69–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–833 

CERTAINTY FOR STATES AND TRIBES ACT 

NOVEMBER 22, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5259] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 5259) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to reestablish 

the Royalty Policy Committee in order to further a more consultative process with key Federal, State, tribal, environmental, and 

energy stakeholders, and for other purposes, having considered the 

same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Certainty for States and Tribes Act’’. 

SEC. 2. RECONSTITUTION OF THE ROYALTY POLICY COMMITTEE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior shall, by not later than 90 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act, reconstitute the Royalty Policy Committee as last chartered on March 26, 2010, except as otherwise provided in this 

Act. 

(b) CORRECTIONS AND UPDATES.—In reconstituting the Committee, the Secretary 

shall make appropriate technical corrections and updates to the charter of the Committee, including the following: 

(1) Revision of all references to the Minerals Management Service or Minerals 

Revenue Management so as to refer to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue. 

(2) Revision of the estimated number and frequency of meetings of the Committee to not less than once each year. 

(3) Revision of the non-Federal members of the Committee to include— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

(A) not fewer than 5 members representing Governors of States that each 

receive more than $10,000,000 annually in royalty revenues from Federal 

leases; and 

(B) not more than 5 members representing Indian tribes that are mineral-producing Indian tribes under— 

(i) the Act of May 11, 1938 (commonly known as the ‘‘Indian Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1938’’) (25 U.S.C. 396a et seq.); 

(ii) title XXVI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (25 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.); 

(iii) the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101 et 

seq.); or 

(iv) any other law relating to mineral development that is specific to 

one or more Indian tribes. 

(4) Creation of a subcommittee of the Committee to be known as the State 

and Tribal Resources Board, comprised of designees of States’ Governors and 

tribes participating as non-Federal members of the reconstituted Committee. 

SEC. 3. REVIEW OF REGULATIONS AND POLICIES THE ROYALTY POLICY COMMITTEE ADVISORY ACTIVITIES SHOULD INCLUDE. 

(a) CONSULTATION AND REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the 

issuance by the Department of the Interior of any proposed regulation or policy related to mineral leasing policy for Federal or Indian land for exploration, development, or production of oil, gas, or coal (including valuation methodologies and royalty and lease rates for oil, gas, or coal), and not later than 180 days after the date 

of the enactment of this Act with respect to any proposed regulation of such Department relating to such policy that is pending as of the date of the enactment of this 

Act, the Committee shall— 

(1) assess the proposed regulation or policy; and 

(2) issue a report that describes the potential impact of the proposed regulation or policy, including any State and tribal economic impacts described in subsection (b). 

(b) STATE AND TRIBAL IMPACT DETERMINATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before the date on which any proposed regulation related 

to mineral leasing policy on Federal or Indian land (including valuation methodologies and royalty and lease rates for oil, gas, or coal) may be issued as a 

final rule, the State and Tribal Resources Board shall publish a determination 

of the impact of the regulation on school funding, public safety, and other essential State or Indian tribal government services. 

(2) DELAY REQUEST.—If the State and Tribal Resources Board determines that 

a regulation described in paragraph (1) will have a negative State or tribal 

budgetary impact, the Secretary shall, upon request by the Board, grant a delay 

of 180 days in the finalization of the regulation for the purposes of further— 

(A) stakeholder consultation; 

(B) budgetary review; and 

(C) development of a proposal to mitigate the negative economic impact. 

(c) REVISION OF PROPOSED REGULATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before the date on which any proposed regulation related 

to mineral leasing policy on Federal or Indian land (including valuation methodologies and royalty and lease rates for oil, gas, or coal) is issued as a final 

rule, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register, in the same docket as 

such proposed regulation, a description of the impacts determined by the Board 

in the report issued under subsection (a)(2), the recommendations made by the 

Board (if any) for mitigation of negative impacts determined by the Board under 

subsection (b)(2), and a clear explanation of why such recommendations of the 

Board were or were not incorporated in the final regulation. 

(2) FINAL RULE.—Any final regulation subject to paragraph (1) must include— 

(A) a summary of the report required under subsection (a)(2); and 

(B) a clear explanation of why the recommendations of that report (including the State and tribal determination) were or were not taken into account in the finalization of the regulation. 

SEC. 4. SPECIAL REVIEW OF PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. 

(a) PARTICIPANTS IN PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the programmatic review of coal leasing as 

described in section 4 of the order of the Secretary of the Interior entitled ‘‘Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the 

Federal Coal Program’’, numbered 3338 and dated January 15, 2016, the Secretary shall confer with, and take into consideration the views of, representatives appointed to the review board described in paragraph (2). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

(2) REVIEW BOARD.—The Governor of each State in which more than 

$10,000,000 in revenue is collected annually by the United States as bonus bids, 

royalties, and rentals, and fees for production of coal under leases of Federal 

land or Indian land may each appoint not more than 3 representatives to a review board for purposes of paragraph (1), at least one of whom shall be a member of the State and Tribal Resources Board. 

