[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58854-58880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19851]



[[Page 58853]]

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

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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



Bureau of the Interior



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



43 CFR Parts 3000, 3100 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; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 58854]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Parts 3000, 3100, 3110, 3120, 3130, 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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is issuing this final rule 
to amend its mineral resources regulations to increase certain fees and 
to impose new fees to cover BLM's costs of processing documents 
relating to its minerals programs. The new fees include costs of 
actions such as environmental studies performed by BLM, lease 
applications, name changes, corporate mergers, lease consolidations and 
reinstatements, and other processing-related costs. BLM established 
some fixed fees and some fees on a case-by-case basis. BLM based these 
fee changes on statutory authorities, which authorize us to charge for 
our 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. This rule also responds to 
recommendations issued in audit reports by the DOI's Office of 
Inspector General (OIG). The final rule also reflects changes to the 
proposed rule required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

DATES: This rule is effective November 7, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may mail suggestions or inquiries to Bureau of Land 
Management, Minerals Group, Room 501 LS 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20240-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Spisak, Fluid Minerals Group 
Manager (202) 452-5061 or Ted Murphy, Solid Minerals Group Manager 
(202) 452-0351, for issues related to BLM's minerals programs, or 
Cynthia Ellis, Regulatory Affairs Group (202) 452-5012, for regulatory 
process issues. Persons 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. Background
    A. Procedural Background
    B. Authority for This Rule
    C. Continuation of Rulemaking
II. How Does the Final Rule Differ From the Proposed Rule?
III. Responses to Comments on the December 2000 and July 2005 
Proposed Rules
    A. General Comments
    B. Comments on Oil and Gas Leasing Cost Recovery
    C. Comments on Geothermal Leasing Cost Recovery
    D. Comments on Coal Leasing Cost Recovery
    E. Comments on Cost Recovery for Leasing of Solid Minerals Other 
Than Coal
    F. Comments on Cost Recovery for Mineral Materials Sales
    G. Comments on Cost Recovery for Mining Law Administration
IV. Procedural Matters

I. Background

A. Procedural Background

    On December 15, 2000, BLM published a proposed 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 fee changes were BLM's response to 
recommendations made in a 1988 OIG report (No. 89-25). That 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.
    On July 19, 2005, BLM reissued the proposed rule (70 FR 41532), and 
added 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 renewing mineral materials competitive 
contracts.
    The 2005 proposed rule also included a fixed fee for the processing 
of oil and gas geophysical exploration permits, instead of the case-by-
case fee that we proposed in 2000.
    This final rule adopts many provisions of the July 19, 2005 
proposal. We discuss below changes we have made from that proposal. The 
rationale for most of this final rule was set forth in the July 2005 
preamble and BLM continues to rely on the discussions contained 
therein.

B. Authority for This Rule

    Federal agencies are authorized to charge processing costs by the 
Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701. 
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. This section was discussed in greater detail in the July 
2005 preamble. In FLPMA, public land 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 includes Federal mineral lands with private or state 
surface as well as lands where the United States owns both the surface 
and mineral rights. A mineral lease or mineral materials disposal 
administered by BLM, and a mining claim (for which BLM determines 
validity), even in land where another agency administers the surface, 
are ``interests in land'' for the purposes of FLPMA.
    The IOAA and Section 304 of FLPMA authorize BLM to charge 
applicants for the cost of processing documents by issuing regulations, 
which BLM is doing in 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) (Circular A-25), entitled ``User Charges.'' Part 346 of the 
Departmental Manual (DM) also provides guidance. The general Federal 
policy as stated in Circular A-25 is that a charge will be assessed 
against each identifiable recipient for special benefits derived from 
Federal activities beyond those received by the public. 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, Circular A-25 guides agency implementation of charges and the 
disposition of collections.
    Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) 
authorized a pilot project to improve Federal permit coordination, and 
directed in subsection (i) that ``the Secretary shall not implement a 
rulemaking that would enable an increase in fees to recover additional 
costs related to processing drilling-related permit applications and 
use authorizations.'' The provisions of the proposed rule related to 
drilling-

[[Page 58855]]

related permit applications and use authorizations are those that would 
have required cost recovery for oil and gas and geothermal permits to 
drill (APDs and GPDs), and geophysical and geothermal exploration 
permits. Therefore, we have removed all provisions regarding APDs, 
GPDs, and geophysical and geothermal exploration permits that appeared 
in the proposed rule from this final rule. The remainder of the 2005 
proposed rule was not affected by the Energy Policy Act and may be 
finalized.

C. Continuation of Rulemaking

    In the preamble to the July 19, 2005, proposed rule, we explained 
that in the final rule we might provide that BLM would recover costs of 
validity examinations and reports performed in connection with plan of 
operations (PoO) applications submitted under parts of the Code of 
Federal Regulations other than 43 CFR part 3800, such as those 
submitted under 36 CFR part 9, which implements the Mining in the Parks 
Act. (See 70 FR 41538.) The National Park Service (NPS) submitted a 
comment urging BLM to include in the final rule recovery of such costs 
for applications submitted pursuant to NPS regulations. At this time, 
BLM has not made a final decision whether to extend the rule to cover 
such other costs. Thus, BLM is including in this final rule the 
provision as proposed, but is continuing the rulemaking on the issue of 
whether it will revise the provision to include recovery of costs of 
validity examinations and reports associated with PoOs submitted under 
other parts of the CFR. BLM may issue a further final rule to address 
this issue. If BLM decides to promulgate a final rule that would 
recover such costs, the next final rule would likely contain conforming 
amendments to such other parts to notify affected applicants of the 
applicability of the cost recovery provisions of this rule.

II. How Does the Final Rule Differ From the Proposed Rule?

    As stated earlier, in response to Congress's direction in the 
Energy Policy Act, BLM is not implementing cost recovery fees for APDs, 
GPDs, and geophysical and geothermal exploration permits.
    Other changes we made are:
    1. We adjusted the fees proposed in 2000 by using the Implicit 
Price Deflator for 4th Quarter 2004 (110.077) (IPD), rounded to the 
nearest $5.00. For example, for an oil and gas lease reinstatement, the 
cost recovery fee proposed in 2000 was $60. Applying the IPD, the 
equivalent cost recovery fee for the 4th Quarter 2004 would be $66.05. 
For this final rule, we rounded this figure to $65.
    2. We amended the coal lease by application regulations. The 
proposed rule did not adequately account for case-by-case fee 
situations where the successful bidder is an entity other than the 
original applicant. The final coal leasing regulations at 43 CFR 3473.2 
provide that the applicant who nominates a tract will pay BLM the 
processing costs that we incur up to the publication of the competitive 
lease sale notice. That fee amount will be included in the notice 
itself, and the successful bidder, if someone other than the original 
applicant, will be responsible for paying that amount to BLM. In such 
circumstances, BLM will refund the fees the original applicant paid to 
BLM. If there is no successful bidder, the applicant will remain 
responsible for processing fees and there will be no refund. It should 
be noted that an applicant will not be reimbursed for moneys the 
applicant (and not BLM) may pay directly to third persons to perform 
studies, because it is not clear that FLPMA Section 304 applies in that 
situation.
    Because persons other than the applicant could also be a successful 
bidder under BLM's other programs, we have made similar changes to the 
regulations at 43 CFR part 3500 applicable to the leasing of solid 
minerals other than coal, and to the mineral materials sales 
regulations at 43 CFR part 3600.
    3. We amended the mining claim patent application adjudication fee 
so that patent applications covering 10 or fewer claims will be charged 
only half the cost recovery fee that applications with more than 10 
claims will be charged. This change was made in response to comments 
expressing concern that the proposed fee would be too burdensome on 
claimants who submit patent applications for only a few claims. We 
selected the 10-claim threshold because that is the number Congress 
chose to define the class of miners who may perform assessment work in 
lieu of paying the claim maintenance fee. The adjudication fee in the 
proposed rule was a fixed fee based on a weighted average of BLM's 
adjudication costs. We believe that the commenters may have a valid 
concern and that it may be more reasonable to base the adjudication 
fees on the per claim costs depending on how many claims are included 
in an application. BLM plans to reassess its costs of adjudication and 
may propose a revision to this fee in the future. In this final rule, 
we decided that it was reasonable to phase in the adjudication fee for 
patent applications that contain 10 or fewer claims. A discussion of 
phasing in fees is contained in the preamble to the proposed rule. 70 
FR 41533. This rule contains the first step of this phasing-in process.
    4. The final rule adds language at section 3000.11 to clarify that 
a decision of BLM to change a fixed fee to a case-by-case fee may be 
appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals.
    5. In response to comments objecting to the applicability of the 
fee provisions to applications pending when this rule is made final, we 
have revised the rule to make the fee provisions of the final rule 
applicable only to documents BLM receives after the effective date of 
this rule. Section 3000.10(d) has been restructured to clarify the 
timing of the applicability of both fixed and case-by-case fees 
established by this rule. Because both the new fixed and case-by-case 
fee provisions apply only to documents received after the effective 
date of this rule, proposed section 3000.11(c), which would have 
addressed how to treat costs of pending documents, is not necessary and 
has not been included in the final rule. Also, rather than include in 
section 3000.10(a) a statement that required fees must be included with 
documents that are filed, we moved the statement to section 3000.12(a) 
of this chapter to make it clear that such a requirement applies only 
to fixed fees. We have also amended paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of 
section 3000.10 to make it clear that the documents for which BLM will 
begin to charge the new fees are those that BLM receives on or after 
November 7, 2005. The proposed rule referred to documents that BLM 
``accepted.'' We have amended this language to avoid confusion. The 
date of receipt may be easily evidenced by a log-in date on the 
document or by a receipt given to an applicant by BLM.
    6. We amended the language of section 3000.11(b)(4)(i) to clarify 
that we will not stop ongoing processing if we re-estimate the costs 
associated with a case-by-case document. (This issue is further 
discussed in the preamble under III.A. General Comments.) We also moved 
the last sentence of section 3000.11(b)(4)(ii) regarding refunds into a 
new paragraph (b)(4)(iii) to make it clear that whenever money paid as 
a case-by-case fee was not spent on processing costs, BLM will refund 
that money once processing is complete.
    We wish to make one further clarification with regard to section 
3000.11, relating to the charging of processing fees on a case-by-case 
basis. Under paragraph (a), if at any time BLM

[[Page 58856]]

decides that a particular document designated for a fixed fee will have 
a unique processing cost, such as an Environmental Impact Statement, we 
may set the fee under the case-by-case procedures. BLM intends to 
recover on a case-by-case basis those costs that BLM incurs following 
the decision that the document processing will have a unique processing 
cost. BLM will not charge for costs that BLM incurred before that 
decision was made. The applicant will receive a credit for any fixed 
fee already paid against the case-by-case fees that are billed.
    7. We have clarified the final regulatory text for section 3800.5 
as it relates to the applicability of case-by-case cost processing for 
validity examinations and common variety determinations associated with 
mining notices, applications for PoOs, and applications for patents. We 
divided proposed paragraph (b) into final paragraphs (b) and (c). 
Revised paragraph (b) relates to mining notices and plans of operation 
and redesignated paragraph (c) applies to patent applications.
    Revised paragraph (b) makes it clear that a notice level operation 
or an applicant for a plan of operations for which a mineral 
examination, including a validity examination or a common variety 
determination, and associated reports, are performed and prepared under 
43 CFR 3809.100 or 3809.101, must pay a processing fee on a case-by-
case basis. It was not BLM's intent to include validity examinations 
BLM may perform on its own volition that are not performed under 
sections 3809.100 or 3809.101. This change is in response to comments 
that the regulatory text contained in the July 2005 proposed rule was 
confusing. It also should be noted that the cost recovery provisions 
are not intended to modify BLM policy as to when mineral examinations 
are performed.
    Final paragraph (c) provides that an applicant for a mineral patent 
under 43 CFR subpart 3860 must pay a processing fee on a case-by-case 
basis as described in section 3000.11 for any validity examination and 
report prepared in connection with the application. This includes any 
analyses performed in connection with the validity examination and 
report, such as common variety determinations. Although contained in a 
new paragraph, this is not a substantive change from the July 2005 
proposed rule. 43 CFR subpart 3860 applies to all mineral patent 
applications that BLM processes, regardless of the agency with surface 
management responsibility for the lands covered by the patent 
applications. Thus, case-by-case cost recovery will occur for validity 
examinations associated with BLM processing of mineral patent 
applications, whether the surface is administered by BLM, the U.S. 
Forest Service, NPS, or other agencies.
    BLM wishes to make one further clarification with regard to section 
3800.5(a), relating to the case-by-case cost recovery for the 
processing of PoOs requiring the preparation of an environmental impact 
statement. Under paragraph (a), an applicant for a PoO under 43 CFR 
part 3800 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 PoO requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS). The costs that BLM intends to recover on a case-by-case basis 
under the final rule are those costs BLM incurs following the decision 
that an EIS is necessary, not costs that BLM may have incurred before 
that decision.
    8. As a conforming amendment, we added language revising section 
3835.32(c) so that it refers to a processing fee rather than a non-
refundable service charge. Paragraph (c) includes a cross-reference to 
the table in section 3830.21 on service charges and fees, which BLM 
considered for amendment in the proposed rule. This conforming 
amendment to section 3835.32 was inadvertently omitted in the proposed 
rule.
    The rule also contains other technical conforming and editorial 
changes.
    Today's rule adopts both fixed fees and case-by-case fees. The 
table below sets forth the final fees that are imposed by this rule, 
compared to the fees as proposed in 2000 and 2005.

