[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55873-55881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22535]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 3500

[LLW0320000 L13300000 PP0000 20X]
RIN 1004-AE58


Non-Energy Solid Leasable Minerals Royalty Rate Reduction Process

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to amend its 
regulations to revise the process for lessees to seek and for the BLM 
to grant reductions of rental fees, royalty rates, and/or minimum 
production requirements associated with non-energy solid leasable 
minerals. The proposed rule would streamline the process for such 
reductions for non-energy solid minerals leased by the Federal 
Government and would codify the BLM's authority to issue an area- or 
industry-wide reduction on its own initiative. Existing regulatory 
requirements are overly restrictive, inflexible, and burdensome. A 
report from the Senate Committee on Appropriations on the 2019 
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Bill encouraged the BLM to work with soda ash producers 
to reduce the Federal royalty rate, as appropriate. The proposed rule 
would give the BLM more flexibility to respond to changing market 
dynamics by improving the BLM's ability to boost production and support 
development of the Federal mineral estate when deemed necessary.

DATES: Please submit comments on or before December 17, 2019. As 
explained later, this proposed rule would include revisions to 
information collection requirements that must be approved by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB). If you wish to comment on the revised 
information collection requirements in this proposed rule, please note 
that such comments should be sent directly to the OMB, and that the OMB 
is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information 
contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after 
publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a 
comment to the OMB on the proposed information collection revisions is 
best assured of being given full consideration if the OMB receives it 
by November 18, 2019.

[[Page 55874]]


ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number RIN 1004-
AE58, by any of the following methods:
    Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior, Director (630), Bureau of 
Land Management, Mail Stop 2134 LM, 1849 C St. NW, Washington, DC 
20240, Attention: RIN 1004-AE58.
    Personal or messenger delivery: U.S. Department of the Interior, 
Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street SE, Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 
20003, Attention: Regulatory Affairs.
    Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the 
Searchbox, enter ``RIN 1004-AE58'' and click the ``Search'' button. 
Follow the instructions at this website.

For Comments on Information-Collection Activities

    Fax: Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Desk Officer for the Department of the 
Interior, fax 202-395-5806.
    Electronic mail: [email protected].
    Please indicate ``Attention: OMB Control Number 1004-0121,'' 
regardless of the method used to submit comments on the information 
collection burdens. If you submit comments on the information 
collection burdens, you should provide the BLM with a copy at one of 
the street addresses shown earlier in this section, so that we can 
summarize all written comments and address them in the final 
rulemaking. Please do not submit to OMB comments that do not pertain to 
the proposed rule's information collection burdens. The BLM is not 
obligated to consider or include in the Administrative Record for the 
final rule any such comments that you improperly direct to OMB, rather 
than the BLM.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mitch Leverette, Division Chief of 
Solid Minerals, WO-320; 202-912-7113. Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 
Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to 
leave a message or question with the above individuals. You will 
receive a reply during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

I. Public Comment Procedures

    You may submit comments, marked with the number RIN 1004-AE58, by 
any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section. If you wish to 
comment on the information collection requirements, you should send 
those comments directly to the OMB as outlined (see ADDRESSES); 
however, we ask that you also provide a copy of those comments to the 
BLM.
    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. The comments and recommendations that 
will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are:
    1. Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and
    2. Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable 
laws and regulations.
    The BLM is not obligated to 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).
    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.
    Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that 
your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--
may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in 
your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from 
public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

II. Background

    Pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), 30 U.S.C. 181 et 
seq., and other legal authorities, the BLM is authorized to lease 
deposits of certain minerals on lands owned by the United States. The 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., 
charges the BLM with managing public lands in a manner that allows for 
responsible and appropriate resource development. In addition to 
commonly known energy resources, such as coal, oil, and gas, the MLA 
also authorizes the BLM to lease non-energy minerals, such as 
gilsonite, phosphate, sodium, potassium, and sulfur. The BLM 
regulations implementing this authority for solid minerals (other than 
coal) are found at 43 CFR part 3500--Leasing of Solid Minerals Other 
than Coal and Oil Shale. As described in section 3501.2, the subject 
minerals are ``minerals other than oil, gas, coal and oil shale, leased 
under the mineral leasing acts, and . . . hardrock minerals leasable 
under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, on any unclaimed, undeveloped 
area of available public domain or acquired lands where leasing of 
these specific minerals is allowed by law. Special areas identified in 
part 3580 of this title and asphalt on certain lands in Oklahoma also 
are leased under this part.'' Leasing these minerals on Federal land 
provides valuable revenue to the states and the Federal Government.
    The United States was once the leading producer in the world of one 
such mineral, sodium carbonate (natural soda ash), before falling 
behind China in 2003.\1\ This change stimulated a move in Congress to 
provide relief to American soda ash producers. The Soda Ash Royalty 
Reduction Act of 2006 (SARRA) (Pub. L. 109-338) prescribed a 2 percent 
royalty rate on sodium compounds produced from Federal land in the 5-
year period beginning on October 12, 2006.\2\ Additionally, the Helium 
Stewardship Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-40) included a provision that set 
a 4 percent royalty rate on soda ash for a 2-year period, which ended 
on October 1, 2015. These reductions have expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Dennis S. Kostick, U.S. Geological Survey, 2005 Minerals 
Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2006).
    \2\ The SARRA required that the Department report to Congress on 
the impacts of the 2-percent royalty rate. The report to Congress, 
completed in 2011, concluded that while total sales revenues from 
Federal sodium leases increased, royalty revenues were significantly 
lower than they would have been absent the SARRA and production 
shifted away from state and private land leases onto Federal leases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The minimum royalty rates for soda ash, along with other non-energy 
solid minerals on Federal lands are set in the MLA and BLM regulations 
(see 43 CFR 3504.21). The MLA authorizes the Secretary to establish 
royalty rates higher than the minimum, along with rental fees and 
minimum production requirements through regulation. The BLM sets the 
royalty rates for each lease at or above the specified minimum royalty 
rate (see 43 CFR 3504.22) based on current market conditions at the 
time of lease issuance, but those conditions may change over the life 
of the lease.
    The BLM requests information from the public about current market 
conditions for soda ash and other types of non-energy solid leasable 
minerals

[[Page 55875]]

leased pursuant to 43 CFR part 3500, including non-energy solid 
leasable minerals identified as ``critical minerals'' in the ``Final 
List of Critical Minerals 2018,'' which was published in the Federal 
Register on May 18, 2018.
    Section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209, authorizes the Secretary to 
reduce royalty rates and rental fees:

    The Secretary of the Interior, for the purpose of encouraging 
the greatest ultimate recovery of coal, oil, gas, oil shale, 
gilsonite, . . . phosphate, sodium, potassium and sulfur, and in the 
interest of conservation of natural resources, is authorized to 
waive, suspend, or reduce the rental, or minimum royalty, or reduce 
the royalty on an entire leasehold, or on any tract or portion 
thereof segregated for royalty purposes, whenever in his judgement 
it is necessary to do so in order to promote development, or 
whenever in his judgment the leases cannot be successfully operated 
under the terms provided therein.

    The BLM regulations contain a process for reducing royalty rates, 
along with rental fees and minimum production requirements, for non-
energy solid minerals leased by the Federal Government in 43 CFR 
subpart 3513--Waiver, Suspension or Reduction of Rental and Minimum 
Royalties. The process described in this subpart of the regulations 
imposes requirements beyond what section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209, 
requires. The BLM has reviewed the existing regulatory requirements for 
non-energy solid minerals and has determined that the royalty reduction 
process codified in 43 CFR subpart 3513 is unnecessarily restrictive, 
inflexible, and burdensome. See Sec.  3513.15 of the section-by-section 
discussion of this preamble for a more detailed discussion of the 
overly burdensome requirements that would be removed by this proposed 
rule.
    The BLM promulgated the current regulations during the late 1990s 
to ``streamline and rewrite necessary regulations in plain English.'' 
\3\ The effect of rewriting the language, however, introduced some 
substantive changes as compared with the previous regulations by 
requiring specific information for all applications that may not always 
be necessary. In contrast, previous versions of the royalty rate 
reduction regulations from 1946, 1964, and 1983 were more closely 
aligned with the statutory language and did not list specific data 
requirements for an application.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``The purpose of this rule is to comply with President 
Clinton's government-wide regulatory reform initiative to eliminate 
unnecessary regulations, and streamline and rewrite necessary 
regulations in plain English.'' 64 FR 53,512, 53,512 (Oct. 1, 1999).
    \4\ ``In order to encourage the greatest ultimate recovery of 
the leased minerals, and in the interest of conservation, whenever 
the authorized officer determines it is necessary to promote 
development or finds that leases cannot be successfully operated 
under the terms provided therein, the rental or minimum royalty 
payments may be waived, suspended or reduced, or the rate of royalty 
reduced.'' 43 CFR 3503.2-4(a) (1998). See also 43 CFR 3503.3-1(d) 
(1983); 43 CFR 3102.3(a) (1964); 43 CFR 191.25 (1946).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule would streamline the process to reduce rental 
fees, royalty rates, or minimum production requirements for all non-
energy solid minerals leased by the Federal Government, without 
altering the substantive criteria that BLM will use to determine 
whether a reduction is appropriate. This proposed rule would remove 
unnecessary and overly burdensome requirements. Additionally, this 
proposed rule would codify in regulation the BLM's authority to 
implement area- or industry-wide reductions on the BLM's own 
initiative, thus giving greater effect in 43 CFR part 3500 to the broad 
authority that the MLA grants to the Secretary of the Interior to 
reduce rental fees, royalty rates, and/or minimum production 
requirements to promote development. This would improve the BLM's 
ability to provide relief to producers of non-energy solid leasable 
minerals, from burdens, such as geological hardships \5\ and market 
transformations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Geological hardships are circumstances that may slow or stop 
mining in a given area. These hardships may include such things as a 
deposit thinning, becoming exhausted, or changing in composition, or 
running into an underground barrier such as a structure that 
compromises the integrity and or grade of the deposit. These often 
cannot be foreseen at the time of leasing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress introduced the American Soda Ash Competitiveness Act in 
2017, which recommended setting the Federal royalty rate for soda ash 
at the minimum of 2 percent for a 5-year period. Although this proposed 
legislation was not enacted, the Senate Committee on Appropriations 
expressed concern about keeping the United States competitive in the 
global soda ash market, and encouraged ``the Bureau to work with soda 
ash producers to assist them in reducing royalty rates and [directing] 
the Bureau to take the necessary steps to reduce the Federal royalty 
rate for soda ash as appropriate.'' S. Rep. No. 115-276, at 14 (2018). 
The House also noted that ``the Committees are concerned about 
maintaining the United States' global competitiveness in the production 
of natural soda ash. The United States contains approximately 90 
percent of the world's natural soda ash deposits, while many 
international competitors are producing synthetic soda ash using more 
energy and generating higher emissions than natural soda ash 
production. Therefore, the Committees expect the Bureau to consider 
using its authority to reduce the Federal royalty rate for soda ash to 
2 percent.'' \6\ This rulemaking is the first step the BLM must take in 
order to clarify its authority to reduce the royalty rate for soda ash 
in general (i.e., for the industry as a whole or for a particular area) 
in the absence of an individual lease-by-lease application submitted by 
a leaseholder for specific leases in an operation. Under the proposed 
rule, the BLM could consider these recommendations and move forward 
with area- or industry-wide royalty rate reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ An Explanatory Statement for the Department of the Interior, 
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BLM has a history of receiving applications requesting royalty 
rate reductions for commodities such as lead-zinc, gilsonite, and 
potash. Since the early 1990's the BLM has received between ten and 
fifteen applications seeking a reduction, and approximately half of 
those were considered complete applications. The BLM has approved about 
five applications for reduction since 1993. Although the BLM has no 
history of implementing area- or industry-wide royalty rate reductions 
in the context of non-energy solid leasable minerals under 43 CFR part 
3500, the BLM has reduced royalty rates on an area-wide basis for coal 
leases under section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209. As an example, the 
BLM reduced the royalty rate for coal leases in a specific area of 
North Dakota in the spring of 2019 to 2.2 percent as a ``category 5'' 
reduction due to market conditions.
    Executive Order 13817, ``A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and 
Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals'' emphasizes the need for the 
United States to domestically source critical minerals. The Secretary 
of the Interior published a ``Final List of Critical Minerals'' on May 
18, 2018. This list includes commodities that can be leased as non-
energy minerals, such as potash and metals like lithium or rare earth 
elements on acquired lands. This proposed rule would meet the goals of 
E.O. 13817 by improving the BLM's ability to ensure continued 
production of critical minerals on public lands.
    Over the past two decades, U.S. natural soda ash production has 
grown at an average compound annual rate of 0.9 percent, from 11.1 
million short tons

[[Page 55876]]

(MMst) in 1998 to 13.2 MMst in 2018.\7\ During this period, however, 
Chinese synthetic soda ash production grew at a 6.4 percent compound 
annual rate, rising from less than one-quarter of world production to 
nearly half.\8\ China has used the Hue and Solvay synthetic processes 
to ramp up its soda ash production, surpassing U.S. total production in 
2003,\9\ and doubling U.S. volumes in 2011.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Minerals Yearbook data, 
editions from 2002 through 2018.
    \8\ USGS Minerals Yearbook data through 2017, with National 
Bureau of Statistics of China monthly data from January through 
October 2018 used to project the 2018 total.
    \9\ Dennis S. Kostick, U.S. Geological Survey, 2005 Minerals 
Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2006).
    \10\ Wallace P. Bolen, U.S. Geological Survey, 2014 Minerals 
Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although China's soda ash production has largely focused on 
producing glass for its automotive and construction industries (among 
others), its rise has reduced the ability of U.S. producers to satisfy 
the burgeoning demand for the mineral. It has also caused the U.S. 
share of world soda ash production to decline from 31 percent of the 
world total in 1998 to 22 percent in 2018. Moreover, while China's more 
expensive synthetic soda ash production has largely gone to its 
domestic manufacturing industry, relatively low-cost natural soda ash 
produced from Turkey's significant trona ore deposits compete directly 
with U.S. exports to countries in the European Union and elsewhere. 
Recent announcements point to soda ash production expansions in Turkey, 
as well as in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, India, Thailand, and 
Pakistan.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Wallace P. Bolen, U.S. Geological Survey, 2016 Minerals 
Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is the BLM's view that this proposed rule is necessary in light 
of the world market developments such as those described above to keep 
the United States competitive in the world markets of non-energy solid 
leasable commodities. The BLM also views the proposed rule as necessary 
to promote development of non-energy solid leasable mineral resources 
in accordance with the MLA, particularly during periods of market 
fluctuation. For example, from 2008 to 2010, the price of soda ash, as 
with many other commodities, spiked and then dropped precipitously, 
threatening the industry's ability to operate successfully while paying 
all related royalties and taxes. The changes in this proposed rule 
would not adversely impact the processing time for royalty rate 
reduction applications. On the contrary, the proposed changes would 
reduce the time required for a lessee to compile an application and it 
would be easier for lessees to achieve application completeness. 
Moreover, the rule would allow the BLM to implement reductions 
industry-wide or area-wide of its own initiative in accordance with 
section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209.

III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    The regulations in 43 CFR part 3500 are authorized by the Mineral 
Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) and other statutory 
authorities. The proposed rule would streamline the process to apply 
for rental fee, royalty rate, and minimum production requirement 
reductions for non-energy solid mineral leases. This proposed rule 
would also reduce the burden on lease holders by simplifying the 
regulatory requirements so as to better align the regulations with the 
statute.
    You may find the BLM regulations that implement this authority for 
solid minerals (other than coal) in 43 CFR subpart 3513--Waiver, 
Suspension or Reduction of Rental and Minimum Royalties.

Sec.  3513.11 May BLM relieve me of the lease requirements of rental, 
minimum royalty, or production royalty while continuing to hold the 
lease?

    Section 3513.11 states that the BLM has a process that allows for 
temporary relief from the rental, minimum royalty, or production 
royalty provisions in a lease. The BLM considers applications submitted 
under section 3513.15 on a case by case basis based on the data in the 
application for lease requirement relief. This existing section 
introduces subpart 3513, which explains that process in greater detail. 
The Non-Energy Solid Leasable Handbook, H-3500-01, includes guidance 
for processing applications for temporary relief from the rental, 
minimum royalty, or production royalty provisions.
    This proposed rule would add to section 3513.11 a citation to the 
relevant section of the Mineral Leasing Act. 30 U.S.C. 209. This is not 
a substantive change and would have no impacts beyond providing 
additional information.

Sec.  3513.15 How do I apply for reduction of rental, royalties or 
minimum production?

    Section 3513.15 sets out the information that a lessee must include 
in an application for BLM to make its decision. The BLM needs the 
information provided in this application to determine whether the 
request satisfies the reduction criteria described in 43 CFR 3513.12.
    This proposed rule would remove the requirement to submit two 
copies of an application because two copies are no longer necessary 
with current technology. When the BLM promulgated these regulations, 
lessees submitted applications to the BLM via hard copy mail and the 
BLM used both paper copies during its processing. The BLM now receives 
and processes these applications electronically, or the BLM is able to 
make physical or electronic copies of the paper submissions.
    Paragraph 3513.15(d) in the current regulations requires an 
application to include a description of the lands for which the 
reduction would apply. This proposed rule would revise this requirement 
to be applicable only when the application is for a portion of the 
lease or leases. If the application is for the lease in its entirety, 
the BLM already has that information on hand and a land description 
would not be necessary for that application. This proposed revision 
would make the application easier to complete, which would help improve 
processing timeliness.
    This proposed rule would remove paragraphs (f) and (h) of this 
section, which require a tabulated statement of the leasable minerals 
mined for each month, covering at least the last twelve months before a 
lessee files an application; the average production mined per day for 
each month; a detailed statement of expenses and costs of operating the 
entire lease; and the income from the sale of any leased products. This 
information would not be required because the BLM already knows the 
quantity of leasable minerals that the lessees are mining on each 
lease. The BLM can extrapolate the average production mined per day 
from production records and mine plan reports that the lessee already 
submits to the BLM and Office of Natural Resources Revenue (formerly 
Mineral Management Service) for royalty payment purposes and to prove 
they are meeting minimum production requirements as indicated on their 
lease form in accordance with 43 CFR 3504.20. The detailed statement of 
expenses and costs is extraneous information and is not necessary for 
the application because the reduction is based on market conditions and 
geologic interferences that are not tied to past costs and expenses 
(for example, the applicant's utility costs will not change with the 
commodity's market fluctuations, so we know their costs to run the 
operation will not decrease at the same rate that their income from the 
commodity price decreases, making them exclusive values). Removing this 
unnecessary requirement would also

[[Page 55877]]

make the application easier to complete, further improving the 
timeliness of the reduction process.
    Proposed section 3513.15(g) would contain the requirement found in 
section 3513.15(i) of the current regulations. However, instead of 
requiring ``all facts'' showing why the lessee cannot successfully 
operate a mine, the proposed rule would require the application to 
provide ``justification'' showing why the lessee cannot successfully 
operate a mine under the existing royalty or rental. The proposed rule 
provides a more measured requirement for the applicant to demonstrate 
why they are unable to meet the terms of the lease. It is still 
imperative for the application to provide sufficient justification for 
the BLM to make its determination in each applicant's case. While this 
is a change to the wording of the regulation, the BLM does not expect 
any substantive impact from this revision because the applicant will 
still need to demonstrate why they cannot operate the lease under 
current conditions. Data that may be seen in these types of 
applications include: geologic maps and reports about hazards being 
encountered, cost per ton of product, revenue per ton of product, or 
reports discussing any financial hardship an individual mine is facing.
    This proposed rule would also remove paragraphs (j) and (k) of 
section 3513.15, which require full information as to whether the 
lessee pays royalties or payments out of production to anyone other 
than the United States, the amounts paid and efforts the lessee has 
made to reduce them, and documents demonstrating that the total amount 
of overriding royalties paid for the lease will not exceed one-half the 
proposed reduced royalties due the United States. The BLM expects that 
the application would disclose any relevant information regarding 
overriding royalties under the informational requirements of proposed 
sections 3513.15(g) and (h) because BLM has authority to order the 
operator to suspend or reduce an overriding royalty as stated in 43 CFR 
3504.26. The proposed removal of these two paragraphs would make the 
application easier to complete, which would help improve the timeliness 
of the reduction process.
    Proposed section 3513.15(h) would contain the requirements of 
existing section 3513.15(l) that the applicant include any additional 
information the BLM requires to determine if the applicant meets the 
standards of section 3513.12. Section 3513.12, which the proposed rule 
would not amend, explains the criteria that the BLM considers when 
approving a waiver, suspension, or reduction in rental, or minimum 
royalty, or a reduction in the royalty rate.

Sec.  3513.17 How will the BLM implement a reduction of rental, 
royalties or minimum production?

    This proposed rule would add a new section 3513.17, which explains 
how the BLM would implement a reduction on its own initiative. Prior to 
1999, there was no requirement that a reduction would be temporary.\12\ 
Placing timing or tonnage constraints on the reduction would ensure 
that the rule is applied when necessary to continue development, but 
not longer than necessary. As markets fluctuate and lessees overcome 
geologic hardships, the need for a reduction may end. When the term of 
the reduction ends, the royalty can increase to its original rate, 
thereby increasing revenue to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 43 CFR 3503.2-4 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209, authorizes the Secretary to 
reduce royalty rates and rental fees ``whenever in his judgement it is 
necessary to do so in order to promote development, or whenever in his 
judgment the leases cannot be successfully operated under the terms 
provided therein.'' 30 U.S.C. 209. This provision of the MLA authorizes 
the Secretary to provide across-the-board royalty rate relief for all 
lessees who are developing non-energy minerals leased by the Federal 
Government, as long as the Secretary finds that it is necessary to do 
so in order to promote development. Promoting development will help 
ensure operations can continue, preserving jobs and helping domestic 
commodities from those operations to remain in the market. The proposed 
section is outlined as follows:
    Proposed section 3513.17(a) would implement this provision in the 
regulations, allowing the BLM to reduce rental fees, royalty rates, or 
minimum production requirements on its own initiative, whereas 
currently BLM can only provide rate relief upon application on a case 
by case basis. This proposed section would allow the BLM, on behalf of 
the Secretary of the Interior, to provide such relief in order to 
promote the overall development of a mineral resource for all leases in 
a geographic area or across an industry. This would more fully 
implement in 43 CFR part 3500 the broad authority that the MLA grants 
to the Secretary of the Interior for allowing these reductions in order 
to promote development, in addition to the reductions based on 
individual lease-by-lease applications. The BLM requests comment on the 
types of information the BLM should consider before implementing an 
area- or industry-wide reduction to promote development, including 
information related to quantifying the potential costs and benefits of 
this proposed rule with respect to NESL minerals other than soda ash.
    Proposed paragraph (b) of section 3513.17 explains that the BLM may 
implement a reduction in response to an application submitted under 
section 3513.15. This is not a change from existing practice, but it 
would be included here to demonstrate the difference between the 
application process of section 3513.15 and a BLM-initiated reduction 
under proposed section 3513.17(a).
    Proposed section 3513.17(c) describes how the BLM would limit 
reductions implemented under proposed section 3513.17.
    Section 3513.17(c) would apply to reductions that the BLM 
implements on its own initiative under section 3513.17(a) and those 
that the BLM implements in response to an application under section 
3513.17(b). Under proposed paragraph (c) of this section, reductions 
would be limited to not more than 10 years from the date that BLM 
implements a reduction or not more than a specific tonnage that the 
lessee produces, as determined by the BLM. The BLM would determine the 
specific time or tonnage limit appropriate for each reduction on a 
case-by-case basis. The BLM would determine durations of reductions and 
tonnage limits based on projected market conditions or geologic hazard 
attributes for each application or area. If a reduction is in response 
to an application under 3513.17(b), the reason for the application will 
help determine the appropriate term or tonnage limit of the reduction.
    Prior to 1999, there was no requirement in the BLM's regulations 
that a reduction would be temporary, though in practice they generally 
are.\13\ Placing timing or tonnage constraints on the reduction would 
ensure that the BLM would allow reductions when necessary to continue 
or promote development, but no longer. At the end of the reduction 
period, the royalty, rental, or minimum production requirements would 
increase to their original rates. At that time, the lessee would 
operate under the original lease terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 43 CFR 3503.2-4 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BLM would generally set a time limit when issuing an area- or 
industry-

[[Page 55878]]

wide reduction to promote development. The proposed rule would limit 
the reduction to not more than 10 years, but the BLM may determine a 
shorter period is appropriate. Market conditions can fluctuate over a 
10-year period and a longer period in a single grant would not be 
appropriate. Past legislation for reductions expired after 5 years, so 
a 10 year term was chosen as a maximum with the option to make the term 
shorter if applicable. The BLM requests comments on the 10-year limit 
for reductions.
    When a lessee submits an application under section 3513.15, it 
might be more appropriate to apply a fixed tonnage rather than applying 
a time limit.
    The BLM would calculate a fixed tonnage using known, estimated, or 
historic production rates and extrapolating total tonnage verified by 
BLM inspection personnel (see 43 CFR subparts 3597 and 3598). Estimated 
production will be determined based on current mining style, rock type, 
and operator production capabilities according to their approved mine 
plan on a case by case basis. The BLM would extrapolate the production 
rates over a fixed period to determine the total tonnage that would 
qualify for a royalty rate reduction. The BLM could apply fixed tonnage 
constraints for a reduction to areas of geologic concern where 
production rates may differ.
    Under the existing regulations, the BLM has often used a fixed 
tonnage when applying a constraint to the royalty rate reduction for a 
lease. The tonnage constraint ensures that the lessee produces the 
amount of a mineral projected over a particular period, but prevents 
the lessee from refocusing production exclusively to an area with a 
reduced royalty rate and producing a greater amount of the mineral at 
the reduced royalty rate.
    While there is no specific process in the regulations for an 
extension of these constraints, the BLM would not limit the number of 
times lessees may apply for a reduction under section 3513.15. The BLM 
requests comment on the implications of a fixed tonnage for reductions.

IV. Procedural Matters

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and 
Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is significant because 
it may raise novel legal or policy issues.
    E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for 
improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, 
and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. 
directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens 
and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where 
these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory 
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be 
based on the best available science and that the rule making process 
must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We 
have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these 
requirements.
    The proposed rule would reduce duplicative information requirements 
for non-energy solid leasable minerals operators who apply for a 
reduction of rental, royalties or minimum production. The proposed rule 
would also more fully implement the Secretary's authority under section 
39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209, to provide these reductions to promote 
development.
    The BLM reviewed the requirements of the proposed rule and 
determined that it would 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. For more detailed information, see the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) prepared for this proposed rule. The 
RIA has been posted in the docket for the proposed rule on the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Searchbox, 
enter ``RIN 1004-AE58'', click the ``Search'' button, open the Docket 
Folder, and look under Supporting Documents.

Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (E.O. 13771)

    This proposed rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. As 
discussed in Section 1 and detailed in Section 3, the estimated cost of 
the proposed rule is negative (a net benefit) in that it could produce 
benefit to society from greater overall non-energy solid leasable 
(NESL) minerals economic activity in an upper-bound scenario. This 
leads to the proposed rule having an annual net benefit (in $2018) of 
between $0 and $452,000 per affected entity that could be counted under 
Executive Order 13771, Section 2(c), as offsetting costs from any new 
regulation that the Department of the Interior may propose.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.) (RFA) generally requires that Federal agencies prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis for rules subject to the notice-and-
comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act 
(5 U.S.C. 500 et seq.), if the rule would have a significant economic 
impact, whether detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of 
small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Congress enacted the RFA to 
ensure that government regulations do not unnecessarily or 
disproportionately burden small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit 
enterprises.
    Soda ash is the NESL mineral most likely to be impacted by BLM 
actions under the proposed rule. Four out of the five entities 
producing soda ash in the United States belong to large, foreign-owned 
holding companies whose operations expand across multiple industries 
including automobiles, electronics, clothes, food and beverages, 
cosmetics, soaps, detergents, and specialty chemicals. The fifth 
company, Genesis Energy, is an American firm based in Houston, Texas, 
that principally provides midstream energy infrastructure and 
logistics. The total number of employees for these entities are as 
follows:
     As of 2017, Solvay employed 6,400 people at its North 
American operations alone (includes industrial sites, formulation 
centers, research and formulation centers, and company headquarters); 
\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ https://www.solvay.us/en/company/about-solvay/solvay-in-usa/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     As of publication of its 2018/2019 Annual Report, Tata 
Chemicals Limited had 4,698 employees worldwide. Tata Chemicals North 
America had 561 employees, but cannot be considered a small business 
when considering those employed by its foreign affiliates; \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ http://www.tatachemicals.com/upload/content_pdf/tata-chemicals-yearly-reports-2018-19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Genesis Energy had approximately 2,100 employees as of 
December 31, 2018; \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ http://www.genesisenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/10k-18.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     As of December 31, 2018, Ciner Resources had an estimated 
488 full-

[[Page 55879]]

time employees working for its U.S.-based operations.\17\ However, it 
is part of holding company Ciner Group, which employs 10,500 people; 
\18\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575051/000157505119000032/cinerresourceslp-201810k.htm.
    \18\ http://www.cinergroup.com.tr/en/about-us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Searles Valley is fully owned by India's Nirma Group, 
which has approximately 14,000 employees.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ https://www.slideshare.net/nirali2301/final-ppt-of-nirma-67176929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the proposed rule could potentially affect small NESL 
entities producers outside of the soda ash industry, the BLM does not 
believe at this time that this is likely, based upon its analysis under 
Section 3.1 of the RIA. The BLM finds in this section that of all of 
the NESL mineral industries that could potentially be affected, only 
soda ash has experienced economic hardships of the kind and degree that 
would make it a likely candidate for industry-wide relief under Sec.  
3513.15(a).
    The proposed rule is a deregulatory action that would reduce the 
paperwork and informational burden associated with applying for a 
rental, royalty, or minimum production reduction, and would reduce the 
royalties that lessees owe to the Federal Government based on the value 
of sales of minerals produced from Federal leases.
    For the purpose of carrying out its review pursuant to the RFA, the 
BLM believes that the proposed rule would not have a ``significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,'' as that 
phrase is used in 5 U.S.C. 605. An initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis is therefore not required.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
    (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more. The BLM estimates that the proposed rule would provide an 
annual benefit of $619,000 on the economy. Please see the RIA for this 
rule for a more detailed discussion.
    (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions. The proposed rule is designed to 
lessen the burden on industry when necessary while still providing 
revenue to the government. This revenue is based on commodity price, 
adjusted royalty rate, and production amounts.
    (c) Does 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. This 
rule may foster positive effects in each of these areas. This proposed 
rule would improve the BLM's ability to provide relief to the affected 
industry.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, 
tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per 
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, 
local, tribal governments or the private sector. This proposed rule 
would only affect the BLM's process for providing reductions to rental, 
royalties or minimum production requirements of Federal leases. A 
statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

    This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under E.O. 12630. Section 2(a) of E.O. 12630 
identifies policies that do not have takings implications, such as 
those that abolish regulations, discontinue governmental programs, or 
modify regulations in a manner that lessens interference with the use 
of private property. The proposed rule is a deregulatory action and 
does not interfere with private property. A takings implication 
assessment is not required.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not 
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement. It does not have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed 
rule would reduce burdens on industry and more closely align BLM 
regulations with the relevant statute. A federalism summary impact 
statement is not required.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. 
Specifically, this rule:
    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all 
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be 
written to minimize litigation; and
    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all 
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal 
standards.

Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175 and Departmental Policy)

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government 
to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to 
consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-
governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under 
the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O. 
13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on 
federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the 
Department's tribal consultation policy is not required. The proposed 
rule would apply to non-energy mineral leases on the Uintah and Ouray 
Indian Reservation, Hillcreek Extension, State of Utah (43 CFR 
3503.11(b)), but no active leases have been present on those lands for 
approximately 15 years. There are no plans to grant new leases to any 
entity at this time, nor is there any entity interested in pursuing 
leases on those lands. This is a procedural rule that does not change 
any royalty rates. If the BLM implements an area- or industry-wide 
reduction under this proposed rule, the BLM would initiate tribal 
consultation, as appropriate, at that time.

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This proposed rule contains a new collection of information that 
the BLM will submit to the OMB for review and approval under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (PRA). As part 
of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, 
the BLM invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any 
aspect of the proposed information collection (IC) aspects of this 
proposed rule. You may send your comments directly to OMB and send a 
copy of your comments to the BLM (see the ADDRESSES section of this 
proposed rule). Please reference control number 1004-0121 in your 
comments. The BLM specifically requests comments concerning the need 
for the information, its practical utility, the accuracy of the 
agency's burden estimate, and ways to minimize the burden. You may 
obtain a copy of the supporting statement for the collection of 
information by contacting the Bureau's Information Collection

[[Page 55880]]

Clearance Officer at (202) 912-7405. To see a copy of the entire IC 
request submitted to OMB, go to http://www.reginfo.gov (select 
Information Collection Review, Currently under Review).
    The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB is 
required to make a decision concerning the collection of information 
contained in these proposed regulations 30 to 60 days after publication 
of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB 
is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by 
November 18, 2019. This guidance does not affect the deadline for the 
public to comment to the BLM on the proposed regulations.
Summary of Information Collection Activities
    Title: Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale.
    OMB Control Number: 1004-0121.
    Form: None.
    Description of Respondents: Holders of Federal leases of solid 
minerals other than coal and oil shale.
    Respondents' Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    Abstract: The BLM requests OMB to revise control number 1004-0121 
in light of a proposed rule, which is intended to streamline 
applications for various forms of relief, including royalty rate 
reductions.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 2.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 190.
    Estimated Total Non-Hour Cost: $17,000.
Information Collection Request
    Control number 1004-0121 authorizes the BLM to collect information 
pertaining to leases of solid minerals other than coal and oil shale. A 
regulation that this rulemaking would revise, i.e., 43 CFR 3513.15, 
pertains to applications for reduction of rental, royalties, or minimum 
production requirements. This rulemaking would not affect the 
regulations in Subpart 3513 that pertain to applications for suspension 
of operations (i.e., sections 3513.22 and 3513.32).
    In this proposed rule, the BLM would revise control number 1004-
0121 by dividing a single, previously approved information collection 
activity (i.e., ``Application for Waiver, Suspension, or Reduction of 
Rental or Minimum Royalties, or for a Reduction in the Royalty Rate'') 
into the following 2 activities:
     Application for Reduction of Rental, Royalties, or Minimum 
Production Requirements; and
     Application for Suspension.
    The proposed rule would revise section 3513.15(e) by requiring a 
description of the lands by legal subdivision only if the application 
is for a portion of a lease. In addition, the proposed rule would 
revise section 3513.15 by:
     Removing current paragraph (f), which at present requires 
a tabulated statement of the leasable minerals mined for each month 
covering at least the last twelve months before the filing of the 
application, and the average production mined per day for each month;
     Moving current paragraph (g) to new paragraph (f), but 
making no other changes to that paragraph, which requires that an 
application for relief from the minimum production include complete 
information about why minimum production was not attained;
     Removing paragraph (h), which currently requires a 
detailed statement of expenses and costs of operating the entire lease, 
and the income from the sale of any leased products;
     Revising current paragraph (i) by requiring 
``justification'' rather than ``all facts'' showing why the operator 
cannot successfully operate the mines under the royalty or rental fixed 
in the lease and other lease terms;
     Moving current paragraph (i) to new paragraph (g);
     Removing current paragraph (j), which at present requires 
that an application for reduction of royalty must include full 
information about any royalties the lessee pays to anyone other than 
the United States, and a description of the efforts the lessee has made 
to reduce the other royalties;
     Removing current paragraph (k), which requires documents 
demonstrating that the total amount of overriding royalties the lessee 
will pay will not exceed one-half the proposed reduced royalties due 
the United States; and
     Moving current paragraph (l) to new paragraph (h).
    While the proposed rule would not revise the regulations pertaining 
to applications for suspension found in 43 CFR 3513.20-3513.26 and 
3513.30-3513.34, we are proposing the addition of an activity for such 
applications because the regulations that would be revised or replaced 
in this rulemaking cover both types of applications as indicated in the 
description of subpart 3513.
    If finalized and approved by OMB, this information collection 
request would result in the net addition of 1 activity to the 32 
activities currently approved under control number 1004-0121.
    Hour and cost burdens to respondents include time spent for 
researching, preparing, and submitting information. The following table 
shows our estimates of the annual hour and hour-related cost burdens 
that this proposed rule would affect. The frequency of response for 
both of the information collection activities is ``on occasion.''

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Total hours
                        Type of response                             Number of       Hours per      (column B x
                                                                     responses       response        column C)
A.                                                                            B.              C.              D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application for Reduction of Rental, Royalties, or Minimum                     1              90              90
 Production Requirements 43 CFR 3513.15 and 3513.16.............
Application for Suspension 43 CFR 3513.16, 3513.22 and 3513.32..               1             100             100
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................................               2  ..............             190
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Environmental Policy Act

    The BLM has determined that the changes that would be made by this 
proposed rule are administrative or procedural in nature in accordance 
with 43 CFR 46.210(i) (``Policies, directives, regulations, and 
guidelines: That are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, 
or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad, 
speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis

[[Page 55881]]

and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or 
case-by-case''). Therefore, the proposed action is categorically 
excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA).
    We have also determined that the proposed rule does not involve any 
of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would 
require further analysis under NEPA.

Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition 
in E.O. 13211. This proposed rule would amend only BLM regulations that 
could impact non-energy solid leasable minerals. A Statement of Energy 
Effects is not required.

Clarity of This Regulation

    We are required by E.O.s 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section 
3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential 
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This 
means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than 
jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you believe that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are 
too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, 
etc.

Author

    The principal authors of this rule are: Alfred Elser, Division of 
Solid Minerals; Bill Radden-Lesage, Division of Solid Minerals; Adam 
Merrill, Division of Solid Minerals; Lindsey Curnutt, Division of Solid 
Minerals; Charles Yudson, Division of Regulatory Affairs; assisted by 
the Office of the Solicitor.

    Dated: October 8, 2019.
Casey Hammond,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3500

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

43 CFR Chapter II

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Bureau of Land 
Management proposes to amend 43 CFR part 3500 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 3500 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 552; 30 U.S.C. 189 and 192c; 43 U.S.C. 1701 
et seq.; and sec. 402, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 
appendix).

0
2. Revise Sec.  3513.11 to read as follows:


Sec.  3513.11   May BLM relieve me of the lease requirements of rental, 
minimum royalty, or production royalty while continuing to hold the 
lease?

    Yes. The BLM has a process that may allow you temporary relief from 
these lease requirements (See 30 U.S.C. 209).
0
3. Revise Sec.  3513.15 to read as follows:


Sec.  3513.15   How do I apply for reduction of rental, royalties or 
minimum production?

    You must submit your application with the following information for 
all leases involved:
    (a) The serial numbers;
    (b) The name of the record title holder(s);
    (c) The name of the operator and operating rights owners if 
different from the record title holder(s);
    (d) A description of the lands by legal subdivision, if the 
application is for a portion of the lease;
    (e) A map showing the serial number and location of each mine or 
excavation and the extent of the mining operations;
    (f) If you are applying for relief from the minimum production 
requirement, complete information as to why you did not attain the 
minimum production;
    (g) Justification showing why you cannot successfully operate the 
mines under the royalty or rental fixed in the lease and other lease 
terms;
    (h) Any other information BLM needs to determine whether the 
request satisfies the standards in Sec.  3513.12 of this part.
0
4. Add a new Sec.  3513.17 to read as follows:


Sec.  3513.17   How will BLM implement a reduction of rental, royalties 
or minimum production?

    (a) The BLM may reduce rental, royalties, or minimum production on 
its own initiative if the BLM determines, based on available 
information, that it is necessary to promote development of the mineral 
resource. Such a reduction may be for a specific geographic area, or on 
an industry-wide basis.
    (b) The BLM may reduce rental, royalties, or minimum production in 
response to an application submitted under Sec.  3513.15 if the 
application meets the criteria in Sec.  3513.12.
    (c) The BLM may grant a reduction not to exceed:
    (1) 10 years from the date of implementation under paragraph (a) of 
this section, or
    (2) 10 years from the date of the decision to approve the 
application submitted paragraph (b) of this section or for a maximum 
quantity of mineral production as determined by the BLM.

[FR Doc. 2019-22535 Filed 10-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-84-P