 3150, 3160, 3200, 3470, 3500, 
3600, 3800, 3830, 3833, 3835, 3836, 3860, and 3870

[WO-610-4111-02-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AC64


Oil and Gas Leasing; Geothermal Resources Leasing; Coal 
Management; Management of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal; Mineral 
Materials Disposal; and Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is again proposing to 
amend its mineral resources regulations to increase many fees and to 
impose new fees to cover BLM's costs of processing certain documents 
relating to its minerals programs. This would include costs for actions 
such as environmental studies, monitoring activities, and other 
processing-related costs. The BLM would establish some fixed fees and 
some fees on a case-by-case basis. The proposed fee changes are based 
on statutory authorities, which authorize BLM to charge for its 
processing costs, and on policy guidance from the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) requiring BLM 
to charge these fees. The fee changes also respond to recommendations 
issued in audit reports by the DOI's Office of Inspector General (OIG).

DATES: You should submit your comments on or before August 18, 2005. 
The BLM may or may not consider comments postmarked or received by 
messenger or electronic mail after the above date in the decision-
making process on the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Mail Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, Eastern 
States Office, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. 
Personal or messenger delivery: 1620 L Street NW., Suite 401, 
Washington, DC 20036. Email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For issues related to BLM's Minerals 
Program contact Tim Spisak, Fluid Minerals Group Manager (202) 452-5061 
or Ted Murphy, Solid Minerals Division Manager (202) 452-0351. Contact 
Cynthia Ellis (202) 452-5012 for issues relating to BLM's regulatory 
matters. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
may contact these individuals through the Federal Information Relay 
Service at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

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

I. Public Comment Procedures

A. How Do I File Comments?

    If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of 
several methods.
     Mail: Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, Eastern 
States Office, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia, 22153.
     Personal or messenger delivery: 1620 L Street NW., Suite 
401, Washington, DC 20036.
     [email protected].
    Please make your comments on the proposed rule as specific as 
possible, confine them to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, and 
explain the reason for any changes you recommend. Where possible, your 
comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the 
proposal that you are addressing. Please include a reference to ``RIN 
1004-AC64'' in your comments.
    The DOI may or may not consider or include in the Administrative 
Record for the final rule comments that we receive after the close of 
the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address 
other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES). BLM has set the comment 
period for this proposed rule at 30 days. We believe this provides 
sufficient time for public comment because most of this rule was 
proposed in nearly identical form on December 15, 2000 (65 FR 78440-
78455). BLM extended the original comment period to over six months, 
until July 2, 2001 (66 FR 19413, April 16, 2001). We believe that 30 
days allows sufficient time to comment on the fees that are new in this 
proposed rule. Moreover, this rule is necessary to implement the cost 
recovery fee collection provisions included in the President's 2006 
Budget, as passed by Congress. Because the revenue is needed to cover 
BLM's operating expenses in FY 2006, it was determined that BLM could 
not provide a longer comment period without jeopardizing the 
government's ability to implement these fees in a timely manner.

B. May I Review Comments Others Submit?

    If you want your comments to remain confidential, do not send us 
your comments at the e-mail address. In addition, all comments, 
including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available 
for public review at the address listed under ADDRESSES: Personal or 
messenger delivery'' during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 
p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
    Individual respondents may request confidentiality, which we will 
honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish to withhold your name 
or address, except for the city or town, you must state this 
prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will make all 
submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals 
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations 
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
    If you provide comments on company or institutional letterhead, we 
will assume those comments were given with the approval of the 
organization and may identify them as such.
    BLM received 135 comments in response to the original proposed rule 
published on December 15, 2000, in the Federal Register (65 FR 78440-
78455). This reproposed rule has updated fees and clarifies several 
issues that were in the 2000 proposed rule. If you provided comments in 
response to the December 15, 2000, proposed rule you need not submit 
those comments again. We will address those comments in any final rule.

II. Background

    Federal agencies are authorized to charge processing costs by the 
Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701. 
The BLM also has specific authority to charge fees for processing 
applications and other documents relating to public lands under section 
304 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 
U.S.C. 1734. Public lands in FLPMA means all lands or interests in land 
owned by the United States and administered by BLM, excluding outer 
continental shelf lands and Native American lands (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)). 
This applies to Federal mineral lands with private or state surface as 
well as to lands where the United States owns both the surface and 
mineral rights. The BLM interprets this definition to mean that a 
mineral lease or mineral materials disposal administered by BLM, or a 
mining claim

[[Page 41533]]

(for which BLM determines validity), even in land where another agency 
administers the surface, is an ``interest in land'' for the purposes of 
FLPMA. BLM is not proposing in this rule to recover costs for work we 
perform in administering Indian leases.
    Before BLM disposes of mineral materials or issues a mineral lease 
on these lands, if the surface managing agency also exercises any 
responsibility relating to disposal of the minerals, the mineral estate 
may not be sufficiently under the administrative control of BLM to 
qualify as public lands for purposes such as exchanges. However, once 
BLM issues a mineral lease or proceeds with a mineral materials 
disposal, we are administering an interest in the lands, and that 
interest now falls under the FLPMA definition of public lands. Because 
the Secretary of the Interior has primary jurisdiction over determining 
the validity of mining claims, and BLM administers the mineral estate 
covered by those claims, mining claims also qualify as public lands 
under FLPMA. Of course, BLM also has authority under the IOAA to 
collect fees for processing documents related to its administration of 
the mineral estate in these instances.
    The IOAA and section 304 of FLPMA authorize BLM to charge 
applicants for the cost of processing documents through the rulemaking 
process, which BLM is proposing to do through this rule. The IOAA also 
states that these charges should pay for the agency services, as much 
as possible.
    Cost recovery policies are explained in OMB Circular No. A-25 
(Revised) entitled ``User Charges.'' Part 346 of the Departmental 
Manual (DM) also provides guidance. The general Federal policy is that 
a charge will be assessed against each identifiable recipient for 
special benefits derived from Federal activities beyond those received 
by the public. (OMB Circular A-25.) The Circular establishes Federal 
policy regarding fees assessed for government services and for sales or 
use of government goods or resources. It provides information on the 
scope and types of activities subject to user charges and the basis 
upon which agencies set user charges. Finally, the Circular provides 
guidance for agency implementation of charges and the disposition of 
collections.
    The DOI Manual provides guidance and reflects the OMB cost recovery 
policy at 346 DM 1.2 A. Under that section, unless prohibited or 
limited by statute or other authority, BLM must impose a charge that:
    1. Recovers the bureau or office costs; and
    2. Recovers costs for all categories of service that provide 
special benefits to an identifiable recipient beyond those which accrue 
to the public at large.
    Certain activities may be exempted from these fees under conditions 
set out at 346 DM 1.2 C.
    In 1996, the Solicitor issued an M Opinion, entitled ``BLM's 
Authority to Recover Costs of Minerals Document Processing'' (M-36987, 
December 5, 1996), which analyzed the law related to BLM's cost 
recovery authority. In considering how BLM could structure its cost 
recovery, the Opinion noted, ``BLM could decide in certain instances to 
structure a rule so that a new fee is phased in over a period of 
time.'' M-36987 at page 36. This is based on the provision in Section 
304(b) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1734 (b)) that the Secretary may consider 
other factors relevant to determining reasonable costs. (See ``What are 
the FLPMA Factors BLM Must Consider?'' below.) In this proposed rule, 
BLM is proposing to phase in certain fees to give companies adequate 
time to include all costs in their planning processes.
    On December 15, 2000, BLM proposed a rule to amend our mineral 
resource regulations to increase many fees and to impose new fees to 
cover our costs of processing certain documents relating to our mineral 
programs (65 FR 78440). The December 2000 proposed fee changes were 
BLM's response to recommendations made in a 1988 OIG report (No. 89-
25). This report was part of a 1980s presidential initiative that 
called for all Federal agencies to charge appropriate user fees, 
consistent with the law, for agency services. The OIG recommended that 
BLM collect fees for processing mineral-related documents whenever 
possible.
    In this proposed rule, we are reproposing the 2000 fees, and adding 
the following fees that were not included in the 2000 proposed rule:
    1. A processing fee for oil and gas applications for permit to 
drill (APDs),
    2. A processing fee for geothermal permits to drill (GPDs),
    3. A processing fee for geothermal exploration permits, and
    4. A processing fee for renewal of mineral materials competitive 
contracts.
    We are also proposing to charge a fixed fee for the processing of 
oil and gas geophysical exploration applications, instead of the case-
by-case fee that we proposed in 2000.
    For both the 2000 proposed rule and this proposed rule, we updated 
existing fees. This proposed rule covers only some of the documents for 
which BLM has the authority to recover processing costs. The BLM 
intends to continue to work on establishing and collecting fees for 
other documents including those addressed in the Solicitor's December 
5, 1996, M Opinion on this subject (M-36987). In the future, we expect 
to identify and propose fees for additional processing activities.

III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

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

    ``Cost Recovery'' means reimbursing BLM for the costs of processing 
applications and other documents relating to the public lands by 
charging a fee to the applicant or beneficiary.

What Is the Office of Inspector General (OIG)?

    This office, within the DOI, studies Departmental economy and 
efficiency and makes recommendations for improvement.

What OIG Reports Affected This Rulemaking?

    The OIG reports No. 89-25 (1988), No. 92-I-828 (1992), 95-I-379 
(1995) and No. 97-I-1300 (1997).

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

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

How Did BLM Gather Data for Cost Recovery in Response to the 1988 OIG 
Report?

    The BLM first conducted an inventory of about 130 types of 
documents in all onshore energy and mineral program areas: fluid 
minerals (including geothermal resources) leasing and operations; solid 
leasable minerals (coal and non-energy minerals) leasing and 
operations; mining law administration (locatable minerals); and mineral 
materials (saleable minerals such as sand and gravel). The BLM used 
this inventory to determine the types of documents for which it 
appeared we had authority to collect processing costs.

[[Page 41534]]

How Did BLM Analyze Its Costs for Types of Documents That Appeared To 
Be Eligible for Processing Fees?

    We started with a pilot analysis in the BLM Montana State Office 
and then surveyed all BLM State Offices in 1990. To ensure that the 
State Offices used the same data-gathering approach, the BLM Washington 
Office gave all State Offices a copy of Part 346 of the DM, three types 
of standard forms to record the data, and detailed instructions 
previously tested for clarity in the Montana Pilot Analysis.

Were There Differences in the Processing Costs and Number of Document 
Filings Processed for Each State Office?

    Yes. The BLM's preliminary review of the data showed large cost 
differences among offices for processing certain types of documents, as 
well as big differences in the numbers of documents filed and 
processed. For example, office processing costs for a mineral materials 
noncompetitive sale application ranged from $234 to $4,773. As 
discussed below, BLM reconsidered the State Offices' estimated costs 
for noncompetitive sales applications and determined that the 
differences in estimates were attributable to unique site- or sale-
specific factors.
    Similarly, the number of mining law affidavits of assessment filed 
in State Offices for Fiscal Years (FY) 1988-1990 varied from about 
2,761 to 251,564. For certain mineral-related document types, some 
offices had no activity during the three years sampled.

What Did BLM Do To Reconcile the Differences in the Data?

    The BLM decided to use a weighted average rather than a simple 
average to determine a BLM-wide processing cost for each type of 
document. This method gave greater weight to the processing cost data 
from State Offices having a heavy workload, and thus more expertise, in 
processing a particular type of document.
    Between 1995 and 1999, we re-analyzed much of the data, conducted 
spot checks to verify its continued validity, and adjusted it to 
current prices. In 2003, we reviewed the processing details for the 
different types of documents dating from 1995 and determined that the 
information was current.

What Did the OIG's Follow-Up Report Find?

    The report (No. 95-I-379, January 1995) found that, of the five 
recommendations in the 1988 OIG report, BLM had:
     Implemented the first, third, and fourth recommendations,
     Partially implemented the second recommendation to 
determine the cost and number of each document filing processed, and
     Not yet implemented the fifth recommendation to establish 
and collect BLM processing cost fees for non-exempt types of documents.
    The OIG sent BLM a draft of this report to which we responded in 
August 1994. We met with the OIG and discussed issues raised by the 
report, including the issue of guidance and standards in data 
gathering. We also provided supplemental information to the OIG in 
December 1994 to resolve the issue.

What Observations and Recommendations Did the 1995 OIG Report Make?

    The OIG noted the wide variations in estimates of the time and cost 
needed to process types of documents among various BLM State Offices, 
and made two recommendations to BLM from the draft report. First, BLM 
should develop document processing standards, request cost information 
from State Offices based on these standards and analyze and resolve 
significant differences in the collected data, particularly for types 
of documents which have major impacts on the total amount of money that 
BLM can recover. Next, BLM should expedite the establishment and 
collection of fees for processing types of documents which have major 
impacts on the total amount of money that BLM can recover, and continue 
efforts to establish and collect fees for other types of documents.
    The report noted that in the supplemental information provided in 
December 1994, BLM told the OIG that it had developed guidance/
standards that were used by all State Offices to achieve uniformity in 
data gathering and reporting. It pointed out that BLM said we would 
establish a multi-program team to continue examining fees to establish 
a consistent cost recovery program. Based on our responses to the draft 
report, the final 1995 OIG report concluded that both recommendations 
were resolved but not implemented.

How Did BLM Respond to the 1995 Report?

    After the OIG issued the 1995 report BLM created a multi-program 
team to update its processing cost data, with priority given to 
establishing and collecting fees for types of documents with a 
significant impact on the total amount of money that we can recover. To 
update the existing data and verify its accuracy, the team gathered new 
estimates of the number of annual filings, updated processing cost 
estimates, and assigned BLM mineral experts to review the data in their 
specialties.

How Did BLM Analyze the 1990 Cost Data for Oil, Gas, and Geothermal in 
Response to the 1995 OIG Report?

    BLM's fluid minerals program re-analyzed this data, comparing the 
data and identifying the appropriate job position, salary level, and 
time needed for each step indicated in BLM oil, gas, and geothermal 
Handbooks to process each type of document. The 1990 data was also 
based on the steps in the Handbooks. Based on this analysis, we 
calculated a direct cost (see discussion of direct/indirect costs 
below) for each step of the process, which was then adjusted to 1995 
salary rates without a locality factor. BLM later added indirect costs. 
We used these cost figures in this proposed rule as the actual cost 
estimates for oil and gas and geothermal document types, from which the 
fees were determined. The BLM relied on this method for oil and gas and 
geothermal because the assigned program expert believed it would yield 
accurate cost estimates.

How Did BLM Update the 1990 Cost Data for Mineral Materials, Coal, 
Nonenergy Leasable Minerals, and Mining Law in Response to the 1995 OIG 
Report?

    We spot-checked the data by resubmitting it to selected BLM State 
Offices that often process these particular categories of documents. We 
also sent each of these offices a summary of the cost data that the 
office had previously submitted for these types of documents, along 
with the BLM-wide weighted average cost for each of them. We requested 
that the State Offices review the cost data and report whether that 
data, adjusted to current prices, remained reasonable. We requested 
that the State Office re-estimate costs for that state if it found the 
re-examined adjusted cost data to be unreasonable for that point in 
time. Our re-examination verified that BLM's data continued to be valid 
and ensured that figures, which varied significantly among offices, had 
not been submitted in error. We used this method for these programs 
because our program experts believed it would yield accurate data and 
be cost-effective. In addition, for mineral materials, the team 
reconsidered the State Offices' estimated costs for noncompetitive sale 
applications that the 1995 report had

[[Page 41535]]

highlighted. The team determined that the differences among State 
Offices were largely caused by unique site- or sale-specific factors. 
BLM considered the amount and nature of surface disturbance, for 
example, whether the sales are from existing or new pits, and how much 
material is to be removed; the impact on other surface resources (which 
may vary even within the same area); and National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) analysis.
    To bring the figures in line with 1999 prices, in preparation for 
the 2000 proposed rulemaking, BLM adjusted them to the Implicit Price 
Deflator for Gross Domestic Product (IPD-GDP) for 1998 (the most recent 
year then available) published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, 
which economists generally consider to be the most reliable general 
price index.

How Has BLM Implemented the 1995 OIG Recommendations?

    As explained above, BLM resolved the first part of the OIG's first 
recommendation about what standards we used by sending the OIG 
information in response to the draft report about our use of concrete 
standards in data collection. The BLM updated the proposed fees and 
updated, analyzed, and verified the data, which responded to the second 
part of the OIG's first recommendation. This rule proposes to implement 
the first part of the second 1995 OIG recommendation: BLM would collect 
fees for types of documents that have a significant impact on the 
amount of money BLM can recover. This proposed rule covers only some of 
the documents for which BLM has the authority to recover costs. BLM 
intends to continue our work to establish and collect fees for other 
documents as well, including those addressed in the Solicitor's 
December 5, 1996 M Opinion on this subject (M-36987). This satisfies 
the second part of the OIG's second recommendation.

The 2000 Proposal and This Proposed Rule

    The BLM decided to propose the entire rulemaking again because we 
are proposing a different type of processing fee for oil and gas 
geophysical exploration applications, and new processing fees for APDs, 
GPDs, geothermal exploration permits, and mineral materials competitive 
contract renewals.
    BLM has also determined it is appropriate to include an initial fee 
schedule in the regulations. Fee revisions adjusted for inflation will 
take place by way of publication in the Federal Register, with 
subsequent posting on our Web site. For an explanation of how BLM 
proposes to adjust fees in the future, see ``How Did BLM Address 
Increased Costs Due to Inflation?'' below.

What Is the Proposed Processing Fee for Oil and Gas Geophysical 
Exploration Applications?

    In the 2000 proposed rule, we included a case-by-case processing 
fee for geophysical exploration applications. Since that time, we have 
implemented an activity-based coding system that allows us to better 
track such costs. In reviewing the 2000 proposed fees in preparation 
for this proposed rulemaking, we determined that the costs of 
processing oil and gas geophysical exploration applications are quite 
high, averaging approximately $8,000 to $10,000.
    The BLM determined these amounts by analyzing data we collected for 
two years (2002 and 2003) through the Management Information System 
(MIS), BLM's activity-based coding system. One program element in MIS 
(added in 2001) is dedicated to oil and gas geophysical exploration 
applications. To determine our costs for oil and gas geophysical 
exploration applications, we first considered the total cost to a Field 
Office for processing these applications and divided that number by the 
total number of geophysical exploration applications processed by that 
Field Office. We repeated the procedure for each Field Office. However, 
because we did not receive a significant number of geophysical 
exploration applications in the two-year period analyzed, we have not 
determined a final estimated average cost. We will continue to collect 
and analyze cost data for geophysical exploration applications. At this 
time we have decided to set a target fee of $2,500, which we are 
confident is well below what the final estimated average cost will be, 
based on the time it takes to complete an environmental assessment and 
the fieldwork required. Because we propose to phase in this initial fee 
over several years, as discussed below, we expect to be able to propose 
a fee based on our final estimated average cost in a new rulemaking by 
the end of the phase-in period. We considered the other FLPMA factors 
and determined that the factors would not cause a reasonable fee to be 
reduced below actual costs except as noted below. (See ``How Did BLM 
Consider the ``FLPMA Factors?'' and the discussion following it 
regarding each factor, below.)
    As explained earlier, based on the ``other relevant factors'' 
criterion, in order to allow companies to plan for these potentially 
significant new costs, we propose to phase in this fee, beginning with 
a fixed fee of $500. The geophysical exploration application fee will 
be raised $500 each year until it reaches $2,500 (as adjusted by the 
IPD-GDP). The base fee will be adjusted for inflation every year by 
applying the IPD-GDP. The new fee will apply to all applications filed 
on or after October 1 each year. Further cost analysis will determine 
the final estimated average cost that will be set through future 
rulemaking. We invite comment on this proposed rule regarding whether 
these initial fees are appropriate, or whether they should be higher or 
lower.

What Is the Proposed Processing Fee for Applications for Geothermal 
Exploration (e.g., Temperature Gradient Wells)?

    The BLM determined the cost of processing geothermal exploration 
applications by analyzing data we collected for two years (2002 and 
2003) through the MIS. One project code (added in 2001) used in 
conjunction with the program element in MIS (added in 2001) is 
dedicated to geothermal exploration applications. To determine our 
costs, we first considered the total cost to a Field Office for 
processing geothermal exploration applications and divided that number 
by the total number of geothermal exploration applications processed by 
that Field Office. We repeated the process for each Field Office. Over 
those two years, the average cost of processing a geothermal 
exploration permit application was $3,200. However, we received only 
three applications during the two-year period analyzed. Because we 
believe additional data is required to come up with an accurate cost, 
we have not determined a final estimated average cost. We will continue 
to collect and analyze cost data for geothermal exploration 
applications. At this time we have decided to set a target fee of 
$2500, which we are confident is below what the final estimated average 
cost will be based on the time required to complete an environmental 
assessment. Because we propose to phase in this initial fee over 
several years, as discussed below, we expect to be able to propose a 
fee based on our final estimated average cost in a new rulemaking by 
the end of the phase-in period. We considered the other FLPMA factors 
and determined that the factors would not cause a reasonable fee to be 
reduced below actual costs except as noted below. (See ``How Did BLM 
Consider the ``FLPMA Factors?'' and the

[[Page 41536]]

discussion following it regarding each factor, below.)
    As explained earlier, based on the ``other relevant factors'' 
criterion, in order to allow companies to plan for these potentially 
significant new costs, we propose to phase in these fees, beginning 
with a fixed fee of $500. The geothermal exploration application fee 
will be raised $500 each year until it reaches $2,500 (as adjusted by 
the IPD-GDP). The base fee will be adjusted for inflation every year by 
applying the IPD-GDP. The new fee will apply to all applications filed 
on or after October 1 each year. Further cost analysis will determine 
the final estimated average cost that will be set through future 
rulemaking. We invite comment on this proposed rule regarding whether 
these initial fees are appropriate, or whether they should be higher or 
lower.

What Is the Proposed Processing Fee for Oil and Gas Applications for 
Permit To Drill (APDs)?

    To determine BLM's costs to process APDs, we analyzed the data we 
collected for that activity for four years (2001 through 2004) through 
the MIS. One program element in MIS (added in 2000) is dedicated to 
processing APDs.
    To determine our costs for APDs, we first considered the total cost 
to a Field Office of processing APDs and divided that number by the 
total number of APDs processed by that Field Office. We repeated this 
procedure for each Field Office. We determined that the average cost 
for Field Offices that process more APDs did not vary significantly 
from costs for other Field Offices. Therefore, we decided to use the 
average cost from all field offices as our actual cost figure. Over the 
four year-year period analyzed, we found that the average cost of 
processing an APD was about $4,000.
    We considered the other FLPMA factors, and determined that the 
factors would not cause a reasonable fee for APDs to be reduced below 
actual costs, except as noted below. (See ``How Did BLM Consider the 
FLPMA Factors?'' based on the ``other relevant factors'' criterion 
explained earlier, and the discussion following each factor, below.) As 
with oil and gas geophysical exploration, and geothermal exploration, 
we propose to phase in these fees, beginning with a fixed fee of $1600, 
to give companies adequate time to include these potentially 
significant new costs in their planning processes. The APD fee will be 
raised $500 each year until it reaches $4,000 (as adjusted by the IPD-
GDP). The base fee will be adjusted for inflation every year by 
applying the IPD-GDP. The new fee will apply to all applications filed 
on or after October 1 each year. We invite comment on this proposed 
rule regarding whether these initial fees are appropriate, or whether 
they should be higher or lower. We also invite comment on what impacts, 
if any the proposed APD fee could have on the level of a company's 
operations on Federal lands. In particular, we are interested in how 
the proposed fee might affect the competitiveness of Federal oil and 
gas leases as compared to non-Federal leases.

What Is the Proposed Processing Fee for Geothermal Permits To Drill 
(GPDs)?

    We used the same process to determine BLM's costs to process GPDs. 
We analyzed the data we collected for this activity for three years 
(2001 through 2003) through the MIS. A project code in MIS (added in 
2000) is also dedicated to processing GPDs. We followed the same 
procedure that we did for APDs and determined that the average cost to 
process a GPD over the past three years was $3,500. We considered the 
other FLPMA factors, and determined that the factors would not cause a 
reasonable fee for GPDs to be reduced below actual costs, except as 
noted below. (See ``How Did BLM Consider the FLPMA Factors?'' based on 
the ``other relevant factors'' criterion explained earlier and the 
discussion following each factor, below.) As with oil and gas 
geophysical exploration and geothermal exploration, we propose to phase 
in these fees, beginning with a fixed fee of $1600, to give companies 
adequate time to include these potentially significant new costs in 
their planning processes. The GPD fee will be raised $500 each year 
until it reaches $3,500 (as adjusted by the IPD-GDP). The base fee will 
be adjusted for inflation every year by applying the IPD-GDP. The new 
fee will apply to all applications filed on or after October 1 each 
year. We invite comment on this proposed rule regarding whether these 
initial fees are appropriate, or whether they should be higher or 
lower.

What Is the Proposed Processing Fee for Mineral Materials Competitive 
Contracts?

    We are proposing to charge a case-by-case fee for applications to 
renew mineral materials competitive contracts, consistent with the 
proposed case-by-case fees for mineral materials competitive and 
noncompetitive sales applications. The option to renew a mineral 
materials competitive contract was added to the regulations in the 
final rule that became effective on December 24, 2001 (66 FR 58892).

What Kinds of Fees Would This Rule Create?

    This rule would establish fixed fees and fees based on BLM's case-
by-case processing costs. A fixed fee remains the same for each 
document of a particular type. How BLM set these fixed fees is 
explained below. A fee based on BLM's case-by-case processing costs 
would be calculated by tracking the ongoing costs of processing an 
individual document.
    As this proposed rule was being prepared for publication, BLM 
became aware that the case-by-case procedures outlined in proposed 
section 3000.11 are not appropriate for fees charged to the successful 
bidder in a lease sale or mineral materials sale context, because in 
those situations BLM has already performed the work and has tracked its 
costs for that work. We therefore intend to include in the final rule a 
different set of procedures for charging a case-by-case fee to the 
successful bidder in a lease sale or mineral materials sale, which will 
include a provision allowing the successful bidder to comment on the 
proposed fee before the fee is made final. These different procedures 
would apply to the successful applicant for a competitive coal lease 
(see proposed Sec.  3473.2(f)), a competitive solid minerals lease (see 
proposed Sec.  33508.21(c)), and a competitive mineral materials sale 
(see proposed Sec.  3602.44(f)). BLM solicits comments on how it should 
draft the procedures for charging case-by-case fees to successful 
bidders.

Are Fixed Fees Appealable?

    No. The amount of a fixed fee is not appealable to the Interior 
Board of Land Appeals because it is set by regulation. There is no 
discretion to change it.

Does this Proposed Rule Contain Waivers or Reduction of Fixed Fees?

    No. We have not included provisions in this proposed rule for 
waiver or reduction of fixed fees because we believe that such 
provisions are neither appropriate nor necessary for a rule that would 
impose fees only on for-profit commercial enterprises. While payment of 
the proposed fee could reduce an entity's profit level, waiving or 
reducing the fee for that entity would simply mean that United States 
taxpayers would bear the costs that the for-profit entity was not 
bearing. However, we welcome comments on this issue and we will 
consider further whether to include provisions for waiver or reduction 
of fixed fees in the final rule.

Are Case-by-Case Fees Appealable?

    Yes. Applicants may appeal case-by-case fees to the Interior Board 
of Land

[[Page 41537]]

Appeals in accordance with the Department's appeals rules at 43 CFR 
part 4, subpart E.

What Are the FLPMA Factors BLM Must Consider?

    Section 304(b) of FLPMA lists six factors (known as the FLPMA 
reasonableness factors) that BLM must consider in deciding what is a 
reasonable processing fee. They are:
    (1) BLM's actual costs to process a document. This does not include 
management overhead, which means costs of BLM State Directors and 
Washington Office staff, except when a member of this group works on a 
specific authorization such as a lease. Actual costs include (but are 
not limited to) funds spent on special studies, environmental impact 
statements and other analyses, and monitoring of exploration activities 
and development, and of construction, operation, maintenance, or 
termination of an authorized facility.
    (2) The monetary value, or objective worth, of the right or 
privilege that the applicant seeks.
    (3) The efficiency with which BLM processes a document, meaning 
with a minimum of waste by carefully managing agency expenses and time.
    (4) Whether any of BLM's processing costs, for actions such as 
studies or data collection, benefit the general public or the Federal 
Government, rather than just the applicant. This is referred to in the 
statute as ``benefit of the general public interest.''
    (5) Whether the project provides any significantly tangible 
improvement, such as a road, or other direct service to the public. 
Occasionally, a negative factor, such as an adverse impact on wildlife 
or surface drainage, may prevent an improvement from being regarded as 
a public service. Data collection that we need you to perform so we can 
monitor an activity is not a public service.
    (6) Other relevant factors.

How Did BLM Consider the FLPMA Factors for Fees?

    We considered each of the FLPMA factors for each type of document 
for which we are proposing a fixed fee in this rule. The BLM first 
estimated the actual cost to process a type of document and then 
considered each of the other FLPMA factors to see if any of them might 
cause a fee to be set at less than actual cost. If so, we then 
considered whether any of the remaining factors acted as an enhancing 
factor that would mitigate against setting the fee at less than actual 
cost. We then decided the amount of the fee, which cannot be more than 
our processing cost. For most minerals actions in this proposal, this 
method resulted in fees set at our actual processing cost.
    BLM would also weigh the FLPMA factors to determine case-by-case 
fees. For those fees, BLM would give the applicant an estimate of the 
proposed fee after estimating the actual cost of processing the 
individual document and considering the other FLPMA factors. The 
applicant could then comment on the proposed fee. We would consider the 
applicant's comments and any work to be performed by the applicant, and 
give the applicant a final fee estimate. We could re-estimate 
reasonable costs whenever necessary. If the established fee you would 
pay is less than our actual costs because of one of the FLPMA factors, 
and we are not able to process the document promptly because of the 
unavailability of funding or other resources, you would have the option 
to pay BLM's actual costs to process your document.
    In cases (including many environmental impact statements) where BLM 
might hire a third-party contractor to perform part of the processing, 
your payment of actual costs would allow BLM to hire the contractor 
without waiting for the availability of funding. If all processing of 
your document were to be done by BLM personnel, your place in the queue 
of documents would not be affected by whether you paid actual (as 
opposed to reasonable) costs.
    In considering the FLPMA factors, we found several trends. First, 
the monetary value of the right or privilege was much greater than the 
processing cost. Next, our document processing procedures, which are 
based on standard steps in internal BLM handbooks, are reasonably 
efficient.
    We also found that none of the studies or data collection performed 
as part of BLM's document processing significantly benefits the public. 
The courts have held that processing which an agency is required to 
perform in connection with a specific request (for example, before 
approving a permit) provides a special benefit to an applicant, even if 
it also provides some benefit to the public. See, e.g., Mississippi 
Power & Light Co. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 601 
F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1102 (1980). BLM found 
that any small benefit to the public provided by the processing of 
fixed-fee documents in this rulemaking is speculative and outweighed by 
the monetary value to the applicant of the right or privilege.
    In addition, the applicant's project usually provides little or no 
service to the public. Even if a project provides a small public 
service, it usually is outweighed by the monetary value to the 
applicant of the right or privilege. Finally, there rarely are other 
relevant factors present. Our consideration of the FLPMA factors is 
explained below:

Actual Costs

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

    Yes. We decided not to charge processing costs on a case-by-case 
basis for every type of document because it would require enormous 
effort and expense. In addition, when we can reliably estimate costs 
for routine services, we believe applicants benefit from knowing fees 
in advance. We would determine costs on a case-by-case basis only for 
types of documents where the average processing cost may not be a 
reasonably accurate estimate because costs may differ significantly in 
each case.

How Does BLM Figure Its Costs To Process a Document?

    Actual costs are the sum of both direct and indirect costs. Direct 
costs include such things as labor, material, and equipment; BLM's 
measurement of direct costs is explained below. Indirect costs include 
items such as rent and overhead, excluding State Director and 
Washington Office management overhead.
    For an example of how BLM would determine the sum of direct and 
indirect costs, assume the measured direct cost of processing a 
document is $200. To estimate the indirect cost for processing that 
document, the BLM office would use a ratio already determined in its 
accounting system--perhaps, ten to one, meaning for every $10 of direct 
costs there would be $1 of indirect costs. BLM would then estimate the 
indirect cost using the ratio and direct cost figures. In this example, 
since the direct cost was $200 and the ratio is ten to one, the 
indirect cost is $20. BLM then would add the direct and indirect cost 
figures to arrive at the actual cost figure of $220 to process the 
document. This method is generally accepted in the private and public 
sectors.

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

     Competitive lease applications for coal;
     Royalty rate reduction applications for coal;

[[Page 41538]]

     Logical mining unit (LMU) applications and applications 
for LMU modifications for coal;
     Applications for lease modifications for coal;
     Prospecting permit applications for non-energy leasable 
minerals;
     Preference right lease applications for non-energy 
leasable minerals;
     Competitive lease applications for non-energy leasable 
minerals;
     Royalty rate reduction applications for non-energy 
leasable minerals;
     Noncompetitive sale applications for mineral materials;
     Competitive sale applications for mineral materials;
     Competitive contract renewal applications for mineral 
materials;
     Lease or sales applications when an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) is required;
     Mining plans of operations when an EIS is required; and
     Mineral validity examinations/reports (includes field 
mapping, field sampling, assays, determination of reserves and 
marketability, etc.).

What Would Case-by-Case Fee Calculations Include?

    They would include all costs we incur while processing your 
document, such as the costs of studies BLM conducts to comply with 
legal requirements like environmental laws, the mineral leasing laws, 
or the Mining Law of 1872. When we conduct a mineral validity 
examination/report as a result of your application for a plan of 
operations or mineral patent, or your notice under 43 CFR 3809.301, the 
mineral examiner would consider the cost to you for the examination and 
report along with other costs of doing business in evaluating whether 
you have made a valuable discovery of minerals on the claim. This is 
because the cost of a mineral exam/report is a business cost similar to 
the cost of complying with environmental requirements, which may be 
significant in deciding whether there has been a discovery. See United 
States v. Pittsburgh Pacific Co., 30 IBLA 388, 84 I.D. 282, 290 (1977); 
United States v. Kosanke Sand Corp., 12 IBLA 282, 298-99, 80 I.D. 538, 
546-47 (1973) (on reconsideration).
    Also, although current proposed section 3800.5 refers to applicants 
for a plan of operations or a mineral patent ``under this part,'' i.e., 
43 CFR part 3800, BLM may provide in the final rule that BLM will also 
recover costs of validity examinations and reports performed in 
connection with plan of operation applications that are submitted under 
other parts of the CFR as well, such as 36 CFR part 9 (which implements 
the Mining in the Parks Act).

How Would BLM Apply the Proposed Fees to Documents That BLM Is Already 
Processing?

    The BLM would not charge a fixed fee under this rule for processing 
a document BLM accepted before the effective date of a final rule with 
the appropriate fees under then-existing rules. Also, if we began 
processing a document before the effective date of this rule that would 
be subject to a case-by-case fee, we would charge fees under this rule 
only for costs incurred after the rule's effective date.

How Did BLM Measure Its Direct Actual Costs for Types of Documents It 
Proposes Not To Measure on a Case-by-Case Basis?

    We used an agency-wide average cost figure for each type of 
document. This is a reasonable approximation of our actual processing 
cost for that document type, as well as an efficient method of 
measuring the cost.

What Data Did BLM Use to Calculate the Average Cost?

    Except for new fees, we used the data collected from State Offices 
in 1990, as analyzed and updated in 1995-1996 and in 1999. In the areas 
of oil and gas and geothermal, with the exception of oil and gas 
geophysical exploration, geothermal exploration, APDs, and GPDs, 
explained above, we used our re-analyzed direct cost estimate, to which 
indirect costs were added, as the average cost figure. In other areas, 
we used the weighted average cost, which included indirect costs, as 
the average cost figure. As explained above, we adjusted the average 
cost figures to account for inflation before proposing the rule in 
2000. In this proposed rule, we again adjusted the fees to account for 
inflation, using the IPD-GDP. (See ``How Did BLM Address Increased 
Costs Due to Inflation?'' below.)

What Processing Steps Are Included in the Fixed Fees?

Oil and Gas
    For applications for permit to drill (APDs), fixed fees would 
include, but not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and 
entering data; assigning case numbers; ascertaining land status; 
identifying any special land status such as a Wilderness Study Area 
(WSA) or an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC); ascertaining 
the nature and extent of proposed activity, and verifying that the 
project is technically feasible; surveying impacts on other resources, 
including environmental review and field work; and accommodating other 
land uses, as BLM deems necessary.
    For applications for oil and gas geophysical exploration permits, 
fixed fees would include, but not be limited to, costs for receiving, 
validating, and entering data; assigning case numbers; ascertaining 
land status; identifying any special land status such as a WSA or an 
ACEC; ascertaining the nature and extent of proposed activity, and 
verifying that the project is technically feasible; surveying impacts 
on other resources, including environmental review and field work; and 
accommodating other land uses, as BLM deems necessary.
    For noncompetitive lease applications, fixed fees would include, 
but not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering 
data; examining land availability; sorting parcels (i.e., developing 
parcel configuration/acreage); preparing stipulations; preparing sale 
notices; noting title records; preparing and conducting sale auctions; 
preparing lease decisions; and entering and transmitting data updates.
    For competitive lease applications, fixed fees would include, but 
not be limited to, costs for preparing sale notices; noting title 
records; preparing and conducting sale auctions; preparing lease 
decisions; and entering and transmitting data updates. At this point, 
this fee does not include steps leading to sorting parcels, i.e., 
developing parcel configuration/acreage, and preparing stipulations.
    For assignments and transfers, fixed fees would include, but not be 
limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data; 
examining assignment and transfer forms; reviewing leases and bonds; 
and approving, entering, and transmitting updates.
    For assignments and transfers due to name changes, corporate 
mergers, or transfer to an heir or devisee, fixed fees would include, 
but not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering 
data; examining requests; determining successors-in-interest or other 
special requirements; reviewing leases and bonds; preparing decisions; 
and entering and transmitting updates.
    For transfers of overriding royalties or payments out of 
production, fixed fees would include, but not be limited to, costs for 
receiving, validating, and entering data.
    For lease consolidations, fixed fees would include, but not be 
limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data; 
examining requests, lease term conditions and production; preparing new 
leases and decisions; and entering and transmitting updates.

[[Page 41539]]

    For lease renewals, fixed fees would include, but not be limited 
to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data; examining 
requests and lease forms for compliance; preparing decisions; and 
entering and transmitting updates.
    For Class 1 lease reinstatements, fixed fees would include, but not 
be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data; 
examining eligibility; preparing decisions; and entering and 
transmitting updates.
Geothermal
    For applications for GPDs, fixed fees would include, but not be 
limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data; 
assigning case numbers; ascertaining land status; identifying any 
special land status such as a WSA or an ACEC; ascertaining the nature 
and extent of proposed activity and verifying that the project is 
technically feasible; surveying impacts on other resources, including 
environmental review and field work; and accommodating other land uses, 
as BLM deems necessary.
    For applications for geothermal exploration permits, fixed fees 
would include, but not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, 
and entering data; assigning case numbers; ascertaining land status; 
identifying any special land status such as a WSA or an ACEC; 
ascertaining the nature and extent of proposed activity and verifying 
that the project is technically feasible; surveying impacts on other 
resources, including environmental review and field work; and 
accommodating other land uses, as BLM deems necessary.
    For noncompetitive lease applications, fixed fees would include, 
but not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering 
data; examining land availability; sorting parcels (i.e., developing 
parcel configuration/acreage); preparing stipulations; preparing sale 
notices; noting title records; preparing and conducting sale auctions; 
preparing lease decisions; and entering and transmitting data updates.
    For competitive lease applications, fixed fees would include, but 
not be limited to, costs for preparing sale notices; noting title 
records; preparing and conducting sale auctions; preparing lease 
decisions; and entering and transmitting data updates. At this point, 
this fee does not include steps leading to sorting parcels, i.e., 
developing parcel configuration/acreage, and preparing stipulations.
    For assignments and transfers, fixed fees would include, but not be 
limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data; 
examining assignment and transfer forms; reviewing leases and bonds; 
and approving, entering, and transmitting updates. For assignments and 
transfers due to name changes, corporate mergers, or transfer to an 
heir or devisee, fixed fees would include receiving, validating, and 
entering data; examining requests; determining successors-in-interest 
or other special requirements; reviewing leases and bonds; preparing 
decisions; and entering and transmitting updates.
    For lease reinstatements, fixed fees would include, but not be 
limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data; 
examining eligibility; preparing decisions; and entering and 
transmitting updates.
Non-Energy Leasable Minerals
    For prospecting permit application amendments, fixed fees would 
include, but not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and 
entering data; examining requests and rental payments; and entering and 
transmitting updates.
    For prospecting permit extensions, fixed fees would include, but 
not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data; 
examining requests and diligence; and approving, entering, and 
transmitting updates.
    For lease renewals, fixed fees would include, but not be limited 
to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data; examining 
requests; determining changes in bonds and stipulations; preparing 
decisions; and entering and transmitting updates.
Mining Law Administration
    For notices of location, fixed fees would include, but not be 
limited to, costs for receiving data and validating land status; 
collecting statutory fees; and entering data. For amendments to a 
location, fixed fees would include costs for receiving, validating, and 
entering data.
    For a mineral patent adjudication, fixed fees would include, but 
not be limited to, costs for receiving and entering data; examining 
mineral surveys, statements required by statute, initial descriptions 
of geology and mineral evidence, and status of adverse claims; ensuring 
sufficiency of title evidence (title opinion or abstract with certified 
copies of location certificates and all amendments); publishing legal 
notices; receiving and examining final proofs and statements for 
sufficiency; accepting purchase monies; forwarding the application to 
the Secretary for review; and issuing decisions. Fixed fees would not 
include the cost of a mineral examination and report, which would be 
covered by a case-by-case fee.
    For transfers, fixed fees would include, but not be limited to, 
costs for receiving, validating, and entering data. BLM's costs are 
calculated for each transferee if a mining claim or site is transferred 
to more than one person. It has been BLM's policy to charge this fee 
for each transferee. We propose to clarify this in Sec.  3833.32(c) by 
changing the wording from ``You as transferee'' to ``Each transferee.''
    For affidavits of assessment work, fixed fees would include, but 
not be limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data.
    For notices of intent to hold, fixed fees would include, but not be 
limited to, costs for receiving, validating, and entering data.
    For deferments of assessment work, fixed fees would include, but 
not be limited to, costs for receiving and entering data; examining 
requests; determining eligibility; approving or rejecting requests; 
entering and transmitting updates; and issuing decisions.
    For adverse claims, fixed fees would include, but not be limited 
to, costs for receiving and entering data; examining evidence; 
accepting or denying claims; and issuing decisions.
    For protests, fixed fees would include, but not be limited to, 
costs for receiving and entering data; examining evidence; and issuing 
decisions to either dismiss or accept a protest. Fixed fees would not 
include costs associated with adjudications to correct errors or 
omissions uncovered by a protest.

How Did BLM Address Increased Costs Due to Inflation?

    For this proposed rule we applied the IPD-GDP, discussed above, for 
the fourth quarter of 2003 to the fees in the 2000 proposed rule to 
account for inflation. At the time, we began preparing this proposed 
rule, that information was the most recent data available. Because we 
did not know when the proposed rule would be published, we did not 
update the fees again before publication. We will again adjust the fees 
in this proposed rule by using the IDP-GDP for the fourth quarter of 
the most recent year available before issuing the final rule.
    The BLM proposes to adjust the fees annually to the IPD-GDP, to 
bring them in line with current costs. We chose this method because the 
alternative is to collect data periodically to adjust fees to 
inflation, which is inefficient, costly, and impractical. BLM proposes 
that it amend the fees by publication in the Federal Register and post 
the adjusted fees on its Web site prior to October 1 each year, and 
that the posted fees would become effective each year on October 1. BLM 
selected October 1 as the appropriate date to increase fees and

[[Page 41540]]

service charges in the fee schedule because it is the beginning of the 
fiscal year for government agencies and is the common implementation 
date for various fees. Because we are proposing to establish the 
process for changing fees in this rule, and the application of that 
process is simply a mathematical calculation, a new rulemaking will not 
be necessary. If we decide to amend fees based on something other than 
the IPD-GDP, we would do so through proposed notice and comment 
rulemaking.
    We note that some fees for documents in the 2000 proposed rule were 
not processing fees, but were already-existing filing fees that we did 
not propose to change. They were included in that proposed rule, and we 
are proposing to retain them in this proposed rule, because they are 
part of the section under revision that addresses fees. We also are 
proposing to adjust the existing filing fees at this time. The 
Solicitor's Opinion on cost recovery explains, ``[n]ominal `filing' 
fees * * * serve to limit filings to serious applicants [and] are not 
intended to reimburse the United States for its processing costs.'' (M-
36987 at p.4) It makes sense to adjust these filing fees periodically 
to account for inflation as well, so we have applied the IPD-GDP to the 
filing fees that were included in the 2000 proposed rule. These filing 
fees will also be adjusted annually using the IPD-GDP, as explained 
above.

How Did BLM Round Fees?

    Although in this proposed rule, we have rounded estimated costs to 
the nearest dollar, in the final rule we propose to round fees down or 
up to the nearest $5, for ease of payment and administration. This is 
consistent with general business practices.

Might BLM Adjust Its Average Cost Figures and Revise Fees in the Future 
for Reasons Other Than Inflation?

    Yes. The fees in this rule do not include certain internal steps 
for which we believed costs could not be recovered when we initially 
collected data. For example, the costs for processing an oil and gas or 
geothermal competitive lease sale parcel do not include the steps 
required to prepare an individual sale parcel prior to preparing the 
sale notice, because we assumed those costs were not recoverable. 
However, the Solicitor's December 5, 1996 Opinion on cost recovery 
concluded that we can recover costs for those steps, so in future rules 
we will propose fees that attempt to capture these costs and other 
costs not captured here so that fees will accurately reflect our 
reasonable costs. We may also amend fees in future rulemakings when we 
receive new data or have another reason to believe that fees do not 
accurately reflect reasonable costs. As opposed to simple adjustments 
for inflation based on the IPD-GDP, any such changes to the fees would 
be through a notice and comment rulemaking process.

Monetary Value of the Right or Privilege

Did BLM Calculate Exact Figures for the Monetary Value to the Applicant 
in Setting the Proposed Fixed Fees?

    No. We decided not to try to calculate precise dollar values to the 
applicant of receiving the benefit applied for, either by document type 
or on a case-by-case basis, because that would involve extensive time 
and resources. Instead, we made an effort to judge the magnitude of 
these values. We have used this approach before. For example, in the 
preamble to the 1986 rights-of-way regulations (51 FR 26836), we 
considered monetary value in a general sense rather than precise 
figures.

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

    To gauge the monetary value, BLM considered the monetary value of 
similar rights or privileges, granted to applicants historically. We 
reviewed each type of document and compared the proposed processing fee 
for a given type of document with our sense of the historical values of 
rights or privileges we have granted that are similar to those sought 
by the applicant. In each case, we believe the value of the right or 
privilege is clearly so much greater than the processing cost that a 
fee set at the average actual cost would not significantly affect the 
proposed action. This is not surprising considering that the costs 
pertain to documents related to the development of commercial minerals. 
We did not reduce any fees because of this factor. We would consider 
the monetary value of the benefit to the applicant for case-by-case 
fees in a similar manner.

Do Fees Change if Leases Are Found After Exploration To Have Less Value 
Than Previously Thought?

    No. BLM bases its decision about the monetary value of the benefit 
to the applicant on the value at the time the applicant submits its 
lease application. All leases have relatively large monetary value 
before exploration compared to the proposed fees. The basic value of 
the opportunity provided by a lease to explore for minerals is shown by 
the willingness of applicants to pay large sums before exploration for 
bonus bids, for lease transfers, and for exploration activities such as 
drilling. We therefore decided that it is reasonable to charge a fee 
equal to our processing costs for all lease applications.

How Did BLM Consider the Value of Requests for Lease Sales, Requests 
for Sales, or Expressions of Interest?

    In accordance with the Solicitor's December 5, 1996, Opinion on 
cost recovery, BLM considers that its processing costs to prepare 
parcels for sale or lease sale benefit three classes of beneficiaries: 
the party who requests that the parcel be included in the sale or lease 
sale; all parties who bid on the parcel; and the successful bidder.
    While the party who requests that a parcel be included in a sale or 
lease sale benefits by influencing the selection of parcels offered, 
BLM believes this benefit is greatly outweighed by the benefit to the 
bidder who ultimately obtains the lease or sales contract and can 
develop the minerals on the parcel. Similarly, while all bidders 
receive the benefit of being considered for a lease or sales contract, 
BLM believes this benefit is greatly outweighed by the benefits to the 
bidder who obtains the lease or sales contract. We would therefore 
charge all processing costs to prepare a parcel for lease or sale to 
the successful bidder.

The Efficiency Factor

What Did BLM Consider When It Looked at Efficiency in Relation to the 
Proposed Fixed Fees?

    We wanted to ensure that the process of collecting fees is not 
itself overly costly. For example, we would not collect cost data on a 
case-by-case basis for each document we process because that kind of 
cost tracking is simply inefficient--employee tracking time spent on 
each document just adds to the processing costs. We looked for other 
ways to establish fees and decided that for most documents in this 
rulemaking, it was more efficient and sufficiently reliable to set a 
fixed fee based on our average costs. However, as discussed above, when 
fixed fees would be unreliable, we would track costs on a case-by-case 
basis.

Did BLM Determine That the Documents for Which Fees Are Charged in This 
Rulemaking Are Processed Efficiently?

    Yes. BLM based the processing procedures on standardized steps in 
BLM Handbooks in order to eliminate duplication and extraneous 
procedures. We developed these detailed and

[[Page 41541]]

measurable processing steps to be efficient.

Public Benefit Factor

Are There Some BLM Activities That Only Benefit the Public and Do Not 
Benefit Any Particular Applicant?

    Yes. Activities that only benefit the public are those that are not 
done in connection with processing a particular document. These would 
include studies that BLM must perform whether or not it receives an 
application or other document-processing request, such as land use 
planning studies and programmatic environmental analyses prepared by an 
agency at its own instigation. We would not recover the costs of such 
studies from applicants. Therefore, BLM did not consider studies or 
data that only benefit the public when it considered the public benefit 
factor in establishing the fixed fees proposed in this rule.

If Processing a Document Requires That a Study Be Done, Does That Study 
Always Benefit the Applicant?

    Yes. Courts have held that when processing an application requires 
a study, then the performance of that study necessarily benefits the 
applicant. See, e.g., Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. United States 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 601 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. 
denied 444 U.S. 1102 (1980). The most obvious benefit is that the 
agency may approve the application, allowing the applicant to operate. 
That is, if a study is required, we cannot approve an application 
unless the study is performed, and if we do not approve an application, 
the applicant cannot take the action for which it seeks approval.
    Such studies can provide other potential benefits to an applicant, 
as the preamble to BLM's 1986 rights-of-way regulations pointed out:

    Public comment on environmental issues often helps to [defuse] 
political opposition to a project. An environmental impact statement 
may uncover an environmentally acceptable alternative which may 
allow an otherwise unacceptable project to be built. Special studies 
of seismic and climatic conditions sometimes reveal that the 
applicant's original proposal would not meet necessary engineering 
standards or is otherwise flawed. When an accident is prevented or 
money saved because higher standards are used, an applicant benefits 
because the [project] is not interrupted. These types of benefits 
are difficult to measure and may not be apparent until after a 
project has been completed and has operated for many years (51 FR 
26836, 26837-38).

    These benefits of environmental studies are also applicable to 
minerals actions. Although they are speculative, substantial benefits 
such as these can exist.

How Did BLM Consider the Public Benefit From Its Document Processing?

    Possible public benefits from BLM processing activities such as 
studies or data collection are also speculative. For example, studies 
related to document processing often provide information about an 
area's natural resources, and this is sometimes a public benefit, but 
the value of the information, or whether there will be a benefit at 
all, is not predictable. BLM concluded that document processing for 
types of fixed fee documents in this rulemaking does not usually 
produce studies or data significantly beneficial to the public.
    In addition, except for fees determined on a case-by-case basis, 
BLM determined that for each type of document in this rulemaking the 
monetary value to the applicant outweighs the possible benefit of such 
studies to the public. The BLM analysts used their knowledge of the 
historical values of such cases to make these determinations. We have 
therefore decided that this factor does not warrant setting any fee in 
this rulemaking at less than its actual processing cost.

Public Service Factor

How Is a Project's Service to the Public (Public Service) Different 
From Benefits the General Public Derives From BLM's Processing (Public 
Benefit)?

    A project's service to the public concerns whether the applicant's 
project itself, as opposed to BLM's processing the related documents, 
provides some significant direct service or benefit to the general 
public. This is referred to in the statute as public service. Examples 
would be improvements such as roads, trails, or recreation facilities. 
Occasionally, a negative factor, such as an adverse impact on wildlife 
or surface drainage, may prevent BLM from regarding an improvement as a 
public service.

Does Exploration Data Shared With the Government for Purposes Other 
Than Monitoring Constitute a Public Service?

    Yes. Applicants for prospecting permits for non-energy minerals are 
required to share with the government the mineral resource data they 
derive from exploration. However, if the information is valuable for 
mineral development, we expect the prospecting permit holder would use 
it. In that case, the monetary value of the information to the 
permittee would outweigh its value to the public.
    We considered the suggestion that even information that is not 
valuable to the prospecting permit holder for mineral development might 
still provide some geological or geophysical information of value to 
the government, which BLM could sometimes use for some types of 
resource management such as land classifications. However, because 
there is very little information obtained in this way and because its 
use is unpredictable, the potential benefits of the information to the 
public are too small to warrant an adjustment to the proposed fee.

Do Projects in This Proposed Rule Subject to a Fixed Fee Generally 
Provide a Public Service?

    No. Large projects could include road construction, but such roads 
are rarely open to the public or built to public safety standards. In 
addition, they eventually must be removed. Consequently, for fixed fee 
documents, the likelihood of providing such a public service is too 
remote and speculative to warrant charging a fee less than actual 
costs. If any projects do provide such a public service, it is more 
likely to be those that require an environmental impact statement. For 
those projects, we will consider all of the reasonableness factors, 
including public service, on a case-by-case basis.

Other Factors

Are There Any Other Factors That Made It Reasonable To Set a Fee in 
This Proposed Rulemaking at Less Than Actual Cost?

    Yes. Protests of mineral patent applications provide a benefit to 
BLM by affording us an opportunity to review the protestor's concerns 
and ensure that the applicant has complied with the law. Therefore, BLM 
proposes to set the fee for processing patent protests at $53, which is 
less than BLM's actual processing cost of $271. In addition, as 
explained above, BLM decided to phase in the fees for APDs and GPDs, as 
well as for geothermal and oil and gas geophysical exploration 
applications to allow the industry time to include these costs in their 
planning process.
    The BLM did not find other factors that made it reasonable to 
adjust fees in this proposed rulemaking. When BLM charges fees on a 
case-by-case basis, applicants could raise other factors during the 
fee-setting process.

[[Page 41542]]



                                       Table 1.--Proposed Fees for FY 2006
 [Note that fees will be adjusted annually by publication in the Federal Register for inflation according to the
                IPD-GDP and posted on BLM's Web site. Revised fees are effective each October 1]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fees based on
                                                                              implicit price
                                                          Proposed fees in     deflator 4th
        Document/action               Existing fee            2000 rule          Qtr 2003        Proposed fee
                                                                                (106.244)
                                                                             indexed to 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Oil and Gas (Group 3100)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncompetitive lease            $75....................  $305..............          $324.04  $324
 application.
Competitive lease application.  75.....................  120...............           127.49  127
Assignment and transfer.......  25.....................  70................            74.37  74
Overriding royalty transfer,    25.....................  9.................             9.56  10
 payment out of production.
Name change, corporate merger   0......................  160...............           169.99  170
 or transfer to heir/devisee.
Leases consolidation..........  0......................  335...............           355.92  356
Lease renewal or exchange.....  75.....................  305...............           324.04  324
Lease reinstatement, Class I..  25.....................  60................            63.75  64
Leasing under right-of-way....  75.....................  305...............           324.04  324
Geophysical exploration notice  0......................  Case-by-case......              N/A  500
 of intent--outside Alaska.
Geophysical exploration permit  25.....................  Case-by-case......              N/A  500
 application--Alaska.
Application for Permit to       0......................  Not included......              N/A  1600
 Drill APD).
-------------------------------
                                             Geothermal (Group 3200)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncompetitive lease            75.....................  305...............           324.04  324
 application.
Competitive lease application.  0......................  120...............           127.49  127
Assignment and transfer of      50.....................  70................            74.37  74
 record title or operating
 right.
Name change, corporate merger   0......................  160...............           169.99  170
 or transfer to heir/devisee.
Lease consolidation...........  0......................  335...............           355.92  356
Lease reinstatement...........  0......................  60................            63.75  64
Exploration operations permit   0......................  Not included......              N/A  500
 application.
Geothermal Permit to Drill      0......................  Not included......              N/A  1600
 (GPD).
-------------------------------
                                                Coal (Group 3400)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
License to mine application...  10.....................  10................            10.62  11
Exploration license             250....................  250...............           265.68  266
 application.
Lease or lease interest         50.....................  50................            53.12  53
 transfer.
Competitive coal lease........  250....................  Case-by-case......              N/A  Case-by-case
Coal lease modification.......  250....................  Case-by-case......              N/A  Case-by-case
Logical mining unit formation   0......................  Case-by-case......              N/A  Case-by-case
 or modification.
Royalty reduction application.  0......................  Case-by-case......              N/A  Case-by-case
-------------------------------
                                         Nonenergy Leasable (Group 3500)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications other than those   25.....................  25................            26.57  27
 listed below.
Prospecting permit application  0......................  50................            53.12  53
 amendment.
Extension of prospecting        25.....................  80................            85.00  85
 permit.
Lease renewal.................  25.....................  390...............           414.35  414
Prospecting permit application  25.....................  Case-by-case......              N/A  Case-by-case
Preference right lease          0......................  Case-by-case......              N/A  Case-by-case
 application.
Successful competitive lease..  0......................  Case-by-case......              N/A  Case-by-case
Application to suspend, waive   0......................  Case-by-case......              N/A  Case-by-case
 or reduce your rental,
 minimum royalty, production
 royalty or royalty rate.
Future or fractional interest   25.....................  Case-by-case......              N/A  Case-by-case
 lease application.
-------------------------------
                                     Mineral Materials Disposal (Group 3600)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncompetitive sale (excluding  0......................  Case-by-case......              N/A  Case-by-case
 sales from community pits or
 common use areas).
Competitive sale..............  0......................  Case-by-case......              N/A  Case-by-case
Competitive contract renewal..  0......................  N/A...............              N/A  Case-by-case
-------------------------------
                                     Mining Law Administration (Group 3800)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Location \1\........  10.....................  15................            15.94  16
Amendment of location.........  5......................  10................            10.62  11
Transfer of mining claim/site.  5......................  10................            10.62  11
Recording an annual FLPMA       5......................  10................            10.62  11
 filing (Sec.   3835.30).
Deferment of Assessment.......  25.....................  80................               85  85
Mineral Patent Adjudication...  1st claim--$250;.......  2,290.............         2,433.00  2,433
                                Each additional claim--
                                 $50.
Adverse claim.................  10.....................  80................               85  85

[[Page 41543]]

 
Protest.......................  10.....................  50................            53.12  53
Mineral Patent Exam Report      0......................  Case-by-case......              N/A  Case-by-case
 Requiring an EIS.
3809 Plan of Operations or      0......................  Case-by-case......              N/A  Case-by-case
 Notice with EIS.
3809 Plan of Operations,        0......................  Case-by-case......              N/A  Case-by-case
 Notice of Mineral Patent with
 Validity Exams.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The existing fee for recording a mining claim or site location (43 CFR 3833) is a total of $165. This
  includes the initial maintenance fee of $125 and one time $30 location fee required by Statute and a $10
  service charge. The service charge would become a processing fee and would increase to $16 under the proposed
  rule making the total fee $171. In the 2005 Department of the Interior Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
  Congress required that the $125 maintenance fee be lowered to $100 for mining claims or sites that are
  recorded with BLM on or after December 8, 2004 until BLM establishes a nationwide permit tracking system and
  files a report with Congress, at which point the fee will revert to $125.

IV. Procedural Matters

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    OMB has determined that this proposed rule is a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. BLM has determined that 
the proposed rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more. It will not adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal 
governments or communities. This determination is based on the analysis 
that BLM prepared in conjunction with this proposed rule. Please 
contact one of the persons listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT: section above for instructions on how to view a copy of the 
analysis.
    This rule will not create inconsistencies or otherwise interfere 
with an action taken or planned by another agency. This proposed rule 
does not change the relationships of the onshore minerals programs with 
other agencies' actions. These relationships are included in agreements 
and memoranda of understanding that would not change with this proposed 
rule.
    In addition, this proposed rule would not materially affect the 
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, loan programs, or the rights 
and obligations of their recipients. However, this rule does propose to 
increase existing fees, and create new fees, for processing documents 
associated with the onshore minerals programs because of 
recommendations made by the OIG (Report Nos. 89-25, 92-I-828, 95-I-379, 
and 97-I-1300) as well as the IOAA of 1952, 31 U.S.C. 9701, and FLPMA, 
43 U.S.C. 1734. As stated earlier in this preamble, the IOAA and 
section 304 of FLPMA authorize BLM to charge applicants the cost of 
processing documents. In addition, the IOAA states that these charges 
should cover the agency's costs for these services to the degree 
practicable. OMB Circular A-25 and the Department Manual require the 
collection of processing fees.
    The OIG reports documented the budgetary impact of delaying 
collection of fees to reimburse agency costs and strongly admonished 
BLM to collect the fees proposed in this rule. Finally, although this 
rule will not raise novel legal issues, it may raise novel policy 
issues because under this rule we would charge processing fees that we 
do not currently impose.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide 
is not required. For the purposes of this section, a small entity is 
defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for mining (broadly 
inclusive of metal mining, coal mining, oil and gas extraction, and the 
mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals) as an individual, limited 
partnership, or small company considered to be at arm's length from the 
control of any parent companies, with fewer than 500 employees. The SBA 
defines a small entity differently, however, for leasing Federal land 
for coal mining: a coal lessor is a small entity if it employs not more 
than 250 people, including people working for its affiliates. The SBA 
would consider many of the operators the BLM works with in the onshore 
minerals programs to be small entities. The BLM notes that this 
proposed rule does not affect service industries, for which the SBA has 
a different definition of ``small entity.''
    The proposed rule will affect a large number of small entities 
since nearly all of them will face fee increases for activities on 
public lands. However, we have concluded that the effects will not be 
significant. As presented in the analysis prepared by BLM, and 
available as an attachment to the Record of Compliance for this 
proposed rule, except for mineral materials, when the total fees paid 
by these entities are expressed as a percentage of their sales value it 
is clear that the relative size and effect of the fees are very small 
and that they will have no measurable effect on these entities. We 
completed a threshold analysis which is available for public review in 
the administrative record for the rule. Please contact one of the 
persons listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: section above 
for instructions on how to view a copy of the analysis.
    For example, when the total fee increases are compared to the oil 
and gas receipt data, the fee increases are 0.34 percent of receipts 
from Federal lands. Assuming the burden of the fee increases are 
distributed evenly among all firms operating on Federal lands the fee 
increases would be 1.50 percent of receipts attributable to small 
entities. The proposed fee increases for oil and gas filings range from 
$39 to $4000 (when fees are fully phased-in). These fee increases will 
not cause a significant impact on the small entities working in the oil 
and gas industry on Federal lands.
    In the area of mineral materials, the proposed fee increases only 
apply to exclusive mineral materials sales. The proposed fee increases 
do not apply to nonexclusive sale applications (community pits and 
common use areas) or to free use permit applications. The proposed fee 
increases are estimated to

[[Page 41544]]

be 25.65 percent of the reported production value for exclusive mineral 
materials sales. Assuming the burden of the fee increases is 
distributed evenly among all firms operating on Federal lands, the fee 
increases for exclusive mineral materials sales would be 48.4 percent 
of receipts attributable to small entities. Without further analysis, 
these percentages would suggest the potential of a significant impact 
on operators, including small entities, operating on Federal lands. 
However, a number of factors mitigate this potential impact.
    The most significant factor in mitigating the potential impact of 
the proposed fee increases is that mineral materials are sold for fair 
market value. To the extent the proposed fee increases the cost of 
obtaining mineral materials from BLM, the appraised value will reflect 
these higher costs. Any fee increases will be offset by lower appraised 
values resulting in no effect on operators, including small entities, 
on Federal lands.
    Additionally, for mineral materials, based on data for Fiscal Years 
96, 97, and 98 (the most recent data available), this proposed rule 
would affect on average only about 13.5 percent of the disposals on 
public lands. The rule would not affect the remaining 86.5 percent of 
disposals, consisting of non-exclusive sales. Although exclusive sales 
applications account for only about 13.5 percent of all filings, the 
value of the material sold to the operators was 57 percent of all 
mineral materials sold by BLM. In short, these exclusive sales are 
generally for larger, high value operations.
    Finally, all proposed fee increases for mineral materials filings 
are to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The applicant/operator 
has the opportunity to present data to BLM on the reasonableness of the 
fees. For exclusive sale applications involving a small operation, the 
monetary value factor (FLPMA factor 2--``the monetary value of the 
rights or privileges sought'') may affect the amount of the fee. In 
addition, non-exclusive sales continue to be an option for small 
entities that wish to obtain mineral materials while avoiding the fees 
associated with exclusive sales.
    We note that in all areas, most of the proposed fees are charged 
only once and, therefore, generally the impact is spread over several 
years of industry production. This has the effect of lessening the 
impact even further. In addition, as with mineral materials, lease 
sales are for fair market value, so we can expect bonus bids to decline 
in response to the new or increased costs.
    The amount of the proposed fee increases calls for a discussion 
about mineral patent adjudication and associated mineral examination 
fees and their possible effect on small entities. These fees apply to 
hardrock mineral patent applications under the Mining Law of 1872, 
which, when approved, result in a transfer of title from the United 
States to the mining claimant. Patenting is a voluntary process and is 
not required under the law. Mining claimants who have found a valuable 
mineral discovery on the public lands and properly located a claim may 
mine and market the minerals on the claim without a patent and without 
paying any royalties to the United States.
    Fixed fees for mineral patent applications are set in this proposed 
rule at $2,433 for adjudication of title and sufficiency of the 
application, plus a case-by-case fee for the actual mineral examination 
of the mining claims or sites in the application. Although this is an 
appreciable increase, it is not significant compared to the capital 
expenditures associated with many hardrock mining ventures, which may 
range from hundreds of thousands of dollars for small operations to 
hundreds of millions of dollars for large ventures. The smaller the 
entity, the more likely it is that the application will seek to patent 
fewer mining claims, reducing the time needed for BLM's mineral 
examination. Because fees for the mineral examination are based largely 
on a case-by-case tracking of our actual time and the costs to us, 
applications with fewer claims will generally be charged fees at the 
low end of the possible range.
    Since 1994, every Interior Appropriations Act has contained a 
moratorium for processing any new mineral patent applications. Because 
of the patenting moratorium, future activity in the adjudication and 
mineral examination of mineral patent applications is expected to 
decline significantly in the near future. Therefore, these fees will be 
applied rarely. Moreover, because claimants have a recognized property 
interest in a valid unpatented mining claim and can enjoy the benefits 
of mining and marketing from their claims without ever applying for a 
patent, a claimant could avoid these fees simply by not filing a patent 
application even if future appropriation acts did not contain a 
moratorium.
    For many document types, BLM will establish charges on a case-by-
case basis. In these situations, the applicant/operator has the 
opportunity to present data to BLM on the reasonableness of the fees 
using the FLPMA factors. If, for example, the entity is small and has a 
small operation, the monetary value factor may cause BLM to reduce the 
fee(s). When the entity is small but has large operations that are high 
in monetary value, it must have access to large amounts of capital and 
the increased fees will not have a significant detrimental effect. In 
any case, the entities may appeal case-by-case fees if they believe BLM 
is being unreasonable in its calculations.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The proposed rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined at 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). The proposed rule would not have an annual effect on the 
economy greater than $100 million; it would not result in major cost or 
price increases for consumers, industries, government agencies, or 
regions; and it would not have significant adverse effects on 
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the 
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
enterprises. We completed a threshold analysis, which is available for 
public review in the administrative record for the rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The BLM has determined that this proposed rule is not significant 
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Section 1532, 
because it will not result in state, local, private sector, or tribal 
government expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year. This 
proposed rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. Therefore, BLM is not required to prepare a statement 
containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

Executive Order 12630, Government Actions and Interference With 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    The proposed rule does not represent a government action capable of 
interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. The rule 
has no bearing on property rights, but only concerns recovery of 
government processing costs for actions that benefit certain entities 
that acquire rights and extract publicly owned resources. Therefore, 
the DOI has determined that the rule would not cause a taking of 
private property or require further discussion of takings implications 
under this Executive Order.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the proposed rule does 
not have significant effects on federalism, and

[[Page 41545]]

therefore a federalism assessment is not required. The proposed rule 
does not change the role or responsibilities between Federal, state, 
and local government entities. The rule does not relate to the 
structure and role of states and will not have substantial, direct 
effects on states. It may result in a slight decrease in bonus bids, 
which BLM shares with the states and other revenue recipients. However, 
the effect would be negligible over the life of a lease.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation, and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM has determined that 
this proposed rule would not include policies that have tribal 
implications. A key factor is whether the rule would have substantial 
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes. The BLM has not found any 
substantial direct effects. Consequently, BLM did not utilize the 
consultation process set forth in section 5 of the Executive Order.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, BLM finds that this rule 
does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements 
of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The BLM consulted with DOI's 
Office of the Solicitor throughout the drafting process.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements that 
the OMB must approve at this time under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rule potentially affects the 
following information requirements approved under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.:
    1004-0025, Mineral Surveys, Mineral Patent Applications, Adverse 
Claims, Protests, and Contests;
    1003-0034, Oil and Gas Lease Transfers;
    1004-0073, Coal Management;
    1004-0074, Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources Leasing;
    1004-0103, Mineral Materials Disposal;
    1004-0114, Payment and Recordation of Location Notices and Annual 
Filings for Mining Claims, Mill Sites, Tunnel Sites;
    1004-0121, Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale;
    1004-0132, Geothermal Leasing Reports and Resources Leasing and 
Drilling Operations;
    1004-0137, Requirements for Operating Rights Owners and Operators;
    1004-0145, Oil and Gas Exploration and Leasing;
    1004-0162, Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration Operations;
    1004-0169, Use and Occupancy under the Mining Laws;
    1004-0185, Onshore Oil and Gas Exploration, Leasing and Drainage 
Operations;
    1004-0194, Surface Management Activities Under the General Mining 
Law.
    This rule affects the information collections just listed not by 
decreasing or increasing the information requirements described in 
these collections but by establishing or changing the costs of filing 
the applications and reports included in these collections. When this 
rule becomes final, BLM will file change notices with the OMB, Form 
83c, to reflect the new or changed fees established by the final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The BLM has determined that this proposed rule is administrative 
and involves only procedural changes addressing fee requirements. 
Therefore, it is categorically excluded from environmental review under 
section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA, pursuant to 516 DM 2.3A and 516 DM 2, 
Appendix 1, Item 1.10.
    In addition, the proposed rule does not meet any of the 10 criteria 
for exceptions to categorical exclusions listed in 516 DM 2, Appendix 
2. Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 
1508.4) and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department 
of the Interior, the term `categorical exclusions' means categories of 
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment and which have no such effect in 
procedures adopted by a Federal agency and therefore require neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement.

Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    In accordance with Executive Order 13211, BLM finds that this 
proposed rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy. The distribution of or use of 
energy would not be unduly affected by this proposed rule.

Clarity of the Regulations

    Executive Order No. 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are simple and easy to understand. We invite your comments on how 
to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including 
answers to questions such as the following: Are the requirements in the 
proposed regulations clearly stated? Do the proposed regulations 
contain technical language or jargon that interferes with their 
clarity?
    Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of 
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their 
clarity? Would the regulations be easier to understand if we divided 
them into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold 
type and is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading, 
for example: Sec.  3000.10 What do I need to know about fees in 
general?
    Is the description of the proposed regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this preamble helpful in understanding the 
proposed regulations? How could this description be more helpful in 
making the proposed regulations easier to understand?
    Please send any comments you have on the clarity of the regulations 
to the address specified in the ADDRESSES section.

Authors

    The principal authors of this rule are Tim Spisak from the Fluid 
Minerals Group, and the Solid Minerals Group. They were assisted by the 
Office of the Solicitor and Cynthia Ellis of the Regulatory Affairs 
Group, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, 1620 L 
Street NW., Room 401 Washington, DC 20036; Telephone (202) 452-5030.

    Dated: June 28, 2005.
Rebecca W. Watson,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

List of Subjects

43 CFR Part 3000

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

43 CFR Part 3100

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

43 CFR Part 3110

    Government contracts, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands--
mineral

[[Page 41546]]

resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

43 CFR Part 3120

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

43 CFR Part 3130

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

43 CFR Part 3150

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

43 CFR Part 3160

    Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, 
Indians-lands, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Penalties, 
Public lands--mineral resources, reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

43 CFR Part 3200

    Environmental protection, Geothermal energy, Government contracts, 
Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands--mineral 
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

43 CFR Part 3470

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

43 CFR Part 3500

    Government contracts, Hydrocarbons, Mineral royalties, Mines, 
Phosphate, Potassium, Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sodium, Sulfur, Surety bonds.

43 CFR Part 3600

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

43 CFR Part 3800

    Administrative practices, Environmental protection, 
Intergovernmental relations, Mines, Public lands--mineral resources, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Wilderness areas.

43 CFR Part 3830

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

43 CFR Part 3833

    Mines, Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

43 CFR Part 3835

    Mines, Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

43 CFR Part 3836

    Mines, Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

43 CFR Part 3860

    Mines, Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

43 CFR Part 3870

    Public lands--mineral resources, Adverse claims, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.
    Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble and the 
authorities stated below BLM amends parts 3000, 3100, 3120, 3130, 3150, 
3160, 3200, 3470, 3500, 3600, 3800, 3830, 3833, 3835, 3836, 3860, and 
3870 of Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Groups 3000, 3100, 
3200, 3400, 3500, 3600, 3800) as set forth below:

SUBCHAPTER C--MINERALS MANAGEMENT (3000)

PART 3000--MINERALS MANAGEMENT GENERAL

    1. The authority citation for part 3000 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., 301-
306, and 351-359; 30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 40 U.S.C. 
471 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 6508; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; and Pub. L. 97-
35, 95 Stat., 357.

Subpart 3000--General

    2. Add Sec.  3000.10 to read as follows:


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

    (a) You must include the required fees with documents you file 
under this subchapter. Fees may be statutorily set fees, relatively 
nominal filing fees, or processing fees intended to reimburse BLM for 
its reasonable processing costs. For processing fees, BLM takes into 
account the factors in section 304 (b) of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1734(b)) before deciding a fee. The 
BLM considers the factors for each type of document when the processing 
fee is a fixed fee and for each individual document when the fee is 
decided on a case-by-case basis, as explained in 43 CFR 3000.11.
    (b) BLM will not accept a document that you submit without the 
proper filing or processing fee amounts except for documents where BLM 
sets the fee on a case-by-case basis. Fees are not refundable except as 
provided for case-by-case fees in 43 CFR 3000.11. BLM will keep your 
fixed filing or processing fee as a service charge even if we do not 
approve your application or you withdraw it completely or partially.
    (c) We will periodically adjust fees established in this subchapter 
according to the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product, 
which is published annually by the U.S. Department of Commerce for the 
previous year. Because the fee recalculations are simply based on a 
mathematical formula, we will change the fees in final rules without 
opportunity for notice and comment.
    (d) We will not charge a fixed fee under this rule for processing a 
document BLM accepted before the effective date of this final rule with 
the appropriate fees under then-existing rules.
    3. Add Sec.  3000.11 to read as follows:


Sec.  3000.11  When and how does BLM charge me processing fees on a 
case-by-case basis?

    (a) Fees in this subchapter are designated either as case-by-case 
fees or as fixed fees. The fixed fees are established in this 
subchapter for specified types of documents. However, if BLM decides at 
any time that a particular document designated for a fixed fee will 
have a unique processing cost, such as the preparation of an 
Environmental Impact Statement, we may set the fee under the case-by-
case procedures in this section.
    (b) For case-by-case fees, BLM measures the ongoing processing cost 
for each individual document and considers the factors in section 
304(b) of FLPMA on a case-by-case basis according to the following 
procedures:
    (1) You may ask BLM's approval to do all or part of any study or 
other activity according to standards BLM specifies, thereby reducing 
BLM's costs for processing your document.
    (2) Before performing any case processing, we will give you a 
written estimate of the proposed fee for reasonable processing costs 
after we consider the FLPMA section 304(b) factors.
    (3) You may comment on the proposed fee.

[[Page 41547]]

    (4) We will then give you the final estimate of the processing fee 
amount after considering your comments and any BLM-approved work you 
will do.
    (i) If we encounter higher or lower processing costs than 
anticipated, we will re-estimate our reasonable processing costs 
following the procedure in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4) 
of this section.
    (ii) If the established fee you would pay is less than BLM's actual 
costs as a result of consideration of the FLPMA section 304(b) factors, 
and we are not able to process your document promptly because of the 
unavailability of funding or other resources, you will have the option 
to pay BLM's actual costs to process your document. This will enable 
BLM to process your document sooner. Once processing is complete, we 
will refund to you any money that we did not spend on processing costs.
    (5) (i) We will periodically estimate what our reasonable 
processing costs will be for a specific period and will bill you for 
that period. Payment is due to BLM 30 days after you receive your bill. 
BLM will stop processing your document if you do not pay the bill by 
the date payment is due.
    (ii) If a periodic payment turns out to be more or less than BLM's 
reasonable processing costs for the period, we will adjust the next 
billing accordingly or make a refund. Do not deduct any amount from a 
payment without our prior written approval.
    (6) You must pay the entire fee before we will issue the final 
document.
    (7) You may appeal BLM's estimated processing costs in accordance 
with 43 CFR part 4. We will not process the document further until the 
appeal is resolved, in accordance with paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this 
section, unless you pay the fee under protest while the appeal is 
pending. If the appeal results in a decision changing the proposed fee, 
we will adjust the fee in accordance with paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this 
section.
    (c) If we began processing a document subject to a case-by-case fee 
before the effective date of this rule, we will charge fees only for 
costs we incur after the effective date.
    4. Add Sec.  3000.12 to read as follows:


Sec.  3000.12  What is the fee schedule for fixed fees?

    (a) The table in this section shows the fixed fees that you must 
pay to BLM for the services listed for Fiscal Year 2006. These fees are 
nonrefundable. Fees will be adjusted annually for inflation according 
to the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product (IPD-GDP) by 
way of publication of a document in the Federal Register and will 
subsequently be posted on the BLM Web site (http://www.blm.gov) before 
October 1 each year. Revised fees are effective each year on October 1.

                      FY 2006 Processing Fee Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Document/action                            Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Oil and Gas (Parts 3100, 3100, 3110, 3120, 3130, 3150, 3160)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncompetitive lease application...........................         $324
Competitive lease application..............................          127
Assignment and transfer....................................           74
Overriding royalty transfer, payment out of production.....           10
Name change, corporate merger or transfer to heir/devisee..          170
Leases consolidation.......................................          356
Lease renewal or exchange..................................          324
Lease reinstatement, Class I...............................           64
Leasing under right-of-way.................................          324
Geophysical exploration notice of intent--outside Alaska...          500
Geophysical exploration permit application--Alaska.........          500
Application for Permit to Drill (APD)......................        1,600
------------------------------------------------------------
                         Geothermal (Part 3200)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noncompetitive lease application...........................          324
Competitive lease application..............................          127
Assignment and transfer of record title or operating right.           74
Name change, corporate merger or transfer to heir/devisee..          170
Lease consolidation........................................          356
Lease reinstatement........................................           64
Exploration operations permit application..................          500
Geothermal Permit to Drill (GPD)...........................        1,600
------------------------------------------------------------
                         Coal (Parts 3400, 3470)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
License to mine application................................           11
Exploration license application............................          266
Lease or lease interest transfer...........................           53
------------------------------------------------------------
   Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale (Part 3500)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications other than those listed below.................           27
Prospecting permit application amendment...................           53
Extension of prospecting permit............................           85
Lease renewal..............................................          414
------------------------------------------------------------
     Mining Law Administration (Parts 3800, 3830, 3850, 3860, 3870)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Location *.......................................           16
Amendment of location......................................           11
Transfer of mining claim/ site.............................           11

[[Page 41548]]

 
Recording an annual FLPMA filing (Sec.   3835.30)..........           11
Deferment of Assessment....................................           85
Mineral Patent Adjudication................................        2,433
Adverse claim..............................................           85
Protest....................................................          53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The existing fee for recording a mining claim or site location (43 CFR
  3833) is a total of $165. This includes the initial maintenance fee of
  $125 and one-time $30 location fee required by Statute and a $10
  service charge. The service charge would become a processing fee and
  would increase to $16 under the proposed rule making the total fee
  $171. In the 2005 Department of the Interior Related Agencies
  Appropriations Act, Congress required that the $125 maintenance fee be
  lowered to $100 for mining claims or sites that are recorded with BLM
  on or after December 8, 2004 until BLM establishes a nationwide permit
  tracking system and files a report with Congress, at which point the
  fee will revert to $125.

    (b) The fee schedule will be posted on the BLM Web site (http://www.blm.gov). It will also be available at BLM State and field offices.
    (c) The amount of a fixed fee is not subject to appeal to the 
Interior Board of Land Appeals pursuant to 43 CFR part 4, subpart E.

PART 3100--OIL AND GAS LEASING

    5. The authority citation for part 3100 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq. and 351-359; and 43 U.S.C. 1701 
et seq.

Subpart 3105--Cooperative Conservation Provisions

    6. Amend Sec.  3105.6 by revising the first sentence and adding a 
new sentence after the first sentence to read as follows:


Sec.  3105.6  Consolidation of leases.

    BLM may approve consolidation of leases if it determines that there 
is sufficient justification and it is in the public interest. Each 
application for a consolidation of leases must include payment of the 
processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. * * *

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

    7. Revise Sec.  3106.3 to read as follows:


Sec.  3106.3  Fees.

    Each transfer of record title or of operating rights (sublease) for 
each lease must include payment of the processing fee found in the fee 
schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. Each request for a transfer to an heir or 
devisee, request for a change of name, or notification of a corporate 
merger under 43 CFR 3106.8, must include payment of the processing fee 
found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. Each transfer of 
overriding royalty or payment out of production must include payment of 
the processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 for each 
lease to which it applies.
    8. Amend Sec.  3106.4-3 by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3106.4-3  Mass transfers.

* * * * *
    (d) Include with your mass transfer the processing fee payment 
found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 for each such interest 
transferred for each lease.
    9. Amend Sec.  3106.8-1(a) by removing the sentence ``No filing fee 
is required.'' and adding in its place a new sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3106.8-1  Heirs and devisees.

    (a) * * * Include the processing fee payment found in the fee 
schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 with your request to transfer lease rights. 
* * *
* * * * *
    10. Amend Sec.  3106.8-2 by removing the sentence ``No filing fee 
is required.'' and adding in its place a new sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3106.8-2  Change of name.

    * * * Include the processing fee payment found in the fee schedule 
in 43 CFR 3000.12 with your notice of name change. * * *
    11. Amend Sec.  3106.8-3 by removing the sentence ``No filing fee 
is required.'' and adding in its place a new sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3106.8-3  Corporate merger.

    * * * Include the processing fee payment found in the fee schedule 
in 43 CFR 3000.12 with your notification of a corporate merger. * * *

Subpart 3107--Continuation, Extension or Renewal

    12. Amend Sec.  3107.7 by removing the next to the last sentence 
and adding in its place two new sentences to read as follows:


Sec.  3107.7  Exchange leases: 20-year term.

    * * * The lessee must file an application to exchange a lease for a 
new lease, in triplicate, at the proper BLM office. The application 
must show full compliance by the applicant with the terms of the lease 
and applicable regulations, and must include a payment of the 
processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. * * *
    13. Revise Sec.  3107.8-2 to read as follows:


Sec.  3107.8-2  Application.

    File your application to renew your lease in triplicate in the 
proper BLM office at least 90 days, but not more than 6 months, before 
your lease expires. Include the processing fee payment found in the fee 
schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12.

Subpart 3108--Relinquishment, Termination, Cancellation

    14. Amend Sec.  3108.2-2(a) by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (a) (3) to read as follows:


Sec.  3108.2-2  Reinstatement at existing rental and royalty rates: 
Class I reinstatements.

    (a) * * *
    (3) A petition for reinstatement, the processing fee found in the 
fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12, and the required rental, including any 
back rental that has accrued from the date of the termination of the 
lease, are filed with the proper BLM office within 60 days after 
receipt of Notice of Termination of Lease due to late payment of 
rental. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart 3109--Leasing Under Special Acts

    15. Revise Sec.  3109.1-2 by removing the first three sentences and 
adding in their place four new sentences to read as follows:


Sec.  3109.1-2  Application.

    No approved form is required for an application to lease oil and 
gas deposits underlying a right-of-way. The right-of-way owner or his/
her transferee must file the application in the proper BLM

[[Page 41549]]

office. Include the processing fee payment found in the fee schedule in 
43 CFR 3000.12. If the transferee files an application, it must also 
include an executed transfer of the right to obtain a lease. * * *

PART 3110--NONCOMPETITIVE LEASES

    16. The authority citation for part 3110 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq. and 
351-359; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; and Pub. L. 97-35, 
95 Stat. 357.

Subpart 3110--Noncompetitive Leases

    17. Amend Sec.  3110.4(a) by revising the fourth and sixth 
sentences to read as follows:


Sec.  3110.4  Requirements for offer.

    (a) * * * The original copy of each offer must be typed or printed 
plainly in ink, signed in ink and dated by the offeror or an authorized 
agent, and must include the payment of the first year's rental and the 
processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. * * * A 
noncompetitive offer to lease a future interest applied for under 43 
CFR 3110.9 must include the processing fee payment found in the fee 
schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. * * *
* * * * *

PART 3120--COMPETITIVE LEASES

    18. The authority citation for part 3120 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq. and 
351-359; 40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; and the 
Attorney General's Opinion of April 2, 1941 (40 Op. Atty. Gen. 41).

    19. Amend Sec.  3120.5-2 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3120.5-2  Payments required.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) The processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 
for each parcel.
* * * * *

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

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6508 and 43 U.S.C.1701 et seq.

    21. Amend Sec.  3132.3(a) by revising the first sentence and adding 
a new sentence after the first sentence to read as follows:


Sec.  3132.3  Payments.

    (a) Make payments of bonuses including deferred bonuses, first 
year's rental, other payments due upon lease issuance, and fees to 
BLM's Alaska State Office. Before we issue a lease, the highest bidder 
must pay the processing fee for competitive lease application found in 
the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 in addition to other remaining bonus 
and rental payments. * * *
* * * * *

Subpart 3135--Transfers, Extensions, Consolidations, and 
Suspensions

    22. Amend Sec.  3135.1-2(a)(2) by revising the first two sentences 
to read as follows:


Sec.  3135.1-2  Requirements for filing of transfers.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) An application for approval of any instrument that the 
regulations require you to file must include the processing fee payment 
found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. Any document that the 
regulations in this part do not require you to file, but which you 
submit for record purposes, must also include the processing fee 
payment for assignment and transfer found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 
3000.12 for each lease affected. * * *
* * * * *
    23. Amend Sec.  3135.1-6(a) by adding a sentence at the end as 
follows:


Sec.  3135.1-6  Consolidation of leases.

    (a) * * * Include with each request for a consolidation of leases 
the processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12.
* * * * *

PART 3150--ONSHORE OIL AND GAS GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION

    24. The authority citation for part 3150 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq. and 
351-359; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 6504 and 6508; and 43 U.S.C.1701 
et seq.

Subpart 3151--Exploration Outside of Alaska

    25. Amend Sec.  3151.1 by revising the second sentence to read as 
follows:


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

    * * * File the notice of intent with the Field Office Manager of 
the proper BLM office on the form approved by the Director along with 
the processing fee payment found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. 
On October 1 of each year, this processing fee will be raised by not 
more than $500 until it has reached $2,500 (as adjusted for the change 
in the IPD-GDP). * * *

Subpart 3152--Exploration in Alaska

    26. Amend Sec.  3152.1 by removing the undesignated sentence at the 
end of the section; redesignating paragraphs (a) through (f) as (1) 
through (6); redesignating introductory text as paragraph (a) 
introductory text; and adding new paragraph (b) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) The applicant must submit an application, along with the 
processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12, to the 
Field Office Manager of the proper BLM office. On October 1 of each 
year, this processing fee will be raised by not more than $500 until it 
has reached $2,500 (as adjusted for the change in the IPD-GDP).

PART 3160--ONSHORE OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS

    27. The authority citation for part 3160 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 25 U.S.C. 369d and 2107; 30 U.S.C. 181, 189 et seq., 
306, 359, 1751; 31 U.S.C 9701, and 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.

Subpart 3162--Requirements for Operating Rights Owners and 
Operators

    28. Amend Sec.  3162.3-1 by adding a new sentence at the end of 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  3162.3-1  Drilling applications and plans.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * You must include a processing fee found in the fee 
schedule 43 CFR 3000.12 with your application for a permit to drill. On 
October 1 of each year, this processing fee will be raised by not more 
than $500 until it has reached $4,000 (as adjusted for the change in 
the IPD-GDP).

Group 3200--Geothermal Resources Leasing

PART 3200--GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE LEASING

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

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1001-1028; and 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.

Subpart 3204--Noncompetitive Leasing

    30. Amend Sec.  3204.12 by revising the first sentence to read as 
follows:

[[Page 41550]]

Sec.  3204.12  What fees must I pay with my lease offer?

    Submit the processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 
3000.12 for each lease offer, and an advance rent in the amount of $1 
per acre (or fraction of an acre). * * *

Subpart 3205--Competitive Leasing

    31. Amend Sec.  3205.16(a) by removing the word ``and'' at the end 
of paragraph (a)(3), redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as paragraph 
(a)(5), and adding a new paragraph (a) (4) to read as follows:


Sec.  3205.16  How will I know whether my bid is accepted?

    (a) * * *
    (3) The first year's advance rent;
    (4) The processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 
for competitive lease application; and
* * * * *

Subpart 3210--Additional Lease Information

    32. Amend Sec.  3210.12 by adding a new sentence at the end of the 
section to read as follows:


Sec.  3210.12  May I consolidate leases?

    * * * You must include the payment found in the fee schedule in 43 
CFR 3000.12 with your request to consolidate leases.

Subpart 3211--Fees, Rent, and Royalties

    33. Amend Sec.  3211.10 by:
    A. Revising the section heading;
    B. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
    C. Revising paragraph (b) table heading and entries (1) and (3);
    D. Redesignating paragraph (b) table entries (4) through (9) as (5) 
through (10); and
    E. Adding a new paragraph (b) table entry (4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  3211.10  What are the fees, rent, and minimum royalties for 
leases?

* * * * *
    (b) Use the following table to determine the fees, rents, and 
minimum royalties owed for your lease:

                        Fees, Rent, and Royalties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Noncompetitive
            Type               Competitive leases          leases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Lease Application         As found in the fee   As found in the fee
 Processing fee.               schedule in 43 CFR    schedule in 43 CFR
                               3000.12.              3000.12 (includes
                                                     future interest
                                                     leases).
 
                              * * * * * * *
(3) Transfer of Record Title  As found in the fee   As found in the fee
 or Operating Rights.          schedule in 43 CFR    schedule in 43 CFR
                               3000.12.              3000.12.
(4) Transfer of Interest to   As found in the fee   As found in the fee
 Heir or Devisee, Name         schedule in 43 CFR    schedule in 43 CFR
 Change, or Notification of    3000.12.              3000.12.
 Corporate Merger.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

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

    34. Revise Sec.  3213.19 to read as follows:


Sec.  3213.19  What must I do to have my lease reinstated?

    Send BLM a petition requesting reinstatement. Your petition must 
include the serial number for each lease and an explanation of why the 
delay in payment was justifiable. Lack of diligence on your part is not 
a justification for delaying payment. In addition to your petition, you 
must also include any past rent owed, any rent that has accrued from 
the termination date, and the processing fee found in the fee schedule 
in 43 CFR 3000.12.

Subpart 3216--Transfers

    35. Revise Sec.  3216.14 to read as follows:


Sec.  3216.14  What fees and forms does a transfer require?

    With each transfer request send us the correct form, if required, 
and pay the transfer processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 
3000.12. When you calculate your fee, make sure it covers the full 
amount. For example, if you are transferring record title for three 
leases, submit three times the listed fee with the application. Use the 
following chart to determine forms and fees:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Specific form                                             Transfer fee (per
          Type of form                 required            Form No.        Number of copies         lease)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Record title................  Yes...............  3000-3............  2 executed copies.  As found in the
                                                                                               fee schedule in
                                                                                               43 CFR 3000.12.
(b) Operating rights............  Yes...............  3000-3(a).........  2 executed copies.  As found in the
                                                                                               fee schedule in
                                                                                               43 CFR 3000.12.
(c) Estate transfers............  No................  N/A...............  1 List of Leases..  As found in the
                                                                                               fee schedule in
                                                                                               43 CFR 3000.12.
(d) Corporate mergers...........  No................  N/A...............  1 List of Leases..  As found in the
                                                                                               fee schedule in
                                                                                               43 CFR 3000.12.
(e) Name changes................  No................  N/A...............  1 List of Leases..  As found in the
                                                                                               fee schedule in
                                                                                               43 CFR 3000.12.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart 3251--Exploration Operations: Getting a Permit

    36. Amend Sec.  3251.12 by redesignating paragraphs (b) through (h) 
as paragraphs (c) through (i), and adding a new paragraph (b) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  3251.12  What does BLM need to approve my exploration permit?

* * * * *
    (b) Include the processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 
3000.12.

[[Page 41551]]

On October 1 of each year, this processing fee will be raised by not 
more than $500 until it has reached $2,500 (as adjusted for the change 
in the IPD-GDP).
* * * * *

Subpart 3261--Drilling Operations: Getting a Permit

    37. Amend Sec.  3261.10(a) by adding two new sentences between the 
first and second sentences to read as follows:


Sec.  3261.10  How do I get approval to begin well pad construction?

    (a) * * * You must submit the processing fee found in the fee 
schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 with your sundry notice. On October 1 of 
each year, this processing fee will be raised by not more than $500 
until it has reached $3,500 (as adjusted for the change in the IPD-
GDP). * * *
* * * * *

Group 3400--Coal Management

PART 3470--COAL MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS

    38. The authority citation for part 3470 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 189 and 359; and 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.

Subpart 3473--Fees, Rentals, and Royalties

    39a. Revise Sec.  3473.2 to read as follows:


Sec.  3473.2  Fees.

    (a) An application for a license to mine must include payment of 
the filing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12. BLM may 
waive the filing fee for applications filed by relief agencies as 
provided in Sec.  3440.1-1(b) of this chapter.
    (b) An application for an exploration license must include payment 
of the filing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12.
    (c) An instrument of transfer of a lease or an interest in a lease 
must include payment of the filing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 
CFR 3000.12.
    (d) BLM will charge applicants for a royalty rate reduction a 
processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 43 CFR 3000.11.
    (e) BLM will charge applicants for logical mining unit formation or 
modification a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 
43 CFR 3000.11.
    (f) BLM will charge the successful applicant for a competitive coal 
lease a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 43 CFR 
3000.11.
    (g) BLM will charge applicants for modification of a coal lease a 
processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 43 CFR 3000.11.


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

    39b. Remove Sec. Sec.  3473.2-1 and 3473.2-2.

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

    40. The authority citation for part 3500 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 30 U.S.C. 189 and 192c; 43 U.S.C. 1733, 
1734 and 1740; and sec. 402, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 
U.S.C. appendix).

Subpart 3501--Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil 
Shale: General

    41. Amend Sec.  3501.1(e) by adding a new first sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3501.1  What is the authority for this part?

* * * * *
    (e) Fees. Section 304 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1734) authorizes the Secretary to establish 
reasonable filing and service fees for applications and other documents 
relating to the public lands. * * * * *

Subpart 3504--Fees, Rental, Royalty and Bonds

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


Sec.  3504.10  What fees must I pay?

    (a) Filing fees. Include the filing fee for ``applications other 
than those listed below'' found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 
with each application you submit to BLM that is not charged a 
processing fee as described in paragraph (b) of this section (for 
example, transfers, assignments, and subleases). Fees for exploration 
licenses are not administered under this section, but are administered 
under part 2920 of this chapter.
    (b) Processing fees. The following table shows processing fees for 
various documents.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Document                          Processing fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Prospecting permit application.....  Case-by-case basis as described
                                          in 43 CFR 3000.11.
(2) Prospecting permit application       As found in the fee schedule in
 amendment.                               43 CFR 3000.12.
(3) Prospecting permit extension.......  As found in the fee schedule in
                                          43 CFR 3000.12.
(4) Preference right lease application.  Case-by-case basis as described
                                          in 43 CFR 3000.11.
(5) Successful competitive lease         Case-by-case basis as described
 application.                             in 43 CFR 3000.11.
(6) Lease renewal application..........  As found in the fee schedule in
                                          43 CFR 3000.12.
(7) Application to waive, suspend, or    Case-by-case basis as described
 reduce your rental, minimum royalty,     in 43 CFR 3000.11.
 or royalty rate.
(8) Future or fractional interest lease  Case-by-case basis as described
 application.                             in 43 CFR 3000.11.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. Revise Sec.  3504.12(a) to read as follows:


Sec.  3504.12  What payments do I send to BLM and what payments do I 
send to MMS?

    (a) Fees and rentals. (1) Pay all filing and processing fees, all 
first-year rentals, and all bonus bids for leases to the BLM State 
office that manages the lands you are interested in. Make your 
instruments payable to the Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land 
Management.
    (2) Pay all second-year and subsequent rentals and all other 
payments for leases to the Minerals Management Service (MMS). See 30 
CFR part 218 for MMS's payment procedures.
* * * * *

Subpart 3505--Prospecting Permits

    44. Revise Sec.  3505.12 to read as follows:


Sec.  3505.12  How do I obtain a prospecting permit?

    Deliver three copies of the BLM application form to the BLM office 
with jurisdiction over the lands you are interested in. Include the 
first year's rental with your application. You will also be charged a 
processing fee, which BLM will determine on a case-by-case basis as 
described in 43 CFR 3000.11. For more information on fees and rentals, 
see subpart 3504 of this part.

[[Page 41552]]

    45. Amend Sec.  3505.30 by removing the last sentence and by 
revising the second full sentence to read as follows:


Sec.  3505.30  May I amend or change my application after I file it?

    * * * You must include the rental for any added lands and the 
processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 with your 
amended application.
    46. Amend Sec.  3505.31 by revising the last sentence to read as 
follows:


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

    * * * BLM will retain any fees already paid for processing the 
application.
    47. Amend Sec.  3505.50 by redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), and 
(c) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively, redesignating the 
introductory text as paragraph (a), and adding paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3505.50  How will I know if BLM has approved or rejected my 
application?

* * * * *
    (b) If we do not accept your application, we will refund your 
rental payment. We will retain any fees already paid for processing the 
application.


Sec.  3505.51  [Removed]

    48. Section 3505.51 is removed.
    49. Amend Sec.  3505.64 by revising the last sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3505.64  How do I apply for an extension?

    * * * Include the processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 
CFR 3000.12 and the first year's rental, in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
3504.10, 3504.15, and 3504.16 of this part.

Subpart 3507--Preference Right Lease Applications

    50. Revise Sec.  3507.16 to read as follows:


Sec.  3507.16  Is there a fee or payment required with my application?

    Yes. You must submit the first year's rental with your application 
according to the provisions in Sec.  3504.15 of this part. BLM will 
also charge a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 43 
CFR 3000.11.

Subpart 3508--Competitive Lease Applications

    51. Amend Sec.  3508.21 by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3508.21  What happens if I am the successful bidder?

* * * * *
    (c) BLM will charge you a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as 
described in 43 CFR 3000.11.

Subpart 3509--Fractional and Future Interest Lease Applications

    52. Amend Sec.  3509.16 by removing the second sentence and adding 
a new last sentence to read as follows:


Sec.  3509.16  How do I apply for a future interest lease?

    * * * BLM will charge you a processing fee on a case-by-case basis 
as described in 43 CFR 3000.11.
    53. Amend Sec.  3509.30 by revising the last sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3509.30  May I withdraw my application for a future interest 
lease?

    * * * BLM will retain any fees already paid for processing the 
application.
    54. Amend Sec.  3509.46 by removing the second sentence and adding 
a new last sentence to read as follows:


Sec.  3509.46  How do I apply for a fractional interest prospecting 
permit or lease?

    * * * BLM will charge you a processing fee on a case-by-case basis 
as described in 43 CFR 3000.11.
    55. Amend Sec.  3509.51 by revising the last sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3509.51  May I withdraw my application for a fractional interest 
prospecting permit or lease?

    * * * BLM will retain any fees already paid for processing the 
application.

Subpart 3511--Lease Terms and Conditions

    56. Amend Sec.  3511.27 by revising the last sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3511.27  How do I renew my lease?

    * * * Send us three copies of your application together with the 
processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12, and an 
advance rental payment of $1 per acre or fraction of an acre.

Subpart 3513--Waiver, Suspension or Reduction of Rental and Minimum 
Royalties

    57. Add Sec.  3513.16 to read as follows:


Sec.  3513.16  Do I have to pay a fee when I apply for a waiver, 
suspension, or reduction of rental, minimum royalty, production 
royalty, or minimum production?

    Yes. BLM will charge you a processing fee on a case-by-case basis, 
as described in 43 CFR 3000.11.

Group 3600--Mineral Materials Disposal

PART 3600--MINERAL MATERIALS DISPOSAL

    58. The authority citation for part 3600 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 1201, 1732, 1733, 
1734, 1740; Sec. 2, Act of September 28, 1962 (Pub. L. 87-713, 76 
Stat. 652).

    59. Amend Sec.  3602.11 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  3602.11  How do I request a sale of mineral materials?

* * * * *
    (c) You must pay a processing fee provided in 43 CFR 3602.31(a) and 
3602.44(f). If the request is for mineral materials that are from a 
community pit or common use area, this requirement does not apply.
    60. Amend Sec.  3602.31 by revising the section heading and adding 
at the beginning of paragraph (a) introductory text a new sentence to 
read as follows:


Sec.  3602.31  What volume limitations and fees generally apply to 
noncompetitive mineral materials sales?

    (a) BLM will charge the purchaser a processing fee on a case-by-
case basis as described in 43 CFR 3000.11. * * *
* * * * *
    61. Amend Sec.  3602.44 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  3602.44  How do I make a bid deposit?

* * * * *
    (f) BLM will charge the successful bidder a processing fee on a 
case-by-case basis as described in 43 CFR 3000.11.
    62. Amend Sec.  3602.47 by revising the section heading and adding 
a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  3602.47  When and how may I renew my competitive contract and 
what is the fee?

* * * * *
    (e) Fee. BLM will charge a processing fee on a case-by-case basis 
as described in 43 CFR 3000.11.

Group 3800--Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws

PART 3800--MINING CLAIMS UNDER THE GENERAL MINING LAWS

    63. The authority citation for part 3800 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 351 and 460y-4; 30 U.S.C. 22 and 28k; 31 
U.S.C. 9701; and 43 U.S.C. 1201 and 1740.

    64-65. Add a new Subpart 3800, consisting of Sec.  3800.5, to read 
as follows:

[[Page 41553]]

Subpart 3800--General


Sec.  3800.5  Fees.

    (a) An applicant for a plan of operations under this part must pay 
a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 43 CFR 3000.11 
whenever BLM decides that consideration of the plan of operations 
requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.
    (b) An applicant for a plan of operations or a mineral patent under 
this part, or a notice operator who may not conduct operations under 
this part until a validity examination is performed, must pay a 
processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 43 CFR 3000.11 
for any validity examination and report performed in connection with 
the application or notice.
    (c) An applicant for a mineral patent also is required to pay a 
processing fee under Sec.  3860.1.

PART 3830--LOCATING, RECORDING, AND MAINTAINING MINING CLAIMS OR 
SITES; GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

    Authority: 18 U.S.C. 1001, 3571; 30 U.S.C. 22 et seq., 242, 611; 
31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 2, 1201, 1212, 1457, 1474, 1734, 1740, 
1744; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 115 Stat. 414.

    67. Revise entries (a), (b), (c), (e), and (f) in the table at 
Sec.  3830.21 to read as follows:


Sec.  3830.21  What are the different types of service charges and 
fees?

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Amount due per mining       Waiver
          Transaction                 claim or site         available
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Recording a mining claim or  (1) A total sum which
 site location (part 3833).       includes:
                                 (i) The processing fee  No.
                                  for notice of
                                  location found in the
                                  fee schedule in 43
                                  CFR 3000.12.
                                 (ii) A one-time $30     No.
                                  location fee.
                                 (iii) An initial $125   No.
                                  maintenance fee.
(b) Amending a mining claim or   The processing fee      No.
 claim site location (Sec.        found in the fee
 3833.20).                        schedule in 43 CFR
                                  3000.12.
(c) Transferring a mining claim  The processing fee      No.
 or site (Sec.   3833.30).        found in the fee
                                  schedule in 43 CFR
                                  3000.12.
 
                              * * * * * * *
(e) Recording an annual FLPMA    The processing fee      No.
 filing (Sec.   3835.30).         found in the fee
                                  schedule in 43 CFR
                                  3000.12.
(f) Submitting a petition for    The processing fee      No.
 deferment of assessment work     found in the fee
 (Sec.   3836.20).                schedule in 43 CFR
                                  3000.12.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 3833--RECORDING MINING CLAIMS AND SITES

    68a. The authority citation for part 3833 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 22 et seq., 621-625; 43 U.S.C. 2, 1201, 
1457, 1740, 1744; 62 Stat. 162; 115 Stat. 414.

    68b. Revise Sec.  3833.11(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  3833.11  How do I record mining claims and sites?

* * * * *
    (c) When you record a notice or certificate of location, you must 
pay a processing fee, location fee, and initial maintenance fee as 
provided in Sec.  3830.21 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    69. Revise Sec.  3833.22(b) to read as follows:


Sec.  3833.22  How do I amend my location?

* * * * *
    (b) You must pay a processing fee for each claim or site you amend. 
See the table of fees and service charges in Sec.  3830.21 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *
    70. Revise Sec.  3833.32(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  3833.32  How do I transfer a mining claim or site?

* * * * *
    (c) Each transferee must pay a processing fee per mining claim or 
site you were transferred. See the table of fees and service charges in 
Sec.  3830.21 of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 3835--WAIVERS FROM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FEES

    71a. The authority citation for part 3835 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 22, 28, 28f-28k; 43 U.S.C. 2, 1201, 1457, 
1740, 1744; 50 U.S.C. App. 501, 565; 115 Stat. 414.

    71b. Revise Sec.  3835.33(e) to read as follows:
* * * * *


Sec.  3835.33  What should I include when I submit a notice of Intent 
to Hold?

* * * * *
    (e) A processing fee for each mining claim or site affected. (See 
the table of fees and service charges in Sec.  3830.21 of this 
chapter.)

PART 3836--ANNUAL ASSESSMENT WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR MINING CLAIMS

    71a. The authority citation for part 3836 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 22, 28, 28b-28e; 43 U.S.C. 2, 1201, 1457; 
50 U.S.C. App. 501, 565.

    72b. Revise Sec.  3836.23(g) to read as follows:


Sec.  3836.23  How do I petition for deferment of assessment work?

* * * * *
    (g) You must pay a processing fee with each petition. (See the 
table of fees and service charges in Sec.  3830.21 of this chapter.)

PART 3860--MINERAL PATENT APPLICATIONS

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

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.

    74-75. Amend part 3860 by adding new subpart 3860, consisting of 
Sec.  3860.1, to read as follows:

[[Page 41554]]

Subpart 3860--General


Sec.  3860.1  Fees.

    (a) Each mineral patent application must include the processing fee 
found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12 to cover BLM's adjudication 
costs for the application.
    (b) As provided at Sec.  3800.5, BLM will charge a separate 
processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in Sec.  3000.11 to 
cover its costs for conducting the validity examination and report.

Subpart 3862--Lode Mining Claim Patent Applications

    76. Revise Sec.  3862.1-2 to read as follows:


Sec.  3862.1-2  Fees.

    An applicant for a lode mining claim patent must pay fees as 
described in Sec.  3860.1 of this part.

Subpart 3863--Placer Mining Claim Patent Applications

    77. Amend Sec.  3863.1 by adding new paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3863.1  Placer mining claim patent applications: General.

* * * * *
    (c) An applicant for a placer mining claim patent must pay fees as 
described in Sec.  3860.1 of this part.

Subpart 3864--Millsite Patents

    78. Add Sec.  3864.1-5 to read as follows:


Sec.  3864.1-5  Fees.

    An applicant for a millsite patent must pay fees as described in 
Sec.  3860.1 of this part.

PART 3870--ADVERSE CLAIMS, PROTESTS, AND CONFLICTS

    79. The authority citation for part 3870 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 30; 43 U.S.C. 1201, 1457, 1701 et seq.

Subpart 3871--Adverse Claims

    80. Amend Sec.  3871.1 by revising paragraph (d) as follows:


Sec.  3871.1  Filing of claim.

* * * * *
    (d) Each adverse claim filed must include the processing fee found 
in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12.

Subpart 3872--Protests, Contests, and Conflicts

    81. Amend Sec.  3872.1 by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3872.1  Protest against mineral applications.

* * * * *
    (b) A protest by any party, except a Federal agency, must include 
the processing fee found in the fee schedule in 43 CFR 3000.12.

[FR Doc. 05-13613 Filed 7-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P