                                           Table 1.--Fees for FY 2006
  [Note that fees will be adjusted annually for changes in the IPD-GDP, published in the Federal Register, and
                      posted on BLM's website. Revised fees are effective each October 1.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Proposed fee in     Proposed fee in
         Document/action             Existing fee          2000 rule         2005 rule \1\       Final fee \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Gas (Part 3100, 3110,
 3120, 3130):
    Noncompetitive lease          $75...............  $305..............  $324..............  $335
     application.
    Competitive lease             $75...............  $120..............  $127..............  $130
     application.
    Assignment and transfer.....  $25...............  $70...............  $74...............  $75
    Overriding royalty transfer,  $25...............  $9................  $10...............  $10
     payment out of production.
    Name change, corporate        $0................  $160..............  $170..............  $175
     merger or transfer to heir/
     devisee.
    Leases consolidation........  $0................  $335..............  $356..............  $370
    Lease renewal or exchange...  $75...............  $305..............  $324..............  $335
    Lease reinstatement, Class I  $25...............  $60...............  $64...............  $65
    Leasing under right-of-way..  $75...............  $305..............  $324..............  $335
    Geophysical exploration       $0................  Case-by-case......  $500..............  $0
     notice of intent--outside
     Alaska.
    Geophysical exploration       $25...............  Case-by-case......  $500..............  $25
     permit application--Alaska.
    Application for Permit to     $0................  Not included......  $1600.............  $0
     Drill (AP).
Geothermal (Group 3200):
    Noncompetitive lease          $75...............  $305..............  $324..............  $335
     application.
    Competitive lease             $0................  $120..............  $127..............  $130
     application.
    Assignment and transfer of    $50...............  $70...............  $74...............  $75
     record title or operating
     right.
    Name change, corporate        $0................  $160..............  $170..............  $175
     merger or transfer to heir/
     devisee.
    Lease consolidation.........  $0................  $335..............  $356..............  $370

[[Page 58857]]

 
    Lease reinstatement.........  $0................  $60...............  $64...............  $65
    Exploration operations        $0................  Not included......  $500..............  $0
     permit application.
    Geothermal Permit to Drill    $0................  Not included......  $1600.............  $0
     (GPD).
Coal (Group 3400):
    License to mine application.  $10...............  $10...............  $11...............  $10
    Exploration license           $250..............  $250..............  $266..............  $275
     application.
    Lease or lease interest       $50...............  $50...............  $53...............  $55
     transfer.
    Competitive coal lease......  $250..............  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case
    Coal lease modification.....  $250..............  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case
    Logical mining unit           $0................  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case
     formation or modification.
    Royalty reduction             $0................  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case
     application.
Nonenergy Leasable (Group 3500):
    Applications other than       $25...............  $25...............  $27...............  $30
     those listed below.
    Prospecting permit            $0................  $50...............  $53...............  $55
     application amendment.
    Extension of prospecting      $25...............  $80...............  $85...............  $90
     permit.
    Lease renewal...............  $25...............  $390..............  $414..............  $430
    Prospecting permit            $25...............  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case
     application.
    Preference right lease        $0................  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case
     application.
    Successful competitive lease  $0................  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case
    Application to suspend,       $0................  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case
     waive or reduce your
     rental, minimum royalty,
     production royalty or
     royalty rate.
    Future or fractional          $25...............  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case
     interest lease application.
Mineral Materials Disposal
 (Group 3600):
    Noncompetitive sale           $0................  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case
     (excluding sales from
     community pits or common
     use areas).
    Competitive sale............  $0................  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case
    Competitive contract renewal  $0................  N/A...............  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case
Mining Law Administration (Group
 3800):
    Notice of Location \3\......  $10...............  $15...............  $16...............  $15
    Amendment of location.......  $5................  $10...............  $11...............  $10
    Transfer of mining claim/     $5................  $10...............  $11...............  $10
     site.
    Recording an annual FLPMA     $5................  $10...............  $11...............  $10
     filing Sec.   3835.30).
    Deferment of Assessment.....  $25...............  $80...............  $85...............  $90
    Mineral Patent Adjudication.  1st claim--$250     $2,290............  $2,433............  $2,520 (>10
                                   Each additional                                             claims)
                                   claim $50.                                                 $1,260 \4\ (10 or
                                                                                               fewer claims)
    Adverse claim...............  $10...............  $80...............  $85...............  $90
    Protest.....................  $10...............  $50...............  $53...............  $55
    Plan of Operations with EIS.  $0................  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case
    Validity and Mineral          $0................  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case......  Case-by-case
     Examinations and Reports
     performed in connection
     with a Patent Application,
     43 CFR 3809.100 or 43 CFR
     3809.101.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fees proposed in July 2005 adjusted the fees proposed in 2000 by using the Implicit Price Deflator 4th
  Quarter 2003 (106.244) and rounding to the nearest dollar.
\2\ The fees in this final rule adjusted the fees proposed in 2000 by using the Implicit Price Deflator for 4th
  Quarter 2004 (110.077), then rounding to the nearest $5.00.
\3\ 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 the $10
  service charge shown in the table. The service charge becomes a $15 processing fee in this final rule, making
  the total fee $170.
\4\ In this final rule, the fixed fee for adjudication of mineral patents has been modified in response to
  comments received. Applications with 10 or fewer claims will be charged a fixed fee of $1,260. Where the
  mineral patent application includes more than 10 claims, the fee will be $2,520.

III. Responses to Comments on the December 2000 and July 2005 Proposed 
Rules

    In this section of the preamble, we respond to the substantive 
comments that we received on the December 15, 2000, proposed rule (65 
FR 78440) and on the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on 
July 19, 2005 (70 FR 41532). In response to the December 15, 2000, 
proposed rule (65 FR 78440), BLM received approximately 136 comments. 
In response to the 2005 re-proposed rule (70 FR 41532), BLM received 
approximately 43 comments.

A. General Comments

    Although BLM received some comments in support of the rule, the 
majority of comments generally opposed

[[Page 58858]]

any fee increases in BLM Mineral Programs. The commenters expressed 
many reasons for opposing the rule. Some commenters said that BLM 
appeared to have based the fee changes on out-of-date data from fiscal 
years 1988 to 1990. Similarly, a commenter said that BLM used cost 
recovery data from a period of low activity, resulting in an inaccurate 
fee structure.
    The commenters are incorrect in asserting that BLM based the fees 
solely on data from fiscal years 1988 to 1990. In the mid-1990s, BLM 
reanalyzed the data and conducted spot checks to verify their continued 
validity as explained in more detail in the preamble to the proposed 
rule (70 FR 41534). BLM's processes covered by this rule have not 
changed significantly since that time. Moreover, we have adjusted the 
fees using the Implicit Price Deflator for 4th Quarter 2004 to reflect 
current costs. Accordingly, we believe that the fees in this final rule 
are not out of date. Moreover, the period for which BLM collected data 
was not a period of particularly low activity.
    Some commenters asserted that the cost recovery fees are equivalent 
to a tax on producers. The commenters also objected to the proposed 
rule because operators already pay for the services provided by BLM 
through taxes. They recommended that operators be given a tax incentive 
or tax credit to offset the cost of these higher fees.
    We disagree. The fees in this rule are not a tax. The fees are 
charged for special benefits received by identifiable beneficiaries and 
are intended to reimburse the agency for the costs of processing the 
various energy and minerals related filings. Creating tax incentives 
and tax credits to offset the cost to the operator of these fees is not 
part of this rule, and it is outside BLM's or DOI's jurisdiction or 
authority to initiate such a rule.
    Some commenters asserted that the fees in this rule are unjustified 
in light of the fact that the government receives other revenues such 
as royalties, bonus bids, and rentals for the mineral activities 
covered by these fees, which in their view should cover processing 
costs. A commenter recommended that BLM deduct the costs of processing 
minerals and energy documents from the royalties that BLM is already 
paid. As an example, a commenter stated that the public receives ``the 
vast portion of the revenues from the proceeds from the federal coal 
lease'' but has no overhead costs or investment risks.
    We disagree. Royalties, rents, and bonus bids reflect the value of 
the resource to the lessor. Congress authorized BLM to recover 
processing costs, and did so fully aware that BLM was already 
collecting bonuses, rents, and royalties, so there cannot have been any 
legislative intent that one fee should offset another.
    BLM charges processing fees pursuant to its authorities under the 
Independent Offices Appropriation Act, as amended, 31 U.S.C. 9701 
(IOAA); Section 304(a) of FLPMA; Circular A-25; DOI Manual 346 DM 1.2 
A; and case law (also see the preamble to the proposed rule at 70 FR 
41533 and Solicitor's Opinion M-36987 (December 5, 1996)). Congress 
clearly intended for agencies to recover processing costs in addition 
to bonuses, rents, and royalties.
    The IOAA states that Federal agencies should be ``self-sustaining 
to the extent possible,'' and authorizes agency heads to ``prescribe 
regulations establishing the charge for a service or thing of value 
provided by the agency.'' Section 304(a) of FLPMA specifically 
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to ``establish reasonable 
filing and service fees and reasonable charges and commissions with 
respect to applications and other documents relating to the public 
lands.'' Circular A-25 sets forth a general policy that a user charge 
will be assessed against each identifiable recipient for special 
benefits derived from Federal activities beyond those received by the 
general public.
    A commenter said that other public land users who do not pay 
royalties should also pay processing costs.
    BLM has implemented or is considering implementing cost recovery 
for other programs that it administers.
    One commenter stated that, because much of the processing fees go 
toward satisfying other government regulations, as additional 
regulatory requirements are imposed and become part of BLM's 
processing, costs would continue to increase.
    We appreciate the commenter's concern. In the short term, potential 
new requirements would not affect BLM's fixed fees. Over the longer 
term, BLM may have to reassess the fixed fees if our processing costs 
change significantly. Although we do not foresee increased regulatory 
burdens that would significantly affect processing costs, case-by-case 
fees would include any such increases. It is important to note, 
however, that as technology and automation improve, our document 
processing costs may decrease, which will be reflected in reduced case-
by-case fees.
    Some commenters asserted that case-by-case fees are open-ended and 
contain no cap, which makes it difficult to plan for future costs. Some 
of these commenters asked how an applicant would know in advance 
whether they could afford to submit an application.
    Although case-by-case fees do not contain a prescribed cap, the 
process that BLM has established for case-by-case fees provides that 
cost estimates be given to applicants before processing begins. In 
advance of an application being submitted to BLM, an operator may also 
discuss the project with BLM and ask for cost projections. We expect 
that with time and experience, case-by-case fees will become more 
predictable.
    Some commenters are concerned that the rule provisions give BLM too 
much authority to convert fixed fees into case-by-case fees under the 
provision that allows BLM to change a document designated for a fixed 
fee to a case-by-case fee if BLM decides that it will have a unique 
processing cost. The commenters said that BLM might arbitrarily change 
the designation during processing and set a higher fee under the case-
by-case procedures. A commenter requested that, if possible, BLM 
identify fixed fees that will not be subject to case-by-case cost 
recovery.
    We do not agree that the rule gives BLM unlimited discretion to 
convert fixed fees into case-by-case fees. By ``unique processing 
costs,'' BLM means costs associated with a processing step that would 
result in significantly higher costs than are customary for that fixed-
fee category. When applied to certain fixed-fee categories, costs of 
efforts such as EISs, cultural resource surveys, or threatened or 
endangered species consultations and studies, may be considered unique 
because they are not usually required for actions in those categories. 
Although most fixed fees are not of a type that could incur unique 
processing costs, BLM cannot guarantee that any particular transaction 
cannot give rise to unique circumstances that would warrant case-by-
case processing. However, BLM has guidelines for determining when it 
takes actions such as those referenced above and will not decide that a 
document will require such processing steps unless those guidelines are 
satisfied. [FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/NO][DATE]*[/
DATE][RULES][RULE][PREAMB][AGENCY]*[/AGENCY][SUBJECT]*[/SUBJECT][/
PREAMB][SUPLINF][HED]*[/HED]
    If the applicant disagrees with BLM's determination that the 
application merits a case-by-case fee, the applicant may appeal that 
determination to IBLA under BLM's appeals process at 43 CFR part 4, 
subpart E, when it receives the cost estimate from BLM. In response to 
the commenters' concern, we have added language to the rule text 
clarifying that such a determination may be appealed. If the applicant 
prevails, BLM will refund the disputed fee and charge only the fixed 
fee.
    A commenter stated that, although estimated processing costs can be

[[Page 58859]]

appealed, he has no confidence in the ability of IBLA to process those 
cases expeditiously. The comment concluded that there is apparently no 
motivation for BLM or IBLA to move quickly on any appeals.
    With respect to appeals, there is little BLM can do to shorten the 
period between when an appeal is filed and when an appeal is resolved. 
However, the regulations provide that an applicant can ensure that BLM 
will continue processing the document and issue a decision while an 
appeal is pending by paying the disputed fee under protest.
    Some commenters contended that the fees would have a negative 
impact on small operators or miners. Some commenters said the proposed 
rule would have a negative impact on the national and local economies, 
especially as it relates to exploration, and will result in an increase 
in the number of energy and mineral projects being abandoned. They 
generally stated that higher fees would adversely affect mining 
industry ability to compete.
    The Record of Compliance that BLM prepared for the 2005 proposed 
rule concluded that, when mineral industry revenues are compared with 
the cost increases in this rule, the projected annual total for these 
increases amounts to less than one percent of sales. Even if the entire 
amount of the increases were to be borne by small business entities, 
the effects would be minimal. For example, under this rule, we project 
that small oil and gas operators will pay an additional $2 million 
annually, approximately, while generating sales of about $1 billion 
annually from operations on Federal lands. As a matter of prudence, 
operators will factor these fees into their business decisions before 
pursuing on-the-ground operations. In addition, for competitive 
leasing, these higher costs may be reflected in the successful bid.
    The increases in the fees paid by the applicants represent the 
direct economic impact of complying with the final rule. We estimate 
the cost of the rule, in the form of higher fees, will be approximately 
$7 million annually. We do not anticipate any measurable reduction in 
economic activity due to these fees.
    Several commenters said that BLM did not adequately consider the 
FLPMA factors when calculating the proposed fee increases, and 
challenged BLM's statement that the projects for which fees are charged 
in this rule usually provide little or no service to the public. A 
commenter stated that developers are involved in tremendous financial 
risks in producing minerals, and urged that the rule should consider 
the financial risks involved and potential positive benefits to the 
general public. Commenters stated that we did not consider various 
benefits of mining, including improved grazing land, improved wildlife 
habitat on reclaimed mine lands, and maintenance of trails that benefit 
recreational and subsistence users. Some commenters asserted providing 
heat and electricity to homes and businesses and other mineral uses are 
an obvious service and benefit to the public. A few commented that BLM 
should give applicants a credit for the data they produce, or reimburse 
them for providing it. A commenter concluded that BLM should include 
discussion of how these factors were considered in the final decision-
making process on the fee procedures.
    A commenter also discussed the importance of coal production and 
contended that because coal resources from Federal leases are vital to 
supplying electricity at a reasonable price and in an environmentally 
sound manner, BLM should not charge additional document processing 
costs. The commenter contended that a FLPMA factor mandates that BLM 
not impose additional processing costs for leasable minerals because 
the public receives significant benefit from lease revenues.
    BLM agrees that the domestic mining industry is vital to the 
American economy and provides immense benefits to the public. However, 
the FLPMA factor of ``service to the public'' concerns whether the 
applicant's project itself provides some significant direct service or 
benefit to the general public, not the fact that members of the public 
are the ultimate consumers of mineral resources extracted from the 
public lands (which is true of virtually all public land resources). 
Companies extracting resources from the public lands do not necessarily 
engage in extraction operations for the benefit of the public, but are 
for-profit enterprises. There is thus no basis for using the public's 
ultimate consumption of the resource as a reason for reducing 
processing fees below BLM's actual processing costs.
    BLM agrees that there are times when the applicant's project itself 
does result in tangible benefits to the public, such as the 
identification of cultural and archaeological sites in resource 
surveys, trail maintenance, and others mentioned above. For documents 
processed on a case-by-case fee basis, BLM will consider each of the 
FLPMA factors as it relates to that individual project. For the fixed 
fee documents, we considered the likelihood of activities in those 
categories providing substantial direct benefits to the public. We 
concluded that such potential benefits from transactions in the fixed 
fee categories are too speculative to warrant charging less than BLM's 
actual costs of processing, particularly when weighed against the 
monetary value of the project to the applicant.
    With regard to operators' financial risks, such investment risks 
and overhead costs of a for-profit entity operating on public land are 
normal costs of doing business and should not be a reason for BLM to 
collect less than its actual processing costs under the FLPMA 
reasonableness factors.
    Some commenters asserted that BLM's processing activities provide 
benefits to the general public such that BLM should charge less than 
its actual costs of processing. Some commenters also objected that many 
of BLM's processing activities benefit only the public and not the 
applicant.
    BLM disagrees. The processing fees charged in this rule are for the 
documents that an applicant must submit to satisfy various statutory 
and regulatory requirements pertaining to the various minerals programs 
that BLM administers. The processing of an application necessarily 
benefits the applicant. See 70 FR 41541. BLM considered the potential 
benefits to the public of its processing of the fixed fee documents in 
this rule and concluded that the monetary value to the applicant 
outweighs the possible benefit to the public.
    Several commenters were unclear how the fees relate to situations 
where the applicant directly pays a third party to perform required 
studies. Some commenters suggested that because they often pay third 
party contractors to perform required environmental studies, BLM should 
credit those costs by reducing the fees BLM charges.
    A credit is inappropriate because the fees in this rule do not 
include any costs that an applicant pays directly to a third party. For 
third party contracts, BLM's cost recovery is restricted to recovering 
the costs of its own activities, such as supervising the contractor, 
reviewing and approving the final document. If BLM pays for 
environmental studies in connection with its document processing, it 
will include those costs in its fee.
    Some commenters said that because the industry already pays for the 
privilege of operating on public lands by performing many studies and 
inventories, and compiling National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
documents, the Federal Government

[[Page 58860]]

should consider reimbursing industry for performing these undertakings.
    BLM will not be reimbursing operators for studies they perform in 
compliance with various laws, mandates, and policies. All such costs 
are borne by the operator. The operator conducts these studies for 
their own benefit because an operator cannot receive a permit or 
authorization to extract resources from public lands until all required 
studies are completed. The operator does have the option of paying a 
BLM-permitted contractor to conduct these studies or they can ask BLM 
to conduct them at a charge to the operator.
    Some commenters contended that BLM must ensure efficient and timely 
processing and provide time frames within which it will complete 
processing. A commenter suggested that BLM undertake an independent 
review of the processes that are funded by these increased fees before 
they are implemented in the final rule.
    BLM recognizes that we have a responsibility to administer our 
programs in an efficient and effective manner, and review our 
procedures for processing applications to ensure their efficiency on an 
on-going basis. However, this is not a basis for delaying the 
implementation of this rule. Setting time frames for BLM processing is 
not part of this cost recovery rulemaking.
    A few commenters asked BLM to hold public meetings before 
finalizing any fee increases. Several commenters asked that we extend 
the comment period. Another commenter asked BLM to develop regulations 
governing minerals management programs with more industry involvement.
    BLM believes that adequate public involvement has occurred with 
respect to this rule. The original proposal, in December 2000, was very 
similar to this final rule, and the comment period at that time was 
open for over six months. We also provided a 30-day comment period for 
the July 2005 proposal.
    Some commenters said that BLM's current fees are much higher than 
those charged by local governments and private industry for similar 
services.
    BLM bases its fees on its own processing costs in conjunction with 
its consideration of the FLPMA reasonableness factors. Neither the 
states nor private industry has the same statutory responsibilities, as 
does BLM.
    A commenter said that use of a weighted average creates a situation 
where they are charged more than is necessary and that they should not 
be penalized if a BLM office is less cost efficient than another one. A 
commenter requested that BLM define ``weighted average'' and said that 
this mathematical cost basing leads to unequal application under the 
law and creates a cost structure slanted toward higher than necessary 
fees. A commenter asked what authority gives BLM the means to use a 
``weighted average'' instead of the actual or average cost.
    BLM relied on its regulatory authority in FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1740) to 
determine the proper method of analysis. BLM used a weighted average 
for fixed fees to incorporate economies of scale achieved by offices 
that process many more documents than those with less active oil and 
gas (or other mineral) programs. The processing cost fees in this rule 
are based on a weighted average, rather than a simple average, of BLM-
wide processing costs for each type of document. This method gave 
greater weight to the processing cost data from field offices having a 
heavy workload, and thus more expertise, in processing a particular 
type of document. Offices that process a greater number of a particular 
type of document generally have a lower processing cost per document of 
that type. We first estimated the actual cost for a type of document 
and then considered each of the FLPMA factors to see if any of them 
might cause a fee to be set at less than actual cost. We then decided 
the amount of the fee, which cannot be more than our processing cost.
    A commenter said that BLM failed to set reasonable ground rules 
like limits on dollars per hour for BLM staff to work on administering 
the project.
    BLM will base case-by-case fees on the actual costs incurred in 
processing the application. Before processing begins, BLM will provide 
the applicant with an estimate of BLM's costs and its key components. 
The applicant will have an opportunity to object if it believes the 
estimated costs are excessive.
    A commenter asked why there are differences in costs among BLM 
State Offices for the same program elements and services. Another 
commenter asked how BLM's processes can be ``reasonably efficient'' 
when BLM's preliminary review of the data showed large cost differences 
among BLM offices for processing certain types of documents as well as 
large numbers of documents filed and processed.
    As stated in the proposed rule preamble, BLM determined that the 
differences in costs cited by the commenters were attributable to site-
or sale-specific factors or economies of scale.
    Some commenters said that BLM was attempting to circumvent the 
budgeting process by burdening industry with additional fees and 
increasing existing fees as much as 15 times the current fee.
    BLM is not circumventing the budgeting process. Congress authorized 
BLM to recover processing costs under the IOAA and FLPMA, and OMB 
directives require us to do so. The IOAA states that Federal agencies 
should be self-sustaining to the extent possible and authorizes agency 
heads to ``prescribe regulations establishing the charge for a service 
or thing of value provided by the agency.'' Section 304(a) of FLPMA 
specifically authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to ``establish 
reasonable filing and service fees and reasonable charges and 
commissions with respect to applications and other documents related to 
the public lands.'' The IOAA and FLPMA give BLM authority to charge 
fees for processing applications. Moreover, Circular A-25 provides that 
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.
    A commenter stated that BLM went too far beyond what is reasonable 
in setting the proposed fees beyond the fees established in previous 
regulations.
    BLM disagrees. The prior filing fees were more in the nature of a 
recordation fee, and were not intended to recover BLM's processing 
costs.
    Several commenters argued that BLM's proposed cost recovery 
regulations are flawed because they rely on an incorrect legal 
conclusion in Solicitor's Opinion M-36987 (December 5, 1996) that cost 
recovery is mandatory under FLPMA and the IOAA.
    The commenters are mistaken. The Solicitor's Opinion did not 
conclude that those statutes require cost recovery, nor did BLM's 
preamble to the proposed rule characterize the Opinion's conclusion as 
such. Solicitor's Opinion M-36987 concluded that ``BLM has authority 
under applicable statutory and case law to recover costs of minerals 
document processing * * *. Because it has this authority and because 
the Departmental Manual and OMB policy require that costs be recovered 
where possible, BLM should take steps to initiate cost recovery * * 
*.''
    Commenters also maintained that the Department mistakenly relies on 
the BLM Manual to create a mandatory cost recovery obligation.
    By ``BLM Manual,'' we assume the commenters meant to refer to the 
Departmental Manual, which was cited in both the Solicitor's Opinion 
and the proposed rule preamble. The commenters' objection that the 
Manual does not have the force or effect of law

[[Page 58861]]

and cannot override a Federal statute misses the point. As explained in 
the preamble to the proposed rule, Congress has authorized cost 
recovery in both the IOAA and FLPMA. The executive branch, through 
Circular A-25, has stated the general Federal policy to be that charges 
will be assessed against identifiable recipients of special benefits. 
The Secretary of the Interior, in the Departmental Manual, has 
instructed bureaus and offices within DOI to recover costs that they 
are authorized to recover. There is no issue here of a conflict between 
the Departmental Manual and statutory authority--the Manual, the OMB 
guidance, and the statutes are all in accord. Nor is there any issue, 
as the commenters assert, of BLM interpreting the Manual as directing 
it to disregard one of the FLPMA factors. As explained in the preamble 
to the proposed rule, BLM carefully considered each of the FLPMA 
factors in setting the proposed fees.
    One commenter asserted that BLM appears to rid itself of its 
responsibility to prepare any special studies as outlined in NEPA and 
stated that BLM must maintain the necessary staff and resources to 
perform NEPA requirements.
    BLM recognizes that it has continuing responsibilities to satisfy 
its requirements under NEPA. The provision in section 3000.11(b) simply 
allows the applicant to ask BLM's approval to do studies or other 
activities, under BLM supervision and to BLM standards, on a voluntary 
basis. If the applicant chooses not to do the work, BLM will perform 
the work and include the cost in the case-by-case fee. Nothing in these 
regulations relieves BLM from fulfilling any of its statutory 
responsibilities.
    One commenter expressed concern that the fee increases will 
adversely affect academic interests involved in fossil research.
    The cost recovery provisions apply to applications for certain 
commercial activities. Academic interests involved in fossil research, 
including collectors of petrified wood under 43 CFR subpart 3622 and 
other kinds of researchers under 43 CFR part 2930, will not be affected 
by this rule.
    A few commenters stated that BLM should not be pursuing a prior 
administration's agenda or initiative.
    The changes in this final rule do not represent the agenda of any 
particular administration. BLM's efforts to recover costs were 
initiated in response to recommendations from the OIG in 1988, as part 
of a 1980s Presidential initiative calling for all Federal agencies to 
charge appropriate user fees for agency services.
    A commenter asked if BLM had considered implementing electronic 
filings of ownership transfers before implementing a new fee schedule.
    BLM intends ultimately to implement electronic filings for title 
transfers. We will then review the processing costs and adjust them as 
necessary. This is not a reason to delay implementation of this rule.
    A commenter said that the rule could be abused in its 
implementation by BLM offices seeking to delay or deny permit 
applications, including those that state regulatory agencies handle 
expeditiously.
    The comment is speculative. We have carefully explained how the 
fees will be implemented in accordance with applicable authority. These 
fees will not be used to delay any BLM action unnecessarily.
    A commenter said it is unclear what, if any, BLM costs other than 
land use plan studies and programmatic environmental assessments (EAs) 
were exempted from the rule.
    BLM intends this rule to provide for the collection of document-
specific costs rather than programmatic costs.
    A commenter said that if BLM proceeds with this rule, it must 
ensure that all management overhead is excluded, citing Nevada Power 
Co. v. Watt, 711 F.2d 913, 931 (10th Cir. 1983).
    BLM's actual costs are the sum of both direct and indirect costs. 
However, under FLPMA, BLM cannot recover the costs of management 
overhead. We have interpreted this to mean the 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. We have not 
excluded the costs of Deputy State Directors or other supervisory staff 
because they are typically involved in day-to-day decision making. 
BLM's cost accounting system is intended to reflect this distinction.
    One commenter noted that it appeared that BLM was attempting to 
``double-dip'' by assessing both an application fee and a filing fee. 
Another commenter noted that BLM was only assessing application and 
filing fees for some actions and questioned why BLM was not collecting 
the processing fee for those same actions.
    Some commenters seem to have misunderstood how BLM structured the 
fixed fees. Some fixed fees were already-existing, nominal filing fees 
that we did not propose to change. Filing fees serve to limit filing to 
serious applicants and are not intended to reimburse processing costs. 
This rule adds certain fixed fees for other documents based on BLM's 
processing costs. Each action for which this rule charges a fee has 
either a filing fee or a processing fee. No action has both a filing 
fee and a cost recovery processing fee. We may in the future change 
some filing fees to processing fees. As explained in the preamble to 
the proposed rule, BLM intends to continue to work on establishing and 
collecting fees for other documents (70 FR 41533).
    Some commenters stated that these provisions appear to create 
further delays in an already time consuming set of procedures. A 
commenter stated that at a minimum the final regulations should include 
provisions to establish an escrow-type account that BLM can access. A 
commenter recommended that BLM add the following language to proposed 
section 3000.11: ``You may elect to establish a standing contingency 
fund to be accessed and utilized by BLM in case of shortfall, to assure 
that processing continues. Provisions for appeals and fees paid under 
protest in subsection (c)(6) will apply equally to any funds utilized 
from such an account.''
    This rule does not provide for escrow or contingency accounts to 
facilitate payments of case-by-case fees. However, based on these 
comments, we have amended the language of section 3000.11(b)(4)(i) to 
clarify that we will not stop ongoing processing if we re-estimate the 
costs associated with a case-by-case document. This revision should 
reduce potential delays associated with re-estimation of costs.
    The commenter also asked BLM to consider that cost recovery should 
be limited to the costs of the actual hours that BLM staff worked 
directly on the project being charged and specifically should exclude 
any staff training.
    The preamble to the proposed rule explained what costs BLM includes 
in determining its fees in this rule. Both direct and indirect costs 
are included. Training is only included to the extent that it is 
allowable as indirect costs.
    One commenter asked that BLM consider dedicating funds collected 
from increased fees to paying personnel who process the permits for 
which the fees are levied. The commenter said that BLM staff that is 
responsible for the minerals permitting process should not have other 
assignments within their respective offices.
    BLM intends to structure its budget processes to return fees 
collected to the BLM office which processes the actions. BLM staff 
workload is determined by the needs of individual BLM offices.
    One commenter asked for further explanation of the relationship 
between