(3) DEADLINE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall complete the programmatic review 

referred to in paragraph (1) not later than January 15, 2019. 

(B) FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.—If the programmatic review is not completed by the deadline described in subparagraph (A), the programmatic review shall be considered to be complete as of that deadline. 

(b) TERMINATION OF OTHER PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW.—No Federal funds may be 

used to carry out the programmatic review of coal leasing as described in subsection 

(a)(1) after January 15, 2019. 

(c) NO IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENT.—Nothing in this section requires the Secretary to conduct or complete the programmatic review of coal leasing as described 

in subsection (a)(1) after January 20, 2017. 

(d) TERMINATION OF MORATORIUM.—Effective January 16, 2019— 

(1) the pause or moratorium on the issuance of new Federal coal leases under 

the Secretarial order referred to in subsection (a)(1) is terminated; and 

(2) that Secretarial order shall have no force or effect. 

SEC. 5. GRANDFATHERING OF COAL LEASES ON APPLICATION AND COAL LEASE MODIFICATIONS. 

Nothing in the order of the Secretary of the Interior entitled ‘‘Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program’’, numbered 3338 and dated January 15, 2016, shall be considered to prohibit 

or restrict any issuance of a coal lease on application or coal lease modification, pursuant to section 3432 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, for which the Bureau 

of Land Management has begun its review under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) as of January 15, 2016. 

SEC. 6. DEADLINE FOR COAL LEASE SALES AND MODIFICATIONS. 

Not later than 1 year after the date on which the Secretary completes the analysis 

required under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4332) for an application for a coal lease, or an application for a modification 

to a coal lease pursuant to subpart 3432 of part 3430 of title 43, Code of Federal 

Regulations (or successor regulations), accepted by the Secretary, the Secretary 

shall conduct the lease sale and issue the lease, or approve the modification, unless 

the applicant indicates in writing that the applicant no longer seeks the lease or 

modification to the lease. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 5259 is to direct the Secretary of the Interior 

to reestablish the Royalty Policy Committee in order to further a 

more consultative process with key Federal, State, tribal, environmental, and energy stakeholders. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 5259, the Certainty for States and Tribes Act, would reconstitute the Department of the Interior’s currently defunct Royalty 

Policy Committee, which was established in 1995 to advise the Secretary on royalty management issues, as well as other mineral-related policies. As part of this new version of the Royalty Policy 

Committee, the bill would create a ‘‘State and Tribal Resources 

Board’’ to assess the economic impact of proposed policies and regulatory changes on state and tribal budgets and governmental services, which are often supported by revenues from mineral production. The bill is intended to create an open and transparent process 

to ensure a fair return to the American taxpayer and to ensure 

that states relying on mineral proceeds from federal land are treated fairly. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

The need for this legislation stems from an increased demand for 

a cooperative and transparent process when creating regulations 

that affect critical funding sources of states and tribes. States and 

tribes can provide valuable information and expertise when it 

comes to developing rules that affect mineral production, and the 

status quo procedures for incorporating this input are insufficient. 

States and tribes also merit an increased role in this decision making process because they are particularly affected by rules impacting federal land. Education, infrastructure, and other essential government services in certain states are funded by revenues from federal land. The heightened impact of federal regulations to states 

with large amounts of federal land requires that those states be included in the policy discussions that form the basis for new rules. 

The bill would also create a two-year period in which the Secretary of the Interior must complete the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) on the Federal Coal Program. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 5259 was introduced on May 17, 2016, by Congressman 

Ryan K. Zinke (R–MT). The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 

on Energy and Mineral Resources and the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs. On June 14, 2016, the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a hearing on 

the bill. On September 7, 2016, the Natural Resources Committee 

met to consider the bill. The Subcommittees were discharged by 

unanimous consent. Congressman Ryan K. Zinke offered an 

amendment designated #1; it was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Alan S. Lowenthal (D–CA) offered an amendment designated 

001; it was not adopted by a roll call vote of 13 ayes to 22 nays, 

as follows: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 5 HR833.001
6 

No additional amendments were offered and the bill, as amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives 

by a roll call vote of 22 ayes to 13 nays on September 8, 2016, as 

follows: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 7 HR833.002
8 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of rule 

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and sections 

308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for the bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, November 18, 2016. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5259, the Certainty for 

States and Tribes Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jeff LaFave. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5259—Certainty for States and Tribes Act 

Based on information provided by the Department of the Interior (DOI), CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5259 would cost $1 

million over the 2017–2021 period; such spending would be subject 

to the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting the bill would 

not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase 

net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

H.R. 5259 would re-establish the Royalty Policy Committee, a 

committee composed of federal and nonfederal stakeholders who 

advise the Secretary on matters relating to coal leasing on federal 

lands. That committee was established in 2010 and terminated in 

2014. Based on information from DOT regarding the costs associated with providing administrative and logistical support to the 

committee, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would 

cost $1 million over the 2017–2021 period. 