[[Page 58862]]

existing Federal fees, assessments, and levies and the proposed 
charges, asserting that existing fees already cover certain BLM 
document processing costs. Specifically, the commenter contended that 
net smelter royalties, other Mining Law Administration Program (MLAP) 
funds, and bonus bid payments that cover document processing costs 
should essentially be counted as document processing fees, and that BLM 
should not seek additional revenue from applicants if double recovery 
of such fees would occur.
    As discussed earlier in this preamble, we have addressed the 
relationship between royalties, bonus bids, rents, and the processing 
fees in this rule. We address here the relationship between the 
processing fees and Mining Law fees, such as the annual maintenance fee 
on unpatented mining claims and the location fee on new claims.
    Moneys that Congress has directed BLM to collect as location and 
maintenance fees are deposited directly to the Treasury and are to be 
used as an offset to BLM's appropriation, up to a certain ceiling. The 
purpose for the maintenance fee is to replace the $100 assessment work 
requirement in the Mining Law. The assessment work requirement was 
intended to show a mining claimant's bona fides in exploring for or 
developing minerals. Similarly, the location fee is intended to 
discourage speculative filings of mining claims. Consequently, the 
fundamental purpose for those fees is not for cost recovery.
    The Interior Department's appropriation act specifies two purposes 
for which BLM can use mining claim fees. First, Congress has directed 
that a set amount of mining claim fees be used to cover the costs of 
administering the mining claim fee program. The mining claim fee 
program is the program under which BLM collects and processes the $125 
claim maintenance fee and the location fee. We did not propose and have 
not adopted any additional processing fee for collecting and processing 
the statutory mining claim fees. Although the terminology may appear 
similar (the word ``location'' is used in both), the fee this rule 
imposes for processing location notices is intended to cover BLM's 
processing costs related to the statutory filing requirement imposed by 
FLPMA Section 314 (43 U.S.C. 1744), and is unrelated to the collection 
of the statutorily imposed location fee.
    Second, Congress has directed that the bulk of the appropriation 
that is offset by mining claim fees be used for the MLAP generally This 
appropriation has averaged approximately $34 million a year for the 
past few years, and is used for the entire range of administrative 
costs incurred by the MLAP; it has historically been inadequate to 
operate all aspects of the program. In the past, BLM has used 
appropriated funds to cover the processing costs of documents when no 
processing fees were being charged. The fact that general Mining Law 
Program funds were used to cover these costs in the past, however, does 
not mean that these costs ``should'' be funded from those collections, 
or that BLM cannot now exercise its statutory authority to charge a 
specific processing fee to cover certain document processing costs. 
When general Mining Law Program funds no longer have to be directed to 
cover all processing costs, they can and will be directed to cover 
other aspects of the program.
    The commenter also stated that because claim maintenance fees and 
location fees generate millions of dollars, which will increase as fees 
are increased, BLM should re-evaluate the need to impose additional 
processing fees.
    As is the case with royalties, bonus bids, and rents, Congress 
imposes claim maintenance and location fees for purposes different from 
covering the costs of document processing. BLM cannot predict how much 
money will be collected from these statutory fees or the size of future 
Congressional appropriations for Mining Law administration. In the IOAA 
and FLPMA, Congress has also separately authorized the collection of 
fees to cover the costs of document processing. Those fees are the ones 
that will be collected under this rule.
    One commenter objected to BLM charging for pending documents where 
processing has already begun. The commenter asserted that charging new 
fees on pending documents would constitute an unlawful retroactive 
application of new requirements. The commenter also asserted that 
equitable concerns arise regarding such charges since the charges could 
not have been anticipated and planned for in the planning phase of the 
action. In addition, the commenter stated that often the applicant has 
no control over the pace of document processing, and thus would be 
unfairly punished due to BLM's processing backlogs.
    As discussed earlier in this preamble, BLM will apply both fixed 
and case-by-case fee provisions in this final rule to applications 
submitted after the effective date of this rule, and not to 
applications pending on that date. Although BLM disagrees with the 
characterization of the proposed regulations as retroactive, BLM is 
sensitive to practical concerns relating to applying this rule to 
pending applications, as well as perceived inequities, and has revised 
the rule accordingly.
    Another commenter stated that any cost reimbursement policy should 
prohibit the imposition of significant new processing fees upon the 
lessee or operator of an existing lease, other than future minor filing 
fees, for specific actions such as processing right-of-way 
applications. The commenter asserted that at the time existing leases 
were bid upon and issued, BLM represented by implication and conduct 
that fees would be imposed under existing law and regulation only for 
certain activities, such as rights-of-way, and that other 
administrative costs associated with existing leases were reasonably 
expected to be borne by BLM. The commenter concluded that lessees' bids 
reflected those assumptions.
    BLM rejects the comment. The commenter's assertions are based on 
speculation, not fact. Existing lessees do not have any contractual or 
other basis to be exempt from BLM cost recovery assessments. To the 
contrary, BLM leases typically contain a condition that lessees must 
comply with present and future BLM regulations. The recovery of 
processing costs by government agencies is not a new phenomenon, and 
BLM's doing so under existing authorities could have been anticipated 
by lessees at the time of lease acquisition.
    Some commenters stated that deadlines are particularly important 
for documents where fees are collected on a case-by-case basis, and 
should be established preliminarily through negotiations between the 
applicant and BLM during the time period when they would be working 
together on the cost estimate.
    This rule does not establish mandatory timelines for processing 
documents. BLM agrees, however, that it would be helpful to all persons 
if BLM and an applicant reach a common understanding as to the 
estimated time when various steps will be achieved.

B. Comments on Oil and Gas Leasing Cost Recovery

    A commenter said that BLM's added costs do not address any 
improvement in services to industry. The commenter stated that by 
increasing fees BLM is attempting to drive up the cost of doing 
business on Federal lands and discourage companies from exploration and 
development of oil and gas.
    A commenter said that poor customer service and long periods to 
process documents by BLM have been long-

[[Page 58863]]

standing industry concerns, and that BLM's budget and staffing have not 
kept up with increasing industry activity. The comment continued that 
this has created delays and permit backlogs. The commenter said these 
issues are more important than ``incremental cost recovery.''
    Several commenters stated that if the price of energy decreases 
they would still be required to pay higher fees for reduced service 
from BLM and less commodity. Several commenters said they had concerns 
with BLM's quality of ``customer service.'' Others stated that the 
proposed cost recovery rule is contrary to the new National Energy 
Plan; and an impediment to domestic oil and gas exploration and 
development.
    BLM takes seriously its customer service obligations, and is 
constantly looking to improve the means by which it addresses permit 
processing and its other program responsibilities. To the extent moneys 
recovered from processing fees are directed back to the offices from 
which they were collected, we hope this will serve to maintain or 
enhance the level of service that BLM provides.
    We disagree that processing fees should decrease if the price of 
energy decreases. A processing fee covers the cost of a service that 
provides a benefit to the applicant and should be considered by the 
applicant as equivalent to any other cost of doing business. BLM's 
costs to process documents submitted by an applicant are unrelated to 
market fluctuations. Just as fees will not increase due to market 
upswings, they will not decrease due to market declines. BLM's economic 
analysis indicates that the new fees will not be an impediment to 
domestic oil and gas or other mineral development. The fees are minor 
in the context of the overall energy market.
    Some commenters stated that these fee increases could result in 
operators not filing assignments and transfers with BLM. Another 
commenter said that the current fees are considerably higher when 
compared to those charged by local governments and private industry for 
similar services, and in order for operators to have good title to any 
oil and gas lease, the leases and transfers must be recorded in the 
county. The commenter continued that, because BLM requires a second set 
of records on BLM-prescribed forms to be filed with field offices, 
operators must undertake expensive curative title work when BLM records 
do not match the county records.
    BLM disagrees that an increase in fees would result in operators 
not filing assignments and transfers with BLM. In accordance with 
statutory requirements, including the MLA, BLM must approve title 
transfers and, until they are approved, the transfer is not effective 
regardless of any private agreements between parties. While we 
appreciate the commenters' concern about a second set of title records, 
this is required by statute. Earlier in this preamble we have addressed 
the relationship between BLM fees and state and local fees.
    A commenter said that BLM must set minimum fees that reflect the 
lesser of the reasonable or actual BLM administrative costs to conduct 
a pre-lease EA and promptly issue the lease. The commenter urged that 
any cost recovery program provide the lessee with a schedule of maximum 
fees and a time period for payment.
    We agree that under FLPMA, BLM's fees must be based on the lesser 
of reasonable or actual costs. The fees in this rule were determined 
after a consideration of all of the FLPMA factors and reflect BLM's 
reasonable costs. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (70 
FR 41540), the fixed fees for oil and gas leasing in this rule do not 
include the steps required to prepare an individual sale parcel before 
preparing the sale notice, such as earlier NEPA costs, even though such 
costs are recoverable. The fees are based on costs that BLM incurs from 
the point of preparing the sale notice. Unless there is a unique cost 
that would cause the conversion of the fixed fee to a case-by-case fee, 
the fees are established in the schedule in this rule.
    A commenter asked BLM to return a portion of all revenues back to 
BLM districts based on the level of oil and gas activities in the 
district.
    BLM is establishing a procedure through which the fees collected 
will go back to the office from which they were generated.
    Some commenters asked BLM to abandon all case-by-case fees for oil 
and gas operations on Federal land.
    BLM proposed case-by-case fees for certain oil and gas transactions 
in the 2000 proposed rule on cost recovery. However, they were not in 
the 2005 proposed rule, and they are not in this final rule.
    Another commenter stated that the fee increases would be acceptable 
if the fees covered expenses that the operator has incurred. However, 
according to the commenter, many environmental, social, and economic 
issues have to be reviewed before land is listed in public auctions. 
The commenter said that these reviews are for the benefit of the 
public, and that it would be unfair to pass these costs on to the user 
and accuse users of causing this expense.
    The fees in this final rule for BLM's oil and gas program do not 
include the environmental, social, and economic costs that BLM incurs 
before land is listed in public auctions. As was stated in the 
preambles to both the 2000 and 2005 proposed rules, we may propose in 
future rulemaking to recover those costs. As explained earlier in this 
preamble, these reviews are associated with a special benefit to an 
identifiable beneficiary and are recoverable under FLPMA and the IOAA.
    A commenter stated that BLM's authority to impose cost recovery is 
discretionary, not required by statute. The commenter said that 
previous administrations chose not to impose this cost recovery 
proposal on oil and gas operators and lessees for sound public policy 
reasons and urged BLM to continue this policy and reconsider the 
proposed rule in its entirety.
    Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency may change its 
policy if such changes have a rational basis and are supported by law. 
BLM has explained both its basis and purpose and the legal authority 
supporting this rule.
    A commenter said that the transfer-of-operating-rights fees are 
inappropriate because the documents are not adjudicated, but only 
filed.
    While operating rights transfers do not involve the same 
adjudicative processing steps as other documents, BLM must still review 
these documents for legal adequacy, and the cost recovery fee is 
appropriate.

C. Comments on Geothermal Leasing Cost Recovery

    A commenter asked if we have considered fee increases from a 
national strategic energy viewpoint. For example, according to the 
comment, increased geothermal production from Federal lands would 
address the local energy shortages in the West in an environmentally 
benign way. The commenter therefore questions whether BLM should 
increase such fees.
    As mentioned earlier in this preamble, this final rule does not 
include processing fees for geothermal permits to drill or geothermal 
exploration permits. Any remaining geothermal fees established by this 
rule will not hinder geothermal development.

D. Comments on Coal Leasing Cost Recovery

    A commenter suggested that BLM offset the processing fees for a 
competitive coal lease by an equivalent

[[Page 58864]]

reduction in the fair market value bid for the lease.
    Prospective bidders independently determine what they consider the 
fair market value of a coal lease to be. Companies will take all costs, 
including processing costs, into account when bidding. BLM will do the 
same when it makes its pre-lease determination of a minimum acceptable 
bid. Fair market value cannot be further reduced by the amount of 
processing costs, since those were already taken into account by the 
market. Also, Congress authorized the recovery of both fair market 
value and processing fees.
    A commenter stated that BLM did not consider how the final rule 
would determine fees when the same or similar activity has been 
undertaken by another Federal or state agency with regard to the same 
transaction. The commenter stated that BLM should withdraw the rule 
until this issue is addressed.
    To the greatest extent possible, BLM and other Federal agencies 
make diligent efforts to reduce or eliminate duplicative Federal or 
state requirements. This reduces the work burden for the agencies and 
provides better service to our customers. BLM and the Office of Surface 
Mining (OSM) have eliminated as many duplications of effort as 
possible. Moreover, in determining the fixed fees in this rule, we 
averaged our processing costs based on a survey of our actual costs 
(which included only our review time) plus consideration of the 
reasonableness factors. For the case-by-case fees, we will charge only 
for the time it actually takes BLM to process the document.
    The commenter raised an issue about Resource Recovery and 
Protection Plans (R2P2). There are no fees currently assessed or 
proposed to be assessed for BLM to process an R2P2 for a Federal lease.
    As stated in the preamble to the 2005 proposed rule at 70 FR 41536, 
at the time BLM was preparing the proposed rule for publication, BLM 
became aware that the case-by-case procedures outlined in proposed 
section 3000.11 were not appropriate for fees charged to the successful 
bidder in a lease sale or mineral materials sale context. Because a 
competitive sale requires BLM to perform work before conducting the 
sale, and BLM has the ability to track associated processing costs, the 
preamble to the 2005 proposed rule stated that it is our intent to 
include in the final rule a different set of procedures for charging a 
case-by-case fee to the successful bidder in the context of coal lease 
sales, solid mineral lease sales, and competitive mineral materials 
sales. Although the 2005 proposed rule contained revisions to sections 
3473.2, 3508.21, and 3602.44, the proposed revisions did not address 
procedures for charging case-by-case fees to successful bidders, 
including situations in which the applicant is not the successful 
bidder. The final rule provides more extensive revisions to those 
sections as well as to related sections. These changes are described in 
an earlier section of this preamble.
    One commenter suggested that BLM provide a mechanism whereby an 
unsuccessful bidder for a coal lease is not assessed any of the 
processing fees for the lease sale.
    BLM agrees. As described above, the final rule requires the 
successful bidder to pay lease sale processing costs that BLM incurs.
    A commenter asked BLM to clarify what happens when proprietary data 
is collected through activities that are covered by cost recovery. The 
commenter asked that BLM consider revising the regulation by 
incorporating mechanisms to ensure that any baseline data or 
information collected or contracted for collection by the applicant 
that is in excess of that information specifically required for 
applications would remain the property of the applicant, regardless of 
the outcome of the application process.
    BLM will protect proprietary information in its possession to the 
extent provided under applicable law.
    One commenter asserted that having an open-ended case-by-case cost 
recovery determination with no cap could easily create a disincentive 
to the coal lease modification process. The commenter stated that coal 
lease modifications are designed to maximize the recovery of the coal 
resources by allowing for a quick process and procedure to incorporate 
coal that cannot or will not be mined by anyone else into an existing 
coal lease. The commenter stated that BLM should encourage this 
practice, and that, in most instances, the additional royalties and 
bonus bids received more than offset the cost of processing these lease 
modifications.
    BLM disagrees with this comment. We do not view a case-by-case fee 
as opposed to a fixed fee as a disincentive to filing an application 
for a coal lease modification. A lease modification is intended to 
provide the lessee an opportunity to obtain non-competitively adjoining 
tracts of coal that would otherwise be bypassed and that are not 
independently commercially viable. Other than not requiring a 
competitive lease sale and related public hearings on fair market value 
and maximum economic recovery, processing a lease modification 
application mirrors the processing steps associated with a competitive 
lease sale. The distinction between royalties and bonuses on the one 
hand and processing costs on the other was discussed earlier in this 
preamble. See also the earlier comment response in this preamble 
regarding the amounts and procedures related to case-by-case fees.
    One commenter stated that a royalty rate reduction is an important 
component if a company reaches a critical financial or operational 
stage of their operation, and that if an operation is losing money and 
potentially facing closure of the property, then the Federal Government 
is also at risk of losing Federal mineral royalty income. The commenter 
stated that an open-ended case-by-case cost recovery process with no 
cap could be a big disincentive for a struggling company to overcome.
    BLM disagrees with this comment. The commenter speculates as to the 
impact of the cost recovery process on a company requesting a royalty 
rate reduction. If a company requesting a royalty rate reduction 
objects to the cost estimate that BLM provides in a case-by-case cost 
recovery situation, it may appeal. BLM will apply the FLPMA 
reasonableness factors in setting cost recovery fees in case-by-case 
situations, as it applied them in setting the fixed fees in this rule. 
The authority for a royalty rate reduction (30 U.S.C. 209) does not 
address processing the royalty rate reduction applications. The MLA 
provides no authority to waive, suspend, or reduce recovery of 
processing costs. BLM will, of course, in its application of the FLPMA 
reasonableness factors, consider the facts that were presented in 
support of a royalty rate reduction.
    One commenter stated that the proposed rule fails to recognize that 
applicants sometimes voluntarily pay for approved third-party 
contractors to perform studies to avoid certain delays associated with 
BLM processing of these documents. For example, the commenter stated, 
many applicants operating under the MLA pay BLM-approved third-party 
contractors to prepare the EISs associated with their leasing 
application.
    BLM acknowledges that applicants have voluntarily paid for the 
preparation of an EIS for many actions to expedite the processing of 
that action. We anticipate that a similar process may continue under 
these regulations. Under this rule, if BLM pays for the preparation of 
studies such as an EIS, BLM's preparation costs will be included in the 
costs charged for case-by-case processing. If the coal lease

[[Page 58865]]

applicant pays a third party directly for the preparation of an EIS, 
for instance, these regulations do not provide that the applicant will 
be reimbursed if the applicant is not the successful bidder. The coal 
lease applicant will have the choice whether to pay a third party 
directly for the preparation of the environmental study or to have BLM 
fund the study, the cost of which, including BLM contracting costs, 
will be part of the fee charged to the successful bidder.

E. Comments on Cost Recovery for Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than 
Coal

    Comments received regarding leasing solid minerals other than coal 
were general in nature and have been addressed in the General Comments 
section earlier in this preamble.

F. Comments on Cost Recovery for Mineral Materials Sales

    Most comments received regarding mineral materials sales were 
general in nature and have been addressed in the General Comments 
section earlier in this preamble.
    One commenter inquired as to whether mineral materials free use 
permits will be subject to cost recovery fees.
    Under this final rule, processing fees do not apply to free use 
permits issued under 43 CFR subpart 3604.

G. Comments on Cost Recovery for Mining Law Administration

    A commenter suggested that the fees under part 3860 be dropped in 
the final rule and that if and when patents are allowed in the future 
BLM should consider cost recovery fees at that time.
    BLM has established the fees relating to mineral patent 
applications so that they will be in place if Congress chooses to lift 
the current moratorium on issuing mineral patents.
    Some commenters said they opposed the proposed fee changes because 
mining claimants have a stake in the patent process and, therefore, 
those who have paid for the patent process should not be charged 
additional fees.
    BLM disagrees that steps that an applicant must take to qualify for 
a patent can substitute for BLM's recovery of its processing costs.
    A commenter said the proposed rule conflicts with BLM's published 
policy on when and under what circumstances a validity or common 
variety mineral examination will be required.
    This rule does not change the existing published policy concerning 
when mineral examinations are performed. It only requires that cost 
recovery be initiated if a validity or common variety mineral 
examination is performed under 43 CFR 3809.100 and 3809.101.
    A commenter noted that BLM recently reported to Congress that BLM 
processes most PoOs within six months, with some plans taking longer to 
process. The commenter suggested that, because BLM thus processes most 
PoOs in an efficient manner, it is not justified in imposing cost 
recovery fees. It also suggested that if BLM had needed additional 
funds to process PoOs, it would have mentioned that in its report. The 
commenter suggested that because most PoOs are processed within six 
months, it would be reasonable and more efficient for BLM to establish 
a fixed processing fee for PoOs. Based on BLM's report that it 
processes most PoOs within six months and the failure of the report to 
express a need for additional funds, the commenter contended that it is 
inappropriate for BLM to assert in the July 2005 proposed rule a need 
to increase fees. Another commenter suggested that the BLM be required 
to demonstrate that the currently available fee and other subsidies are 
insufficient.
    BLM disagrees with the commenters. The fact that BLM reported that 
it processes most PoOs within six months has no bearing on whether BLM 
recovers its processing costs. Whether or not a report to Congress 
stated that BLM ``needs'' additional funds in order to efficiently 
process PoOs is also not a determining factor in BLM's cost recovery 
effort. The report was prepared in response to a Congressional 
directive to create a PoO tracking system, report on how long it took 
BLM to process PoOs, and describe ways in which BLM's processing time 
could improve. It was not intended to address BLM's cost recovery 
efforts. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the 
Department's OIG has determined that BLM should be recovering the costs 
included in this rule, and both the OMB, in Circular A-25, and the 
Secretary of the Interior, in the Departmental Manual, have directed 
that BLM should assess charges against identifiable recipients for 
special benefits. That is what BLM is doing in this rule. It needs to 
be recognized that PoOs that are processed within six months are those 
that require only an EA, not those that require an EIS. BLM agrees that 
it may be reasonable and efficient to set a fixed fee for PoOs that are 
authorized under an EA. However, in this rule BLM is not charging any 
fee for PoOs that are authorized under an EA. The rule imposes a fee, 
on a case-by-case basis, only for PoOs that require the preparation of 
an EIS. Case-by-case fees are appropriate for PoOs that require an EIS 
because of the significant variability in costs that may occur in the 
preparation of EISs and associated studies. We will consider whether to 
propose fees for PoOs that are authorized under an EA, and may propose 
a future rule on the subject.
    Commenters also asserted that applicants for PoOs and other types 
of applications already typically pay significant costs by hiring 
third-party contractors to prepare the NEPA documentation, and often 
subsidize a BLM employee or retain a contractor to work as a project 
coordinator. In light of these costs already often borne by applicants, 
commenters contend that companies should not be required to subsidize 
additional costs, and that any additional costs should be covered by 
claim location and maintenance fees.
    BLM recognizes that many companies have incurred financial 
expenditures related to processing PoOs. Such payments to third parties 
will not be included in BLM's case-by-case fees. The fee will only 
include costs that BLM incurs. BLM statutory responsibilities require 
that it independently review any analysis performed by an outside 
contractor. This review is an integral part of the processing required 
before BLM can act on an application. It is therefore reasonable and 
necessary that BLM consider the review costs in calculating its costs 
for processing a document, notwithstanding that a company may have 
incurred other expenses related to processing. We have addressed 
earlier in this preamble the relationship between claim location and 
maintenance fees and processing costs.
    Another commenter was concerned that the procedure in proposed 
section 3000.11(b)(2) under which BLM will not process documents until 
BLM gives the applicant a written estimate of costs will not work in 
situations where BLM has to begin processing an application in order to 
decide whether a case-by-case fee will be imposed. The commenter used 
as an example that when BLM receives a mining PoO application, it must 
begin processing to determine whether an EIS is required.
    The estimate that BLM provides under section 3000.11(b) precedes 
any case processing. However, if the initial estimate under section 
3000.11(b)(4) needs to be revised, the rule provides that BLM will re-
estimate its reasonable processing costs under section 
3000.11(b)(4)(i). There is no fee in this rule for BLM's processing of 
a PoO that does not require an EIS. Therefore, the processing that BLM 
performs up to the point where a decision is made that an EIS will or 
will not be required is not

[[Page 58866]]

charged to the applicant. In response to this and other comments, we 
have stated earlier in this preamble that when a determination is made 
during the processing of a PoO that an EIS is required, the processing 
costs will be tracked and charged to the applicant on a case-by-case 
basis only from that point forward. This same principle applies when a 
fixed fee is changed to a case-by-case fee under section 3000.11(a).
    A commenter said that third parties should not be permitted to 
appeal a BLM cost estimate because this could be used by opponents of 
the project as a delaying tactic.
    It is clear from the context of the regulatory text at section 
3000.11(b)(7), and confirmed by the preamble discussion in the proposed 
rule at 70 FR 41536-37, that only applicants may appeal a BLM cost 
estimate made under section 3000.11(b)(4).
    Several commenters expressed opposition to BLM's proposed case-by-
case fees because activities associated with case-by-case fee 
processing will add costs, especially when BLM has to re-evaluate cost 
estimates.
    BLM appreciates the commenters' concern. However, we have not made 
changes to the final rule based on this comment. Means exist to keep 
costs down. For instance, an applicant should submit an application as 
complete as possible to allow BLM to provide an accurate initial cost 
estimate and to reduce BLM's processing costs. BLM already uses an 
automatic accounting system to streamline this process.
    Commenters stated that a paying party should be permitted to audit 
BLM's accounting in case-by-case situations.
    BLM disagrees that a paying party needs to audit BLM's accounting 
in case-by-case situations. The process has been set up to provide 
estimates as close as possible to actual costs, with re-estimates if 
BLM encounters higher or lower costs than anticipated. The applicant 
may appeal BLM's estimates. The process provides that the applicant may 
comment on BLM's written estimate of costs before BLM provides a final 
estimate.
    A commenter stated that section 3800.5 contains provisions 
requiring applicants to pay for EISs and validity examinations if the 
Field Office requires them, and asserted that if the application is for 
a simple PoO, BLM has enough control to prevent severe environmental 
degradation.
    It appears that this comment addresses PoOs that do not require an 
EIS. This rule does not impose cost recovery for processing PoOs that 
do not require an EIS. We note that validity examinations are not 
directly related to preventing severe environmental degradation.
    A commenter stated that the proposed rule is inconsistent with the 
Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970, and that BLM should demonstrate 
that the proposed rule is consistent with the Act.
    The Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a) is a 
statement of Congressional policy relating to the benefits of mineral 
production to our society. BLM continues to support a healthy domestic 
mining industry. This rule is not expected to affect the nation's 
domestic mining industry adversely.
    A commenter raised the findings of a 2001 General Accounting Office 
(now the Government Accountability Office--GAO) Report titled 
``Improper Charges Made to the Mining Law Administration Program'' 
(GAO-010356), which stated BLM employees had improperly coded various 
activities to the MLAP, potentially resulting in an overcharge of about 
$1.2 million. The commenter asked BLM to withdraw the fee proposals 
until BLM implements appropriate training programs and provides 
detailed guidance.
    BLM has remedied the problems the commenter identified. In fiscal 
year 2002, BLM removed all pertinent moneys from the State Offices that 
had miscoded the funds and placed these moneys into a central BLM 
account. BLM modernized its computer system for the field offices to 
use specifically for the surface management program and provided 
additional training courses at BLM's National Training Center for its 
mineral specialists that work in the surface management and mineral 
examination programs. In the same manner, additional training courses 
were held for BLM's adjudication staff that process mining claim 
documents and files.
    A commenter recommended that the GAO evaluate BLM's need for cost 
recovery.
    As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, OIG reports in 
the 1980s and 1990s examined BLM's need for cost recovery for 
processing minerals-related documents. The OIG recommended that BLM 
establish and collect processing fees for all non-exempt types of 
documents. We believe this independent OIG report provides a sufficient 
audit of BLM activities related to minerals cost recovery. We do not 
believe any further audits are necessary before BLM goes forward with 
this rule.
    A commenter said that an $80.00 processing fee to file a petition 
for deferment is inappropriate for the time required to determine 
whether an application is valid.
    We disagree with the commenter's view of the work involved in 
determining whether a petition meets the regulatory requirements. 
Processing a petition for a deferment is time-consuming, as there are 
several steps involved in processing the document, including verifying 
the reason for the deferment. BLM must issue a formal decision and 
properly note the official records, costing the BLM both staff time and 
expenditure of operations funds.
    A commenter opposed the proposed fees for non-patent validity 
exams, stating that these reports are being initiated by the agency to 
challenge the validity of the claim.
    It is BLM's responsibility under its regulations to confirm the 
validity of a claim, including making a common variety determination, 
before allowing operations to proceed on withdrawn or segregated land, 
and in circumstances where the mineral claimed may not be locatable. 
See 43 CFR sections 3809.100 and 3809.101. The mining claimant is the 
beneficiary, as the examination enables BLM to act on the application.
    A commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule indicates that 
BLM is going to perform mineral validity exams for most PoOs and 
Notices.
    As discussed earlier in this preamble, we have clarified section 
3800.5 to address this concern. Nothing in this rule changes BLM's 
policies on when it conducts a mineral examination.
    A commenter noted that DOI published new policies on NEPA recently. 
They stated that in view of these policies and procedures, if BLM 
proceeds with this proposal for case-by-case fees for processing PoOs 
requiring preparation of an EIS, BLM needs to ensure that it will 
comply with its own policies and procedures implementing NEPA.
    This rule does not affect BLM's obligation to comply with NEPA. 
BLM's policies concerning NEPA compliance are controlled by the 
regulations and guidelines issued by the Council on Environmental 
Quality, applicable Departmental policy, and other applicable law.
    A commenter questioned the interplay between the proposed rule at 
section 3800.5(b) and the current regulations at section 3809.101. The 
commenter stated that under the proposed rule, if the applicant 
believes that uncommon variety minerals exist on its claim, it must 
first pay a case-by-case processing fee to conduct a validity 
examination as well as pay a processing fee on a case-by-case basis for 
processing a PoO. The commenter stated that discovery of minerals 
falling outside the ``common variety mineral''

[[Page 58867]]

classification should exempt the claimant from the requirement of a 
validity examination, and that the final rule should clarify this 
situation.
    This rule does not impose a fee for processing PoOs that do not 
require an EIS. BLM would require the applicant to pay a case-by-case 
fee for a common variety determination under 43 CFR 3809.101 only when 
a question exists as to whether the mineral to be extracted is 
locatable under the Mining Law of 1872. If the claimant submits 
sufficient information to BLM that the mineral material is uncommon or 
that there is clearly a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit upon 
the claims, then the issue may be resolved without proceeding to a 
formal mineral examination. In this instance, the case-by-case cost 
will be minimal.
    A commenter asked BLM to provide assurances that we will not decide 
that all PoOs require an EIS merely to allow BLM to recoup all its 
processing costs.
    BLM is not revising the existing procedures and protocols for 
determining if an EIS is needed. Existing Council on Environmental 
Quality, DOI, and BLM guidance determines when an EIS is required.
    A commenter stated that BLM might use these new fees as an 
administrative tool to drive out holders of valid existing rights under 
the Mining Law.
    BLM does not believe this rule will adversely affect those who hold 
valid existing rights to any significant degree. The rule is not 
intended to deny or extinguish prior existing rights. These fees are 
set at reasonable levels based on the FLPMA Section 304(b) factors as 
explained in the preamble of the proposed rule. (70 FR 41537-41543). 
For a discussion of the possible impact of this rule on the validity of 
mining claims, see 70 FR 41538.
    A commenter stated that imposing a mineral patent adjudication fee 
of $2,290 where none had been required is not reasonable. Several other 
commenters objected to the fee structure proposed for mineral patent 
applications, saying that a fixed fee for a patent application 
regardless of the number of claims is unfair to smaller operations 
involving fewer than 40 claims. Likewise, they contended that it 
unfairly benefits large operators that apply for patents on large claim 
blocks. The comment concluded that BLM should retain the current 
``sliding scale'' fee.
    In response to these comments, we amended the mining claim patent 
application adjudication fee so that patent applications covering 10 or 
fewer claims will be charged only half the cost recovery fee that 
applications with more than 10 claims will be charged. We selected the 
10-claim threshold because that is the number Congress chose to define 
the class of miners who may perform assessment work in lieu of paying 
the claim maintenance fee. The adjudication fee in the proposed rule 
was a fixed fee based on a weighted average of BLM's adjudication 
costs. We believe that the commenters may have a valid concern and that 
it may be more reasonable to base the adjudication fees on the per 
claim costs depending on how many claims are included in an 
application. BLM plans to reassess its costs of adjudication and may 
propose a revision to this fee in the future. In this final rule, we 
decided that it was reasonable to phase in the adjudication fee for 
patent applications that contain 10 or fewer claims. A discussion of 
phasing in fees is contained in the preamble to the proposed rule at 70 
FR 41533. This rule contains the first step of this phased-in fee.
    A commenter said the fact that acquiring a patent is voluntary and 
not required by law does not justify imposing a fee.
    We agree that the mere fact that acquiring a patent is voluntary is 
not a justification for requiring a processing fee. All processing fees 
in this rule, including those related to patent applications, are based 
on special benefits to identifiable beneficiaries beyond those provided 
to the general public. BLM's review of a patent application provides a 
special benefit to the applicant.
    The commenter asked that the final rule clarify whether subpart 
3809 notices are exempt from fees because they are not Federal actions.
    Under this final rule, we are not charging fees for reviewing 
notices except where a validity examination is performed. As explained 
in Solicitor's Opinion M-36987 (Dec. 5, 1996) at page 25, ``[f]iling a 
notice under this section triggers agency review, which provides a 
special benefit to an identifiable recipient. BLM thus has authority to 
recover the agency costs of processing notices * * *.'' However, under 
section 3800.5(b) of the final rule, we are only exercising this 
authority in the limited context of validity examinations performed in 
connection with notices.
    A commenter said that BLM's proposed fixed fees, such as $2,290 for 
Mineral Patent Adjudication, that are not appealable violate their 
right to due process, and non-appealable fees must be set at a low and 
reasonable amount.
    BLM disagrees that the fixed fees violate due process. The fees 
were published in a proposed rule that allowed for public comment, and 
this final rule, including the fixed fees, is subject to challenge. The 
fee for a mineral patent adjudication is based on BLM's average costs. 
In the preamble to the proposed rule, we listed the processing steps 
involved in a mineral patent adjudication (70 FR 41539). As explained 
earlier in this preamble, in response to other comments, we have 
revised the final rule to phase in the processing fee for mineral 
patent adjudications that include 10 or fewer claims.
    One commenter raised a question regarding how BLM should proceed in 
a specific situation in which an escrow account was set up under 43 CFR 
part 3809.
    The comment addressed a hypothetical factual dispute following a 
specific IBLA decision and was not directly related to the processing 
fees imposed by this rule.
    A commenter stated that the cost recovery regulations would result 
in sanctions or penalties on persons who propose mining operations 
rather than charging mineral claimants for special benefits.
    The fees in this rule are not penalties. They are intended to 
recover BLM's reasonable costs of processing associated with special 
benefits to identifiable beneficiaries and are recoverable under FLPMA 
and the IOAA.
    A commenter stated that most of the costs the rule would recover 
are the result of laws and regulations specifically created to protect 
the public. Therefore, according to the commenter, the public should be 
paying these costs with their tax dollars.
    As discussed earlier in this preamble, the actions for which BLM 
will recover costs under this rule are undertaken as a direct result of 
an application that will provide a special benefit to the applicant. 
Any incidental benefit that BLM's processing actions may also provide 
to the public was considered as part of BLM's consideration of the 
FLPMA reasonableness factors for the fixed fees, and will be considered 
on an individual basis for the case-by-case fees.
    One commenter supported fee increases, saying that taxpayers should 
not subsidize mining and mineral companies. The commenter also asserted 
that the 1872 Mining Law should be replaced with new provisions 
requiring mining companies to pay the full cost of associated expenses 
when they benefit from mining activity.
    This rule implements recovery of some of the costs of processing 
documents associated with mineral activities on the public lands. It is 
not

[[Page 58868]]

necessary to change the 1872 Mining Law to implement these cost 
recovery fees.
    A commenter stated that BLM should remove section 3000.11, 
asserting that the inadequacy of BLM's funding should not prevent an 
applicant's document from being processed.
    The commenter appears to have misinterpreted section 
3000.11(b)(4)(ii), which provides that if BLM determines that a case-
by-case fee will be set at an amount less than BLM's actual costs due 
to the FLPMA reasonableness factors, and BLM does not have sufficient 
appropriated funds available to process the document immediately, an 
applicant has the option of paying BLM's actual costs (unreduced by 
FLPMA factor considerations), which would enable BLM to process the 
document without waiting for additional appropriated funds. If an 
applicant does not wish to pay actual costs, BLM will process the 
document as soon as it is able. We do not expect that this situation 
will arise often. Many companies now pay actual costs for the 
preparation of environmental studies in connection with an application. 
We included this option to allow applicants to continue that practice 
if they wish to do so.

IV. Procedural Matters

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    OMB has determined that this final rule is a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866. BLM has determined that the 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 rule. For instructions on how to view 
a copy of the analysis, please contact one of the persons list under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    This rule will not create inconsistencies or otherwise interfere 
with an action taken or planned by another agency. This 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 rule.
    In addition, this final rule does not materially affect the 
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, loan programs, or the rights 
and obligations of their recipients. However, this rule does propose to 
increase existing fees, and create new fees, for processing documents 
associated with the onshore minerals programs. This occurs 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, 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.
    The OIG reports documented the budgetary impact of delaying 
collection of fees to reimburse agency costs, and strongly admonished 
BLM to collect the fees in this final rule. Finally, this rule will not 
raise novel legal issues. The minerals industry may object, but the 
legal issues are not novel. Circular A-25 and the Departmental Manual 
require the collection of processing fees. The rule does implement new 
policy for the minerals programs.
    A commenter stated that the proposed rule violates Executive Order 
12866 by ignoring the ``costs and benefits'' of mineral development, 
such as the huge financial risk to the developer and huge benefits 
these minerals provide to society.
    We disagree that BLM ignored the costs and benefits of this rule. 
We have estimated the cost of the rule, in the form of higher fees, to 
be approximately $7 million annually. BLM has also concluded that there 
would be no measurable reduction in economic activity due to these 
fees. BLM also noted that by instituting cost recovery, the rule 
ensures that the applicants bear the cost of processing applications, 
rather than the general public. The preamble to the proposed rule 
explained that waiving or reducing these fees would simply mean that 
United States taxpayers would bear the costs that the applicant who 
directly benefits was not bearing. The benefits to the taxpaying public 
that underlie the statutory authorizations and policy mandates for cost 
recovery, weighed against the costs to the applicants who benefit from 
the processing activities, in light of BLM's determination that the 
fees would cause no measurable reduction in economic activity, support 
this final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis was not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide 
is not required.
    For the purposes of this discussion, 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 most of the operators that BLM works with in the onshore 
minerals programs to be small entities. BLM notes that this rule does 
not apply to service industries, for which the SBA has a different 
definition of ``small entity.''
    BLM is aware that this 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 
final rule, except for mineral materials, when the total fee increases 
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 the increases will have no measurable effect on 
these entities. We completed a threshold analysis, which is available 
for public review at the address stated under ADDRESSES. The Threshold 
Analysis BLM prepared for the proposed rule of July 19, 2005, has been 
updated to reflect changes made in this final rule. These included 
adjusting the fixed fees and estimated case-by-case costs for 
inflation, and incorporating more current firm and receipt data 
published by the U.S. Bureau of Census, U.S. Minerals Management 
Service, and BLM into the analysis.
    In the area of mineral materials, the fee increases only apply to 
exclusive mineral materials sales. The fee increases do not apply to 
nonexclusive sale applications (community pits and common use areas) or 
to free use permit applications. The fee increases are estimated to be 
12.82 percent of the reported production value for exclusive mineral 
materials sales. (In the analysis conducted for the proposed rule, we 
reported the fee increases for exclusive

[[Page 58869]]

mineral materials sales to be 25.65 percent of the reported production 
data for 1997. For the revised analysis for the final rule, we were 
able to obtain 2002 production data. This dramatic reduction to 12.82 
percent is due to the significant increase in mineral materials 
production value coming from Federal lands. In 1997, mineral material 
production value from Federal lands was approximately $3.6 million. For 
2002, the reported production value was over $7.4 million.) Without 
further analysis, this percentage might 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 fee increases is that mineral materials are sold for fair market 
value. To the extent the fees in the final rule 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 potentially resulting in no effect on operators, including small 
entities, on Federal lands.
    We note that in all areas, most of the fees are charged only once 
and, 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 reflect the new or increased 
costs.
    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).
    One commenter asserted that BLM's Threshold Analysis should have 
looked at Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data to determine the profit 
margin for different mineral sectors, which could be used to determine 
the ability of small entities to pay the new fees and thus whether the 
rule would have a significant impact on small entities. The commenter 
requested that BLM withdraw the proposed rule and re-conduct its 
Threshold Analysis.
    In response to this comment, between the publication of the 
proposed rule and the publication of this final rule, BLM reviewed the 
most recent IRS tax return information for corporations operating 
within the mining sector. The IRS data was not broken down by number of 
employees and thus could not be exactly correlated with the SBA 
definition of small entities. The data could, however, be analyzed on 
the basis of reported assets, and we therefore evaluated that data and 
compared the fee increases to reported net income by groupings based on 
dollar value of assets.
    The analysis we originally performed, based on a comparison of fee 
increases to receipts, showed that, for all minerals areas except 
mineral materials, the fee increases in this rule are less than 1% of 
receipts from Federal lands. The more recent review, based on similar 
IRS data, corroborates our conclusion that fees will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
complete Threshold Analysis is available for public review at the 
address stated under ADDRESSES. Some commenters expressed their 
opposition to the proposed rule because they asserted that it would 
place an unfair regulatory and financial burden on small miners. Some 
commenters asserted that BLM's conclusion that the proposed rule would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities was based on an inadequate, incomplete, and flawed Threshold 
Analysis, and therefore a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required.
    We have analyzed the impact of this rule on small miners involved 
in the exploration and development of energy and mineral resources on 
Federal lands based on the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 
guidance, including SBA's definition of small entities. In the analysis 
we first identified number of firms and reported receipts by firm size 
(based on number of employees) for entities involved in the exploration 
and extraction of energy and mineral resources in the United States. 
This data enabled us to identify the number of firms that qualify as 
small entities under the SBA definition and the receipts of those 
firms. This national data was obtained from the most recent industrial 
statistical data available from the U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/csd/susb).
    Next, we identified receipts generated from energy and mineral 
extraction from Federal lands. Receipt data for leasable resources 
(oil, gas, geothermal, coal, and other non-energy resources) was 
obtained from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 
Service, Minerals Revenue 2000, Report of Receipts from Federal and 
Indian Leases (http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Stats/mr.htm), and Reported 
Royalty Revenue Statistics for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2004. Mineral 
materials sales data was obtained from the U.S. Department of the 
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Public Land Statistics, 2002, 
Disposition of Mineral Materials (http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls02/). 
BLM does not systematically collect production or production value 
information for mining activity authorized under the Mining Law of 
1872. Thus, we relied on estimates of production value for locatable 
minerals in our analysis.
    Based on the national numbers of entities involved in the mining 
sector and the number of those that would be classified as small 
entities by SBA, we projected the percentage of revenue that would be 
attributable to small entities operating on Federal lands. To measure 
the annual total fee increase of the fees we relied on the increases in 
the fixed fees, estimated increases for the case-by-case fees, and 
projections of the annual number of filings of each type of 
application. Finally, we compared these total fee increases to the 
receipt information for small mining entities operating on Federal 
lands.
    Based on this analysis, we concluded that the impact of this rule 
will not be disproportionately borne by small entities, including small 
miners, and the impact of fees on small entities, as defined by the 
SBA, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small businesses. In addition, the economic impact of the rule is not 
expected to be significant. We estimate the cost of the rule, in the 
form of higher fees, will be approximately $7 million annually. Because 
BLM has determined and certified that the rule will not significantly 
affect a substantial number of small entities, it is not necessary to 
conduct a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
    One commenter urged BLM to establish limits on fees based on the 
size of the company.
    BLM's Regulatory Flexibility Analysis examined the impact of fees 
on small businesses as defined by the SBA and concluded that they will 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses. Therefore, BLM sees no need to institute separate fees 
based on the size of the company. However, the fees with the highest 
increases are generally those determined on a case-by-case basis. If an 
entity proposes an operation that will be subject to a case-by-case 
fee, the applicant will have the opportunity to request that BLM 
consider a lower fee based on the applicable FLPMA factors. In 
addition, for fees established on a case-by-case basis, the applicant 
may appeal BLM's decision concerning the

[[Page 58870]]

fee amount if the applicant thinks it is unreasonable.
    A commenter opposed BLM's statement in the preamble that ``[t]he 
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.'' (70 FR 41544) The comment stated that this 
indicates that BLM still does not understand the requirements of the 
RFA and SBRFA, and questioned the validity of the RFA.
    The statement cited in the comment was not part of BLM's Regulatory 
Flexibility Act Threshold Analysis, but was included in the preamble to 
the 2005 proposed rule. The statement was intended to express the 
logical assumption that patent applications containing fewer claims 
will most likely require less time for BLM to conduct the mineral 
examination, resulting in lower mineral examination costs.
    A commenter observed that the Threshold Analysis states that 
``significance must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Significance 
should not be viewed in absolute terms, but should be seen as relative 
to the size of the business, the size of the competitor's business, and 
the impact the regulation has on larger competitors.'' The commenter 
submitted that BLM ignored this statement in preparing its RFA 
Threshold Analysis and reached the incorrect conclusion that a 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. The commenter believes 
BLM's use of production value to measure ``significance'' leads to a 
flawed analysis, because all the fees in the proposed rule would be 
imposed and collected many years before a small entity would realize 
production value from a mine. Thus, according to the commenter, 
production value is an inappropriate measure of significance, and using 
production value as a ``proxy'' for a small entity's ability to pay 
skews the analysis toward a finding of ``no significant impact.''
    The Threshold Analysis prepared by BLM to assess the significance 
of the rule on small entities does not rely on absolute terms or 
values. We did estimate the fee increases in absolute terms. However, 
we also compared those absolute fee increases to the firms' reported 
production values. By viewing the fee increases in relation to reported 
production values, by entity size, we were able to arrive at a measure 
of the relative significance of the effect of the fee increases on 
different size business entities.
    We believe that production value is a reasonable measure of the 
significance of the impact on small miners. Revenue generated from the 
production of discovered resources is ultimately the source of income 
for any entity to cover all of its costs, including processing fees. 
While the commenter is correct that many fees must be paid well in 
advance of production, in this regard fees are no different from other 
costs that an entity incurs well in advance of production, such as 
exploration costs and many capital costs.
    A commenter stated that many individual miners or companies have 
significantly fewer than 500 employees, and that BLM did not analyze 
the impact of its proposed rule on what amounts to a significant 
population of the U.S. mining community.
    As discussed above, the Threshold Analysis differentiated between 
receipt information reported for entities with fewer than 500 employees 
and those entities with 500 or more employees. This is the SBA 
definition of a small entity, which is the definition that BLM is 
required to use in its analysis. At the recommendation of a commenter, 
we also reviewed IRS net income information in the revised analysis. 
However, as discussed earlier, the additional analysis is based on 
entities' assets, not number of employees as required by SBA, because 
of the way the IRS data was broken down. However, the subgroup of 
entities with less than $500,000 in assets is likely to be the smallest 
of those entities that would be classified as small entities by SBA. 
The analysis of this subgroup corroborated our conclusion that fees 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    A commenter suggested that BLM needs to include copper, silver, 
lead, zinc, bentonite, and other locatable minerals in its Threshold 
Analysis.
    In our analysis, we included all locatable minerals. We did not 
differentiate between industrial locatable minerals and metallic 
locatable minerals, or by specific mineral or commodity. The commenter 
may have been confused because we used an example that mentioned gold. 
All firms exploring and developing locatable minerals will be subject 
to the same fees, regardless of the mineral located.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined at 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). The rule:
    <bullet> Will not have an annual effect on the economy greater than 
$100 million;
    <bullet> Will not result in major cost or price increases for 
consumers, industries, government agencies, or regions;
    <bullet> Does not have a significant adverse effect on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
    BLM completed a Threshold Analysis for this rule, which is 
available for public review at the address stated under ADDRESSES.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    BLM has determined that this final rule is not significant under 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 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 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 (Takings)

    The final 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 rule does not have 
significant effects on federalism, and therefore a federalism 
assessment is not required. The rule does not change the role or 
responsibilities between Federal, state, and local government entities. 
The rule does not relate to the structure and role of states and will 
not have direct, substantive, or significant effects on states. It may 
result in a slight decrease in bonus bids, which BLM shares 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 final rule does not include policies that have Tribal 
implications. A key factor is whether the rule has substantial direct

[[Page 58871]]

effects on one or more Indian Tribes. 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.
    A few commenters expressed concern that the rule will unduly burden 
the judicial system contrary to Executive Order 12988. They said there 
would be an increase in IBLA appeals based on the increased case-by-
case fees, such as fees associated with validity exams.
    Executive Order 12988 does not apply to administrative appeals to 
the IBLA. Moreover, BLM does not believe that the rule will result in a 
significant increased burden on the judicial system. Although there is 
the possibility that appeals to IBLA will increase, especially during 
early implementation of the final rule, the potential number of 
administrative appeals does not justify removing case-by-case fees from 
the rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements that 
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;
    1004-0034, 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;
    1004-0169, Use and Occupancy;
    1004-0185, Oil and Gas Exploration, Leasing, and Drainage 
Operations; and
    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. BLM will 
file change notices with OMB to reflect the new or changed fees 
established by the final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    BLM has determined that this 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 NEPA, pursuant to 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 2.3A and 
516 DM 2, Appendix 1, Item 1.10.
    In addition, the 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 DOI, 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 been found to have no such effect in 
procedures adopted by a Federal agency and therefore require neither an 
EA nor an EIS.

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

    In accordance with Executive Order 13211, BLM finds that this final 
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 rule.
    Several commenters asserted that the proposed regulation is 
contrary to Executive Order 13211 because the added financial 
disincentives could severely affect the supply and distribution of oil 
and gas, coal, and other energy resources. Some commenters said the 
proposed rule conflicts with E.O. 13211 because implementing these fee 
increases would delay energy projects. Another commenter said that E.O. 
13211 requires BLM to prepare statements of Adverse Energy Effects.
    BLM disagrees. E.O. 13211 requires a Statement of Energy Effects 
for those matters identified as significant energy actions. The Order 
defines a significant energy action as one that is (1) both a 
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, or (2) designated by the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy 
action.
    This rule meets neither of those criteria. It has not been 
designated by OIRA as a significant energy action. Nor is it likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. As discussed earlier in this preamble and in greater detail 
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act Threshold Analysis prepared in 
connection with this rule, any financial disincentives from this rule 
will be very small. Given the relatively high economic value associated 
with the various energy and mineral filings affected by this rule, we 
do not expect that the fees in this rule will cause an entity to cease 
or significantly alter its operations. Nor do we expect the fees to 
delay energy projects. The procedures in the rule for case-by-case fees 
provide that projects can move forward even while a fee is being 
revised or appealed.

Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation

    In accordance with E.O. 13352, BLM has determined that this rule is 
purely administrative and does not affect cooperative conservation. 
This rule takes appropriate account of and considers the interests of 
persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or 
other natural resources because it does not interfere with such 
interests. It is solely a Federal responsibility not involving state or 
local participation, and has no impact on public health and safety.

Authors

    The principal authors of this final rule are: William Gewecke, 
Gordon Hansen, Paul McNutt, Roger Haskins, and Stephen Salzman of the 
Fluid and Solid Minerals Groups, assisted by the Regulatory Affairs 
Group, Bureau of Land Management, DOI, and the Office of the Solicitor, 
DOI.

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,

[[Page 58872]]

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

43 CFR Part 3110

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

43 CFR Part 3120

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

43 CFR Part 3200

    Environmental protection, Geothermal energy, Government contracts, 
Mineral royalties, 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 practice and procedure, Environmental protection, 
Intergovernmental relations, Mines, Public lands--mineral resources, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, 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.

    Dated: September 15, 2005.
Chad Calvert,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

0
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble and the authorities 
stated below BLM amends parts 3000, 3100, 3110, 3120, 3130, 3200, 3470, 
3500, 3600, 3800, 3830, 3833, 3835, 3836, 3860, and 3870 of Title 43 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

Subchapter C--Minerals Management (3000)

PART 3000--MINERALS MANAGEMENT GENERAL

0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 3000 to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., 301-
306, 351-359, and 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

0
2. Add Sec.  3000.10 to read as follows:


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

    (a) Setting fees. 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 of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1734(b)) before deciding a 
fee. BLM considers the factors for each type of document when the 
processing fee is a fixed fee and for each individual document when the 
fee is decided on a case-by-case basis, as explained in Sec.  3000.11.
    (b) Conditions for filing. 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 Sec.  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) Periodic adjustment. We will periodically adjust fees 
established in this subchapter according to change in 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) Timing of fee applicability. (1) For a document BLM receives 
before November 7, 2005, we will not charge a fixed fee or a case-by-
case fee under this subchapter for processing that document, except for 
fees applicable under then-existing regulations.
    (2) For a document BLM receives on or after November 7, 2005, you 
must include required fixed fees with documents you file, as provided 
in Sec.  3000.12(a) of this chapter, and you are subject to case-by-
case processing fees as provided in Sec.  3000.11 of this chapter and 
under other provisions of this chapter.

0
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

[[Page 58873]]

consider the FLPMA Section 304(b) factors.
    (3) You may comment on the proposed fee.
    (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, but we will not stop ongoing processing unless you do 
not pay in accordance with paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
    (ii) If the fee you would pay under this paragraph (b)(4) 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.
    (iii) 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 the regulations in part 4, subpart E, of this title. You may also 
appeal any determination BLM makes under paragraph (a) of this section 
that a document designated for a fixed fee will be processed as a case-
by-case fee. 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.

0
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 and must be included with documents you file under this 
chapter. Fees will be adjusted annually according to the change in the 
Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product (IPD-GDP) by way of 
publication of a final rule 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, 3110, 3120, 3130):
    Noncompetitive lease application.......  $335
    Competitive lease application..........  130
    Assignment and transfer................  75
    Overriding royalty transfer, payment     10
     out of production.
    Name change, corporate merger, or        175
     transfer to heir/devisee.
    Leases consolidation...................  370
    Lease renewal or exchange..............  335
    Lease reinstatement, Class I...........  65
    Leasing under right-of-way.............  335
Geothermal (Part 3200):
    Noncompetitive lease application.......  335
    Competitive lease application..........  130
    Assignment and transfer of record title  75
     or operating right.
    Name change, corporate merger or         175
     transfer to heir/devisee.
    Lease consolidation....................  370
    Lease reinstatement....................  65
Coal (Parts 3400, 3470):
    License to mine application............  10
    Exploration license application........  275
    Lease or lease interest transfer.......  55
Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal
 and Oil Shale (Part 3500):
    Applications other than those listed     30
     below.
    Prospecting permit application           55
     amendment.
    Extension of prospecting permit........  90
    Lease renewal..........................  430
Mining Law Administration (Parts 3800,
 3830, 3850, 3860, 3870)
    Notice of Location *...................  15
    Amendment of location..................  10
    Transfer of mining claim/site..........  10
    Recording an annual FLPMA filing (Sec.   10
      3835.30).
    Deferment of Assessment Work...........  90
    Mineral Patent Adjudication............  2,520 (more than 10 claims)
                                             1,260 (10 or fewer claims)
    Adverse claim..........................  90
    Protest................................  55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 $15 under in the final rule making the total fee
  $170.


[[Page 58874]]

    (b) The amount of a fixed fee is not subject to appeal to the 
Interior Board of Land Appeals pursuant to part 4, subpart E, of this 
title.

PART 3100--OIL AND GAS LEASING

0
5. Revise the authority citation for part 3100 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

0
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 we determine 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 Sec.  3000.12 of this 
chapter. * * *

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

0
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 for assignments 
and transfers found in the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this 
chapter. Each request for a transfer to an heir or devisee, request for 
a change of name, or notification of a corporate merger under Sec.  
3106.8, must include payment of the processing fee for name changes, 
corporate mergers or transfers to heir/devisee found in the fee 
schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter. Each transfer of overriding 
royalty or payment out of production must include payment of the 
processing fee for overriding royalty transfers or payments out of 
productions found in the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter 
for each lease to which it applies.

0
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 for 
assignments and transfers found in the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of 
this chapter for each such interest transferred for each lease.

0
9. Amend Sec.  3106.8-1(a) by removing the second 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 for transfers to heir/devisee 
found in the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter with your 
request to transfer lease rights. * * *
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  3106.8-2 by removing the second 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 for name change found in the fee 
schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter with your notice of name 
change. * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  3106.8-3 by removing the third 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 for corporate merger found in the 
fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter with your notification of 
a corporate merger.* * *

Subpart 3107--Continuation, Extension or Renewal

0
12. Amend Sec.  3107.7 by removing the third 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 payment of the processing 
fee for lease renewal or exchange found in the fee schedule in Sec.  
3000.12 of this chapter. * * *
0
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 for lease renewal or 
exchange found in the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter.

Subpart 3108--Relinquishment, Termination, Cancellation

0
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 for lease 
reinstatement, Class I, found in the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of 
this chapter, 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

0
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 office. 
Include the processing fee for leasing under right-of-way found in the 
fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter. If the transferee files 
an application, it must also include an executed transfer of the right 
to obtain a lease. * * *

PART 3110--NONCOMPETITIVE LEASES

0
16. Revise the authority citation for part 3110 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

0
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 payment of the first year's rental and the 
processing fee for noncompetitive lease applications found in the fee 
schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter.
    * * * A noncompetitive offer to lease a future interest applied for 
under Sec.  3110.9 must include the processing fee for noncompetitive 
lease applications found in the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this 
chapter. * * *
* * * * *

PART 3120--COMPETITIVE LEASES

0
18. Revise the authority citation for part 3120 to read as follows:


[[Page 58875]]


    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).

0
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 for competitive lease applications found in 
the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter for each parcel.
* * * * *

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

0
20. Revise the authority citation for part 3130 to read as follows:

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

0
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 applications found in 
the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter in addition to other 
remaining bonus and rental payments. * * *
* * * * *

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

0
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)(1) * * *
    (2) An application for approval of any instrument that the 
regulations require you to file must include the processing fee for 
assignments and transfers found in the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of 
this chapter. Any document that the regulations in this part do not 
require you to file, but that you submit for record purposes, must also 
include the processing fee for assignments and transfers found in the 
fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter for each lease affected. 
* * *
* * * * *

0
23. Amend Sec.  3135.1-6(a) by adding a sentence at the end to read 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 Sec.  3000.12 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *

PART 3200--GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE LEASING

0
24. Revise the authority citation for part 3200 to read as follows:

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

Subpart 3204--Noncompetitive Leasing

0
25. Amend Sec.  3204.12 by revising the first sentence to read as 
follows:


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

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

Subpart 3205--Competitive Leasing

0
26. 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 for competitive lease applications found in 
the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter; and
* * * * *

Subpart 3210--Additional Lease Information

0
27. 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 processing fee for lease consolidations 
found in the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter with your 
request to consolidate leases.

Subpart 3211--Fees, Rent, and Royalties

0
28. Amend Sec.  3211.10 by:
0
A. Revising the section heading;
0
B. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
C. Revising paragraph (b) table heading and entries (1) and (3);
0
D. In paragraph (b), redesignate the table entries (4) through (9) as 
(5) through (10); and add a new 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 the   As found in the fee
 Processing fee.               fee schedule in       schedule in Sec.
                               Sec.   3000.12 of     3000.12 of this
                               this chapter.         chapter. (includes
                                                     future interest
                                                     leases)
 
                              * * * * * * *
3. Transfer of Record Title   As found in the fee   As found in the fee
 or Operating Rights.          schedule in Sec.      schedule in Sec.
                               3000.12 of this       3000.12 of this
                               chapter.              chapter.
4. Transfer of Interest to    As found in the fee   As found in the fee
 Heir or Devisee, Name         schedule in Sec.      schedule in Sec.
 Change, or Notification       3000.12 of this       3000.12 of this
 Corporate Merger.             chapter.              chapter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 58876]]

* * * * *

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

0
29. 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 for lease reinstatement 
found in the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter.

Subpart 3216--Transfers

0
30. 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 Sec.  
3000.12 of this chapter. When you calculate your fee, make sure it 
covers the full amount. For example, if you are transferring record 
title for three leases, submit 3 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 Sec.
                                                                                             3000.12 of this
                                                                                             chapter.
(b) Operating rights..............  Yes...............    3000-3(a)  2 executed copies....  As found in the fee
                                                                                             schedule in Sec.
                                                                                             3000.12 of this
                                                                                             chapter.
(c) Estate transfers..............  No................          N/A  1 List of Leases.....  As found in the fee
                                                                                             schedule in Sec.
                                                                                             3000.12 of this
                                                                                             chapter.
(d) Corporate mergers.............  No................          N/A  1 List of Leases.....  As found in the fee
                                                                                             schedule in Sec.
                                                                                             3000.12 of this
                                                                                             chapter.
(e) Name changes..................  No................          N/A  1 List of Leases.....  As found in the fee
                                                                                             schedule in Sec.
                                                                                             3000.12 of this
                                                                                             chapter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Group 3400--Coal Management

PART 3470--COAL MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS

0
31. Revise the authority citation for part 3470 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

0
32. 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 Sec.  3000.12 of this 
chapter. 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 Sec.  3000.12 of this 
chapter.
    (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 
Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter.
    (d) BLM will charge applicants for a royalty rate reduction a 
processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in Sec.  3000.11 of 
this chapter.
    (e) BLM will charge applicants for logical mining unit formation or 
modification a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 
Sec.  3000.11 of this chapter.
    (f) The applicant who nominates a tract for a competitive lease 
sale must pay a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in 
Sec.  3000.11 of this chapter as modified by the provisions below. BLM 
will include in the sale notice under Sec.  3422.2(b)(9) of this 
chapter a statement of the total cost recovery fee paid to BLM by the 
applicant up to 30 days before the competitive lease sale. The cost 
recovery process for a competitive coal lease follows:
    (1) The applicant nominating the tract for competitive leasing must 
pay the cost recovery amount before BLM will publish a notice of the 
competitive lease sale;
    (2) Before the lease is issued:
    (i) The successful bidder, if someone other than the applicant, 
must pay to BLM the cost recovery amount specified in the sale notice; 
and
    (ii) The successful bidder must pay all processing costs BLM incurs 
after the date of the sale notice;
    (3) If the successful bidder is someone other than the applicant, 
BLM will refund to the applicant the amount paid under paragraph (f)(1) 
of this section; and
    (4) If there is no successful bidder, the applicant remains 
responsible for all processing fees.
    (g) BLM will charge applicants for modification of a coal lease a 
processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in Sec.  3000.11 of 
this chapter.


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

0
33. Remove Sec. Sec.  3473.2-1 and 3473.2-2.

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

0
34. Revise the authority citation for part 3500 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).

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

0
34. 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) * * * Section 304 of 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

0
35. Add Sec.  3504.10 to read as follows:

[[Page 58877]]

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 Sec.  3000.12 of 
this chapter 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 Sec. 3000.11 of this
                                          chapter.
(2) Prospecting permit application       As found in the fee schedule in
 amendment.                               Sec.   3000.12 of this
                                          chapter.
(3) Prospecting permit extension.......  As found in the fee schedule in
                                          Sec.   3000.12 of this
                                          chapter.
(4) Preference rigth lease application.  Case-by-case basis as described
                                          in Sec.   3000.11 of this
                                          chapter.
(5) Successful competitive lease         Case-by-case basis as described
 application.                             in Sec.   3000.11 of this
                                          chapter, and modified by Sec.
                                          Sec.   3508.14 and 3508.21.
(6) Lease renewal application..........  As found in the fee schedule in
                                          Sec.   3000.12 of this
                                          chapter.
(7) Application to waive, suspend, or    Case-by-case basis as described
 reduce your rental, minimum royalty,     in Sec.   3000.11 of this
 or royalty rate.                         chapter.
(8) Future or fractional interest lease  Case-by-case basis as described
 application.                             in Sec.   3000.11 of this
                                          chapter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
36. Amend Sec.  3504.12 by revising the heading and paragraph (a) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  3504.12  What payments do I submit to BLM and what payments do I 
submit 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 U.S. 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

0
37. Revise Sec.  3505.12 to read as follows:


Sec.  3505.12  How do I obtain a prospecting permit?

    Deliver 3 copies of the BLM application form to the BLM office with 
jurisdiction over the lands you are interested in. Include the first 
year's rental with your application. You will also be charged a 
processing fee, which BLM will determine on a case-by-case basis as 
described in Sec.  3000.11 of this chapter. For more information on 
fees and rentals, see subpart 3504 of this part.

0
38. Amend Sec.  3505.30 by removing the last sentence and by revising 
the third 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 for prospecting permit application amendments found in 
the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter with your amended 
application.

0
39. 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.

0
40. 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]

0
41. Section 3505.51 is removed.
0
42. 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 for extensions of prospecting 
permits found in the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this chapter 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

0
43. 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 
Sec.  3000.11 of this chapter.

Subpart 3508--Competitive Lease Applications

0
44. Amend Sec.  3508.12 by redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as 
paragraphs (c) and (d) and adding a new paragraph (b) as follows:


Sec.  3508.12  How do I get a competitive lease?

* * * * *
    (b) Before BLM publishes a notice of lease sale, pay a processing 
fee on a case-by-case basis as described in Sec.  3000.11 of this 
chapter as modified by Sec. Sec.  3508.14 and 3508.21. If someone else 
is the successful bidder, BLM will refund you the amount you paid under 
this paragraph. If there is no successful bidder, you remain 
responsible for all processing fees.
* * * * *
0
45. Amend Sec.  3508.14 by adding a new paragraph (b)(7) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3508.14  How will BLM publish the notice of lease sale?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) If the tract being offered for competitive sale was nominated 
by an applicant, a statement of the total cost recovery fee paid to BLM 
by the applicant under Sec.  3508.12 up to 30 days before the 
competitive lease sale.

0
46. Amend Sec.  3508.21 by removing the word ``and'' at the end of 
paragraph (a)(4), by removing the period and adding in its place a 
semi-colon at the end of paragraph (a)(5), and adding new paragraphs 
(a)(6) and (a)(7) to read as follows:

[[Page 58878]]

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

    (a) * * *
    (6) If you were not the applicant, pay the cost recovery fee 
specified in the lease sale notice; and
    (7) Pay all processing costs BLM incurs after the date of the sale 
notice.
* * * * *

Subpart 3509--Fractional and Future Interest Lease Applications

0
47. Amend Sec.  3509.16 by removing the second sentence and adding a 
new sentence at the end to read as follows:


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

    * * * BLM will charge you a processing fee on a case-by-case basis 
as described in Sec.  3000.11 of this chapter.

0
48. 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.
0
49. Amend Sec.  3509.46 by removing the second sentence and adding a 
new sentence at the end to read as follows:


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

    * * * BLM will charge you a processing fee on a case-by-case basis 
as described in Sec.  3000.11 of this chapter.

0
50. 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

0
51. Amend Sec.  3511.27 by revising the last sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3511.27  How do I renew my lease?

    * * * Send us 3 copies of your application together with the 
processing fee for lease renewal found in the fee schedule in Sec.  
3000.12 of this chapter 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

0
52. 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 Sec.  3000.11 of this chapter.

Group 3600--Mineral Materials Disposal

PART 3600--MINERAL MATERIALS DISPOSAL

0
53. Revise the authority citation for part 3600 to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 1201, 1701 et seq.; 
Sec. 2, Act of September 28, 1962 (Pub. L. 87-713, 76 Stat. 652).


0
54. 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 as provided in Sec.  3602.31(a) 
and Sec.  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.

0
55. Amend Sec.  3602.31 by:
0
A. Revising the section heading;
0
B. Redesignating paragraphs (b) through (d) as paragraphs (c) through 
(e), respectively; and
0
C. Adding new paragraph (b) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) BLM will charge the purchaser a processing fee on a case-by-
case basis as described in Sec.  3000.11 of this chapter.
* * * * *

0
56. Amend Sec.  3602.42 by redesignating paragraphs (b)(8) through 
(b)(15) as paragraphs (b)(9) through (b)(16), respectively, and adding 
a new paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows:


Sec.  3602.42  How does BLM publicize competitive mineral materials 
sales?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (8) If the sale is by request, the total cost recovery fee paid to 
BLM by the applicant up to 21 days before the sale;
* * * * *

0
57. Amend Sec.  3602.43 by redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as 
paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively, and adding a new paragraph (a) to 
read:


Sec.  3602.43  How does BLM conduct competitive mineral materials 
sales?

    (a) The applicant requesting a mineral materials sale must pay a 
processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in Sec.  3000.11 of 
this chapter as modified by the provisions in this section and in Sec.  
3602.42(b)(8). The cost recovery process for a competitive mineral 
materials sale follows:
    (1) The applicant requesting the sale must pay the cost recovery 
fee amount before BLM will publish a sale notice.
    (2) Before the contract is issued:
    (i) The successful bidder, if someone other than the applicant, 
must pay to BLM the cost recovery amount specified in the sale notice; 
and
    (ii) The successful bidder must pay all processing costs BLM incurs 
after the date of the sale notice.
    (3) If the successful bidder is someone other than the applicant, 
BLM will refund to the applicant the amount paid under paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section.
* * * * *

0
58. 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 Sec.  3000.11 of this chapter and 
Sec.  3602.43.

0
59. 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 Sec.  3000.11 of this chapter.

Group 3800--Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws

PART 3800--MINING CLAIMS UNDER THE GENERAL MINING LAWS

0
60. Revise the authority citation for part 3800 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; 43 U.S.C. 1201 and 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.


0
61. Add a new subpart 3800, consisting of Sec.  3800.5, to read as 
follows:

Subpart 3800--General


Sec.  3800.5  Fees.

    (a) An applicant for a plan of operations under this part must pay 
a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in Sec.  3000.11 
of this chapter whenever BLM determines that consideration of the plan 
of operations requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact 
Statement.
    (b) An applicant for any action for which a mineral examination, 
including

[[Page 58879]]

a validity examination or a common variety determination, and their 
associated reports, is performed under Sec.  3809.100 or Sec.  3809.101 
of this part must pay a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as 
described in section 3000.11 of this chapter for such examination and 
report.
    (c) An applicant for a mineral patent under part 3860 of this 
chapter must pay a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described 
in Sec.  3000.11 of this chapter for any validity examination and 
report prepared in connection with the application.
    (d) An applicant for a mineral patent also is required to pay a 
processing fee under Sec.  3860.1 of this chapter.

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

0
62. Revise the authority citation for part 3830 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, 1701 et seq.; 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; 115 Stat. 414.

0
63. 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 claim or
               Transaction                                site                         Waiver available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Recording a mining claim or site       (1) A total sum which includes     No.
 location (part 3833).                      (i) the processing fee for
                                            notices of location found in the
                                            fee schedule in Sec.   3000.12
                                            of this chapter.
                                           (ii) A one-time $30 location fee.  No.
                                           (iii) An initial $125 maintenance  No.
                                            fee.
(b) Amending a mining claim or site        The processing fee for amendment   No.
 location (Sec.   3833.20).                 of location found in the fee
                                            schedule in Sec.   3000.12 of
                                            this chapter.
(c) Transferring a mining claim or site    The processing fee for transfer    No.
 (Sec.   3833.30).                          of mining claim/site found in
                                            the fee schedule in Sec.
                                            3000.12 of this chapter.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(e) Recording an annual FLPMA filing       The processing fee for recording   No.
 (Sec.   3835.30).                          an annual FLPMA filing found in
                                            the fee schedule in Sec.
                                            3000.12 of this chapter.
(f) Submitting a petition for deferment    The processing fee for deferment   No.
 of assessment work (Sec.   3836.20).       of assessment work found in the
                                            fee schedule in Sec.   3000.12
                                            of this chapter.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 3833--RECORDING MINING CLAIMS AND SITES

0
64. Revise the authority citation for part 3833 to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 22 et seq., 621-625; 43 U.S.C. 2, 1201, 
1457, 1701 et seq.; 62 Stat. 162; 115 Stat. 414.

0
65. 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.
* * * * *

0
66. 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.
* * * * *

0
67. Revise Sec.  3833.32(c) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (c) For each mining claim or site transferred, each transferee must 
pay the full processing fee specified in the table of service charges 
and fees in Sec.  3830.21 of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 3835--WAIVERS FROM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FEES

0
68. Revise the authority citation for part 3835 to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 22, 28, 28f-28k; 43 U.S.C. 2, 1201, 1457, 
1701 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. App. 501, 565; 115 Stat. 414.


0
69. Revise Sec.  3835.32(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  3835.32  What should I include when I submit an affidavit of 
assessment work?

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

0
70. 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 service charges and fees in Sec.  3830.21 of this 
chapter.)

PART 3836--ANNUAL ASSESSMENT WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR MINING CLAIMS

0
71. Revise the authority citation for part 3836 to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 22, 28, 28b-28e; 43 U.S.C. 2, 1201, 1457, 
1701 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. App. 501, 565.


0
72. Amend Sec.  3836.23 by revising paragraph (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 service charges and fees in Sec.  3830.21 of this chapter.)

PART 3860--MINERAL PATENT APPLICATIONS

0
73. Revise the authority citation for part 3860 to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1701 
et seq.


0
74. Amend part 3860 by adding new subpart 3860, consisting of Sec.  
3860.1, to read as follows:

[[Page 58880]]

Subpart 3860--General


Sec.  3860.1  Fees.

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

Subpart 3862--Lode Mining Claim Patent Applications

0
75. 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.

Subpart 3863--Placer Mining Claim Patent Applications

0
76. 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.

Subpart 3864--Millsite Patents

0
77. 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.

PART 3870--ADVERSE CLAIMS, PROTESTS, AND CONFLICTS

0
78. Add an authority citation for part 3870 to read as follows:

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

Subpart 3871--Adverse Claims

0
79. 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 for 
adverse claims found in the fee schedule in Sec.  3000.12 of this 
chapter.

Subpart 3872--Protests, Contests, and Conflicts

0
80. 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 for protests found in the fee schedule in Sec.  
3000.12 of this chapter.

[FR Doc. 05-19851 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P