Under the bill, the Royalty Policy Committee would have the authority to delay the implementation of future regulations related to 

coal leasing by up to 180 days; however, CBO has no basis for determining what, if any, budgetary effects those regulations and any 

subsequent delay would have. 

The legislation also contains several provisions related to the administration of coal leasing on federal lands. In 2016, the Secretary 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

issued an order to conduct a programmatic environmental impact 

statement (PETS) related to coal leasing on federal lands and to 

pause certain leasing activities until that analysis is completed. 

H.R. 5259 would require the department to complete the analysis 

by 2019. Based on information regarding the time required to complete similar PEIS analyses, CBO expects that enacting the bill 

would not affect when the analysis would be completed. 

In addition, H.R. 5259 would allow DOT to approve coal lease applications submitted by firms prior to the Secretary’s order to 

pause certain leasing activities. Because the order does not affect 

the department’s ability to use its discretion in administering the 

leasing of coal resources on federal lands, enacting the provision 

would not change current law and would not affect the federal 

budget. 

Finally, the bill would require DOI to issue coal leases within 

one year of completing the required environmental analyses. Based 

on an analysis of information provided by the department and 

firms operating in the coal industry, CBO expects that establishing 

that deadline would have no significant effect on the timing of federal lease sales and would not affect the federal budget. 

H.R. 5259 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to direct the Secretary of the Interior to reestablish 

the Royalty Policy Committee in order to further a more consultative process with key Federal, State, tribal, environmental, and 

energy stakeholders. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

The functions of the previously authorized advisory committee 

being reconstituted by the bill are not currently being nor could 

they be performed by one or more agencies, a different advisory 

committee already in existence or by enlarging the mandate of an 

existing advisory committee. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that this 

bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any specific 

rule-making proceedings. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(11) 

1For example, ‘‘Reconsidering Coal’s Fair Market Value,’’ New York University School of Law 

Institute for Policy Integrity, October 2015; and ‘‘The Impact of Federal Coal Royalty Reform 

on Prices, Production, and State Revenue,’’ Headwaters Economics, May 2015. 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We oppose H.R. 5259 because of the provisions in the bill that 

would handcuff the Department of the Interior (DOI) during its ongoing review of the federal coal leasing program. Over the past 

three years, reports from the Government Accountability Office, the 

Department of the Interior’s Office of Inspector General, the White 

House Council of Economic Advisors, and independent policy analysts 1 have concluded that the federal coal program is broken and 

in desperate need of reform, and that taxpayers are not receiving 

a fair return from the sale of this public resource. 

In response, in January 2016 the Secretary of the Interior announced that the Department would place a pause on issuing new 

coal leases while conducting a comprehensive federal coal program 

review, with the goals of accounting for the environmental and 

health impacts of the coal program and ensuring that American 

taxpayers receive a fair return. Similar reviews with associated 

pauses in leasing were undertaken by Presidents Nixon and 

Reagan. And with over 20 years’ worth of federal coal currently 

under lease and waiting to be mined, it is clear that new federal 

leases are not needed in the immediate future to meet national coal 

needs. 

Unfortunately, H.R. 5259 attempts to preemptively limit the impact of DOI’s coal program review by setting a hard end date of 

January 15, 2019, lifting the leasing pause for lease applications 

where any environmental work has been started, setting hard 

deadlines for the Secretary to approve lease applications, and requiring a special analysis of the review by a new State and Tribal 

Resources Board. While we share an interest in having the coal 

program review completed as quickly as possible, similar previous 

efforts have taken longer than three years, and an arbitrary deadline simply increases the chance that the review will be incomplete 

or insufficient, effectively wasting three years of time and funding. 

The reconstitution of the Royalty Policy Committee (RPC) is a 

welcome component of the bill, since the RPC has in the past provided valuable advice and recommendations regarding federal mineral revenue collections, oversight, and enforcement. However, requiring the RPC to review all regulations and policies related to 

mineral leasing and giving it the power to demand a delay of 180 

days before a regulation is finalized is a step too far, significantly 

limiting the Secretary’s ability to issue necessary rules and regulations and potentially creating unnecessary and costly delays. While 

the sponsor’s amendment in markup removed a constitutional problem present in the introduced version, we continue to have serious 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

concerns about the makeup and powers of the RPC under this legislation. 

Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Ranking Member 

Alan Lowenthal attempted to provide some protection to taxpayers 

against the negative revenue implications of this bill by requiring 

any coal lease issued because of the bill’s grandfathering provision 

to pay a royalty rate of 18.75 percent instead of the 12.5 percent 

currently paid by federal coal leases under the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920. The Majority rejected this amendment along a party-line 

vote. 

For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 5259. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, 

Ranking Member, Committee 

on Natural Resources. 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. 

ALAN LOWENTHAL. 

NIKI TSONGAS. 

JARED HUFFMAN. 

JARED POLIS. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING