Non-Energy Solid Leasable Minerals Royalty Rate Reduction Process, 55873-55881 [2019-22535]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Proposed Rules
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because it merely
authorizes state requirements as part of
the state RCRA hazardous waste
program without altering the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established by
RCRA. This action also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant, and it does not
make decisions based on environmental
health or safety risks. This rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 May
22, 2001), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants
a state’s application for authorization, as
long as the state meets the criteria
required by RCRA. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for the
EPA, when it reviews a state
authorization application, to require the
use of any particular voluntary
consensus standard in place of another
standard that otherwise satisfies the
requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this rule, the EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct. The
EPA has complied with Executive Order
12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the
‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings’’ issued under the Executive
Order. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
Because this rule authorizes pre-existing
state rules which are at least equivalent
to, and no less stringent than existing
Federal requirements, and impose no
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law, and there are no
anticipated significant adverse human
health or environmental effects, the rule
is not subject to Executive Order 12898.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C.
801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this
document and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication in the
Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action
nevertheless will be effective 60 days
after the final approval is published in
the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indian-lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control,
Water supply.
Authority: This action is issued under the
authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and
7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and
6974(b).
Dated: September 20, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2019–22703 Filed 10–17–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55873
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 3500
[LLW0320000 L13300000 PP0000 20X]
RIN 1004–AE58
Non-Energy Solid Leasable Minerals
Royalty Rate Reduction Process
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) proposes to amend
its regulations to revise the process for
lessees to seek and for the BLM to grant
reductions of rental fees, royalty rates,
and/or minimum production
requirements associated with nonenergy solid leasable minerals. The
proposed rule would streamline the
process for such reductions for nonenergy solid minerals leased by the
Federal Government and would codify
the BLM’s authority to issue an area- or
industry-wide reduction on its own
initiative. Existing regulatory
requirements are overly restrictive,
inflexible, and burdensome. A report
from the Senate Committee on
Appropriations on the 2019 Department
of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill
encouraged the BLM to work with soda
ash producers to reduce the Federal
royalty rate, as appropriate. The
proposed rule would give the BLM more
flexibility to respond to changing
market dynamics by improving the
BLM’s ability to boost production and
support development of the Federal
mineral estate when deemed necessary.
DATES: Please submit comments on or
before December 17, 2019. As explained
later, this proposed rule would include
revisions to information collection
requirements that must be approved by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). If you wish to comment on the
revised information collection
requirements in this proposed rule,
please note that such comments should
be sent directly to the OMB, and that the
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
contained in this proposed rule between
30 and 60 days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to the OMB on
the proposed information collection
revisions is best assured of being given
full consideration if the OMB receives it
by November 18, 2019.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18OCP1.SGM
18OCP1
55874
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Proposed Rules
You may submit comments,
identified by the number RIN 1004–
AE58, by any of the following methods:
Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior,
Director (630), Bureau of Land
Management, Mail Stop 2134 LM, 1849
C St. NW, Washington, DC 20240,
Attention: RIN 1004–AE58.
Personal or messenger delivery: U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, 20 M Street SE,
Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 20003,
Attention: Regulatory Affairs.
Federal eRulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Searchbox,
enter ‘‘RIN 1004–AE58’’ and click the
‘‘Search’’ button. Follow the
instructions at this website.
ADDRESSES:
For Comments on InformationCollection Activities
Fax: Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Desk Officer for
the Department of the Interior, fax 202–
395–5806.
Electronic mail: OIRA_Submission@
omb.eop.gov.
Please indicate ‘‘Attention: OMB
Control Number 1004–0121,’’ regardless
of the method used to submit comments
on the information collection burdens. If
you submit comments on the
information collection burdens, you
should provide the BLM with a copy at
one of the street addresses shown earlier
in this section, so that we can
summarize all written comments and
address them in the final rulemaking.
Please do not submit to OMB comments
that do not pertain to the proposed
rule’s information collection burdens.
The BLM is not obligated to consider or
include in the Administrative Record
for the final rule any such comments
that you improperly direct to OMB,
rather than the BLM.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mitch Leverette, Division Chief of Solid
Minerals, WO–320; 202–912–7113.
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–
877–8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, to leave a message or question
with the above individuals. You will
receive a reply during normal business
hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Comment Procedures
II. Background
III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
IV. Procedural Matters
I. Public Comment Procedures
You may submit comments, marked
with the number RIN 1004–AE58, by
any of the methods described in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
ADDRESSES section. If you wish to
comment on the information collection
requirements, you should send those
comments directly to the OMB as
outlined (see ADDRESSES); however, we
ask that you also provide a copy of those
comments to the BLM.
Please make your comments on the
proposed rule as specific as possible,
confine them to issues pertinent to the
proposed rule, and explain the reason
for any changes you recommend. Where
possible, your comments should
reference the specific section or
paragraph of the proposal that you are
addressing. The comments and
recommendations that will be most
useful and likely to influence agency
decisions are:
1. Those supported by quantitative
information or studies; and
2. Those that include citations to, and
analyses of, the applicable laws and
regulations.
The BLM is not obligated to consider
or include in the Administrative Record
for the final rule comments that we
receive after the close of the comment
period (see DATES) or comments
delivered to an address other than those
listed above (see ADDRESSES).
Comments, including names and
street addresses of respondents, will be
available for public review at the
address listed under ADDRESSES:
Personal or messenger delivery’’ during
regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15
p.m.), Monday through Friday, except
holidays.
Before including your address,
telephone number, email address, or
other personal identifying information
in your comment, be advised that your
entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
II. Background
Pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act
of 1920 (MLA), 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.,
and other legal authorities, the BLM is
authorized to lease deposits of certain
minerals on lands owned by the United
States. The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C.
1701 et seq., charges the BLM with
managing public lands in a manner that
allows for responsible and appropriate
resource development. In addition to
commonly known energy resources,
such as coal, oil, and gas, the MLA also
authorizes the BLM to lease non-energy
minerals, such as gilsonite, phosphate,
sodium, potassium, and sulfur. The
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
BLM regulations implementing this
authority for solid minerals (other than
coal) are found at 43 CFR part 3500—
Leasing of Solid Minerals Other than
Coal and Oil Shale. As described in
section 3501.2, the subject minerals are
‘‘minerals other than oil, gas, coal and
oil shale, leased under the mineral
leasing acts, and . . . hardrock minerals
leasable under Reorganization Plan No.
3 of 1946, on any unclaimed,
undeveloped area of available public
domain or acquired lands where leasing
of these specific minerals is allowed by
law. Special areas identified in part
3580 of this title and asphalt on certain
lands in Oklahoma also are leased under
this part.’’ Leasing these minerals on
Federal land provides valuable revenue
to the states and the Federal
Government.
The United States was once the
leading producer in the world of one
such mineral, sodium carbonate (natural
soda ash), before falling behind China in
2003.1 This change stimulated a move
in Congress to provide relief to
American soda ash producers. The Soda
Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2006
(SARRA) (Pub. L. 109–338) prescribed a
2 percent royalty rate on sodium
compounds produced from Federal land
in the 5-year period beginning on
October 12, 2006.2 Additionally, the
Helium Stewardship Act of 2013 (Pub.
L. 113–40) included a provision that set
a 4 percent royalty rate on soda ash for
a 2-year period, which ended on
October 1, 2015. These reductions have
expired.
The minimum royalty rates for soda
ash, along with other non-energy solid
minerals on Federal lands are set in the
MLA and BLM regulations (see 43 CFR
3504.21). The MLA authorizes the
Secretary to establish royalty rates
higher than the minimum, along with
rental fees and minimum production
requirements through regulation. The
BLM sets the royalty rates for each lease
at or above the specified minimum
royalty rate (see 43 CFR 3504.22) based
on current market conditions at the time
of lease issuance, but those conditions
may change over the life of the lease.
The BLM requests information from
the public about current market
conditions for soda ash and other types
of non-energy solid leasable minerals
1 Dennis S. Kostick, U.S. Geological Survey, 2005
Minerals Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2006).
2 The SARRA required that the Department report
to Congress on the impacts of the 2-percent royalty
rate. The report to Congress, completed in 2011,
concluded that while total sales revenues from
Federal sodium leases increased, royalty revenues
were significantly lower than they would have been
absent the SARRA and production shifted away
from state and private land leases onto Federal
leases.
E:\FR\FM\18OCP1.SGM
18OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Proposed Rules
leased pursuant to 43 CFR part 3500,
including non-energy solid leasable
minerals identified as ‘‘critical
minerals’’ in the ‘‘Final List of Critical
Minerals 2018,’’ which was published
in the Federal Register on May 18,
2018.
Section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209,
authorizes the Secretary to reduce
royalty rates and rental fees:
The Secretary of the Interior, for the
purpose of encouraging the greatest ultimate
recovery of coal, oil, gas, oil shale, gilsonite,
. . . phosphate, sodium, potassium and
sulfur, and in the interest of conservation of
natural resources, is authorized to waive,
suspend, or reduce the rental, or minimum
royalty, or reduce the royalty on an entire
leasehold, or on any tract or portion thereof
segregated for royalty purposes, whenever in
his judgement it is necessary to do so in
order to promote development, or whenever
in his judgment the leases cannot be
successfully operated under the terms
provided therein.
The BLM regulations contain a
process for reducing royalty rates, along
with rental fees and minimum
production requirements, for nonenergy solid minerals leased by the
Federal Government in 43 CFR subpart
3513—Waiver, Suspension or Reduction
of Rental and Minimum Royalties. The
process described in this subpart of the
regulations imposes requirements
beyond what section 39 of the MLA, 30
U.S.C. 209, requires. The BLM has
reviewed the existing regulatory
requirements for non-energy solid
minerals and has determined that the
royalty reduction process codified in 43
CFR subpart 3513 is unnecessarily
restrictive, inflexible, and burdensome.
See § 3513.15 of the section-by-section
discussion of this preamble for a more
detailed discussion of the overly
burdensome requirements that would be
removed by this proposed rule.
The BLM promulgated the current
regulations during the late 1990s to
‘‘streamline and rewrite necessary
regulations in plain English.’’ 3 The
effect of rewriting the language,
however, introduced some substantive
changes as compared with the previous
regulations by requiring specific
information for all applications that may
not always be necessary. In contrast,
previous versions of the royalty rate
reduction regulations from 1946, 1964,
and 1983 were more closely aligned
with the statutory language and did not
3 ‘‘The purpose of this rule is to comply with
President Clinton’s government-wide regulatory
reform initiative to eliminate unnecessary
regulations, and streamline and rewrite necessary
regulations in plain English.’’ 64 FR 53,512, 53,512
(Oct. 1, 1999).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
list specific data requirements for an
application.4
This proposed rule would streamline
the process to reduce rental fees, royalty
rates, or minimum production
requirements for all non-energy solid
minerals leased by the Federal
Government, without altering the
substantive criteria that BLM will use to
determine whether a reduction is
appropriate. This proposed rule would
remove unnecessary and overly
burdensome requirements.
Additionally, this proposed rule would
codify in regulation the BLM’s authority
to implement area- or industry-wide
reductions on the BLM’s own initiative,
thus giving greater effect in 43 CFR part
3500 to the broad authority that the
MLA grants to the Secretary of the
Interior to reduce rental fees, royalty
rates, and/or minimum production
requirements to promote development.
This would improve the BLM’s ability
to provide relief to producers of nonenergy solid leasable minerals, from
burdens, such as geological hardships 5
and market transformations.
Congress introduced the American
Soda Ash Competitiveness Act in 2017,
which recommended setting the Federal
royalty rate for soda ash at the minimum
of 2 percent for a 5-year period.
Although this proposed legislation was
not enacted, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations expressed concern about
keeping the United States competitive
in the global soda ash market, and
encouraged ‘‘the Bureau to work with
soda ash producers to assist them in
reducing royalty rates and [directing]
the Bureau to take the necessary steps
to reduce the Federal royalty rate for
soda ash as appropriate.’’ S. Rep. No.
115–276, at 14 (2018). The House also
noted that ‘‘the Committees are
concerned about maintaining the United
States’ global competitiveness in the
production of natural soda ash. The
United States contains approximately 90
percent of the world’s natural soda ash
deposits, while many international
4 ‘‘In order to encourage the greatest ultimate
recovery of the leased minerals, and in the interest
of conservation, whenever the authorized officer
determines it is necessary to promote development
or finds that leases cannot be successfully operated
under the terms provided therein, the rental or
minimum royalty payments may be waived,
suspended or reduced, or the rate of royalty
reduced.’’ 43 CFR 3503.2–4(a) (1998). See also 43
CFR 3503.3–1(d) (1983); 43 CFR 3102.3(a) (1964);
43 CFR 191.25 (1946).
5 Geological hardships are circumstances that
may slow or stop mining in a given area. These
hardships may include such things as a deposit
thinning, becoming exhausted, or changing in
composition, or running into an underground
barrier such as a structure that compromises the
integrity and or grade of the deposit. These often
cannot be foreseen at the time of leasing.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55875
competitors are producing synthetic
soda ash using more energy and
generating higher emissions than
natural soda ash production. Therefore,
the Committees expect the Bureau to
consider using its authority to reduce
the Federal royalty rate for soda ash to
2 percent.’’ 6 This rulemaking is the first
step the BLM must take in order to
clarify its authority to reduce the royalty
rate for soda ash in general (i.e., for the
industry as a whole or for a particular
area) in the absence of an individual
lease-by-lease application submitted by
a leaseholder for specific leases in an
operation. Under the proposed rule, the
BLM could consider these
recommendations and move forward
with area- or industry-wide royalty rate
reductions.
The BLM has a history of receiving
applications requesting royalty rate
reductions for commodities such as
lead-zinc, gilsonite, and potash. Since
the early 1990’s the BLM has received
between ten and fifteen applications
seeking a reduction, and approximately
half of those were considered complete
applications. The BLM has approved
about five applications for reduction
since 1993. Although the BLM has no
history of implementing area- or
industry-wide royalty rate reductions in
the context of non-energy solid leasable
minerals under 43 CFR part 3500, the
BLM has reduced royalty rates on an
area-wide basis for coal leases under
section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209.
As an example, the BLM reduced the
royalty rate for coal leases in a specific
area of North Dakota in the spring of
2019 to 2.2 percent as a ‘‘category 5’’
reduction due to market conditions.
Executive Order 13817, ‘‘A Federal
Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable
Supplies of Critical Minerals’’
emphasizes the need for the United
States to domestically source critical
minerals. The Secretary of the Interior
published a ‘‘Final List of Critical
Minerals’’ on May 18, 2018. This list
includes commodities that can be leased
as non-energy minerals, such as potash
and metals like lithium or rare earth
elements on acquired lands. This
proposed rule would meet the goals of
E.O. 13817 by improving the BLM’s
ability to ensure continued production
of critical minerals on public lands.
Over the past two decades, U.S.
natural soda ash production has grown
at an average compound annual rate of
0.9 percent, from 11.1 million short tons
6 An Explanatory Statement for the Department of
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2018.
E:\FR\FM\18OCP1.SGM
18OCP1
55876
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(MMst) in 1998 to 13.2 MMst in 2018.7
During this period, however, Chinese
synthetic soda ash production grew at a
6.4 percent compound annual rate,
rising from less than one-quarter of
world production to nearly half.8 China
has used the Hue and Solvay synthetic
processes to ramp up its soda ash
production, surpassing U.S. total
production in 2003,9 and doubling U.S.
volumes in 2011.10
Although China’s soda ash production
has largely focused on producing glass
for its automotive and construction
industries (among others), its rise has
reduced the ability of U.S. producers to
satisfy the burgeoning demand for the
mineral. It has also caused the U.S.
share of world soda ash production to
decline from 31 percent of the world
total in 1998 to 22 percent in 2018.
Moreover, while China’s more
expensive synthetic soda ash
production has largely gone to its
domestic manufacturing industry,
relatively low-cost natural soda ash
produced from Turkey’s significant
trona ore deposits compete directly with
U.S. exports to countries in the
European Union and elsewhere. Recent
announcements point to soda ash
production expansions in Turkey, as
well as in Belarus, Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, India, Thailand, and
Pakistan.11
It is the BLM’s view that this
proposed rule is necessary in light of the
world market developments such as
those described above to keep the
United States competitive in the world
markets of non-energy solid leasable
commodities. The BLM also views the
proposed rule as necessary to promote
development of non-energy solid
leasable mineral resources in
accordance with the MLA, particularly
during periods of market fluctuation.
For example, from 2008 to 2010, the
price of soda ash, as with many other
commodities, spiked and then dropped
precipitously, threatening the industry’s
ability to operate successfully while
paying all related royalties and taxes.
The changes in this proposed rule
would not adversely impact the
processing time for royalty rate
reduction applications. On the contrary,
the proposed changes would reduce the
7 U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Minerals
Yearbook data, editions from 2002 through 2018.
8 USGS Minerals Yearbook data through 2017,
with National Bureau of Statistics of China monthly
data from January through October 2018 used to
project the 2018 total.
9 Dennis S. Kostick, U.S. Geological Survey, 2005
Minerals Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2006).
10 Wallace P. Bolen, U.S. Geological Survey, 2014
Minerals Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2015).
11 Wallace P. Bolen, U.S. Geological Survey, 2016
Minerals Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
time required for a lessee to compile an
application and it would be easier for
lessees to achieve application
completeness. Moreover, the rule would
allow the BLM to implement reductions
industry-wide or area-wide of its own
initiative in accordance with section 39
of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209.
III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
The regulations in 43 CFR part 3500
are authorized by the Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) and
other statutory authorities. The
proposed rule would streamline the
process to apply for rental fee, royalty
rate, and minimum production
requirement reductions for non-energy
solid mineral leases. This proposed rule
would also reduce the burden on lease
holders by simplifying the regulatory
requirements so as to better align the
regulations with the statute.
You may find the BLM regulations
that implement this authority for solid
minerals (other than coal) in 43 CFR
subpart 3513—Waiver, Suspension or
Reduction of Rental and Minimum
Royalties.
§ 3513.11 May BLM relieve me of the
lease requirements of rental, minimum
royalty, or production royalty while
continuing to hold the lease?
Section 3513.11 states that the BLM
has a process that allows for temporary
relief from the rental, minimum royalty,
or production royalty provisions in a
lease. The BLM considers applications
submitted under section 3513.15 on a
case by case basis based on the data in
the application for lease requirement
relief. This existing section introduces
subpart 3513, which explains that
process in greater detail. The NonEnergy Solid Leasable Handbook, H–
3500–01, includes guidance for
processing applications for temporary
relief from the rental, minimum royalty,
or production royalty provisions.
This proposed rule would add to
section 3513.11 a citation to the relevant
section of the Mineral Leasing Act. 30
U.S.C. 209. This is not a substantive
change and would have no impacts
beyond providing additional
information.
§ 3513.15 How do I apply for reduction
of rental, royalties or minimum
production?
Section 3513.15 sets out the
information that a lessee must include
in an application for BLM to make its
decision. The BLM needs the
information provided in this application
to determine whether the request
satisfies the reduction criteria described
in 43 CFR 3513.12.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
This proposed rule would remove the
requirement to submit two copies of an
application because two copies are no
longer necessary with current
technology. When the BLM promulgated
these regulations, lessees submitted
applications to the BLM via hard copy
mail and the BLM used both paper
copies during its processing. The BLM
now receives and processes these
applications electronically, or the BLM
is able to make physical or electronic
copies of the paper submissions.
Paragraph 3513.15(d) in the current
regulations requires an application to
include a description of the lands for
which the reduction would apply. This
proposed rule would revise this
requirement to be applicable only when
the application is for a portion of the
lease or leases. If the application is for
the lease in its entirety, the BLM already
has that information on hand and a land
description would not be necessary for
that application. This proposed revision
would make the application easier to
complete, which would help improve
processing timeliness.
This proposed rule would remove
paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section,
which require a tabulated statement of
the leasable minerals mined for each
month, covering at least the last twelve
months before a lessee files an
application; the average production
mined per day for each month; a
detailed statement of expenses and costs
of operating the entire lease; and the
income from the sale of any leased
products. This information would not
be required because the BLM already
knows the quantity of leasable minerals
that the lessees are mining on each
lease. The BLM can extrapolate the
average production mined per day from
production records and mine plan
reports that the lessee already submits
to the BLM and Office of Natural
Resources Revenue (formerly Mineral
Management Service) for royalty
payment purposes and to prove they are
meeting minimum production
requirements as indicated on their lease
form in accordance with 43 CFR
3504.20. The detailed statement of
expenses and costs is extraneous
information and is not necessary for the
application because the reduction is
based on market conditions and
geologic interferences that are not tied
to past costs and expenses (for example,
the applicant’s utility costs will not
change with the commodity’s market
fluctuations, so we know their costs to
run the operation will not decrease at
the same rate that their income from the
commodity price decreases, making
them exclusive values). Removing this
unnecessary requirement would also
E:\FR\FM\18OCP1.SGM
18OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Proposed Rules
make the application easier to complete,
further improving the timeliness of the
reduction process.
Proposed section 3513.15(g) would
contain the requirement found in
section 3513.15(i) of the current
regulations. However, instead of
requiring ‘‘all facts’’ showing why the
lessee cannot successfully operate a
mine, the proposed rule would require
the application to provide
‘‘justification’’ showing why the lessee
cannot successfully operate a mine
under the existing royalty or rental. The
proposed rule provides a more
measured requirement for the applicant
to demonstrate why they are unable to
meet the terms of the lease. It is still
imperative for the application to
provide sufficient justification for the
BLM to make its determination in each
applicant’s case. While this is a change
to the wording of the regulation, the
BLM does not expect any substantive
impact from this revision because the
applicant will still need to demonstrate
why they cannot operate the lease under
current conditions. Data that may be
seen in these types of applications
include: geologic maps and reports
about hazards being encountered, cost
per ton of product, revenue per ton of
product, or reports discussing any
financial hardship an individual mine is
facing.
This proposed rule would also
remove paragraphs (j) and (k) of section
3513.15, which require full information
as to whether the lessee pays royalties
or payments out of production to
anyone other than the United States, the
amounts paid and efforts the lessee has
made to reduce them, and documents
demonstrating that the total amount of
overriding royalties paid for the lease
will not exceed one-half the proposed
reduced royalties due the United States.
The BLM expects that the application
would disclose any relevant information
regarding overriding royalties under the
informational requirements of proposed
sections 3513.15(g) and (h) because
BLM has authority to order the operator
to suspend or reduce an overriding
royalty as stated in 43 CFR 3504.26. The
proposed removal of these two
paragraphs would make the application
easier to complete, which would help
improve the timeliness of the reduction
process.
Proposed section 3513.15(h) would
contain the requirements of existing
section 3513.15(l) that the applicant
include any additional information the
BLM requires to determine if the
applicant meets the standards of section
3513.12. Section 3513.12, which the
proposed rule would not amend,
explains the criteria that the BLM
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
considers when approving a waiver,
suspension, or reduction in rental, or
minimum royalty, or a reduction in the
royalty rate.
§ 3513.17 How will the BLM
implement a reduction of rental,
royalties or minimum production?
This proposed rule would add a new
section 3513.17, which explains how
the BLM would implement a reduction
on its own initiative. Prior to 1999, there
was no requirement that a reduction
would be temporary.12 Placing timing or
tonnage constraints on the reduction
would ensure that the rule is applied
when necessary to continue
development, but not longer than
necessary. As markets fluctuate and
lessees overcome geologic hardships,
the need for a reduction may end. When
the term of the reduction ends, the
royalty can increase to its original rate,
thereby increasing revenue to the
United States.
Section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209,
authorizes the Secretary to reduce
royalty rates and rental fees ‘‘whenever
in his judgement it is necessary to do so
in order to promote development, or
whenever in his judgment the leases
cannot be successfully operated under
the terms provided therein.’’ 30 U.S.C.
209. This provision of the MLA
authorizes the Secretary to provide
across-the-board royalty rate relief for
all lessees who are developing nonenergy minerals leased by the Federal
Government, as long as the Secretary
finds that it is necessary to do so in
order to promote development.
Promoting development will help
ensure operations can continue,
preserving jobs and helping domestic
commodities from those operations to
remain in the market. The proposed
section is outlined as follows:
Proposed section 3513.17(a) would
implement this provision in the
regulations, allowing the BLM to reduce
rental fees, royalty rates, or minimum
production requirements on its own
initiative, whereas currently BLM can
only provide rate relief upon
application on a case by case basis. This
proposed section would allow the BLM,
on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior,
to provide such relief in order to
promote the overall development of a
mineral resource for all leases in a
geographic area or across an industry.
This would more fully implement in 43
CFR part 3500 the broad authority that
the MLA grants to the Secretary of the
Interior for allowing these reductions in
order to promote development, in
addition to the reductions based on
12 See
PO 00000
43 CFR 3503.2–4 (1998).
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55877
individual lease-by-lease applications.
The BLM requests comment on the
types of information the BLM should
consider before implementing an areaor industry-wide reduction to promote
development, including information
related to quantifying the potential costs
and benefits of this proposed rule with
respect to NESL minerals other than
soda ash.
Proposed paragraph (b) of section
3513.17 explains that the BLM may
implement a reduction in response to an
application submitted under section
3513.15. This is not a change from
existing practice, but it would be
included here to demonstrate the
difference between the application
process of section 3513.15 and a BLMinitiated reduction under proposed
section 3513.17(a).
Proposed section 3513.17(c) describes
how the BLM would limit reductions
implemented under proposed section
3513.17.
Section 3513.17(c) would apply to
reductions that the BLM implements on
its own initiative under section
3513.17(a) and those that the BLM
implements in response to an
application under section 3513.17(b).
Under proposed paragraph (c) of this
section, reductions would be limited to
not more than 10 years from the date
that BLM implements a reduction or not
more than a specific tonnage that the
lessee produces, as determined by the
BLM. The BLM would determine the
specific time or tonnage limit
appropriate for each reduction on a
case-by-case basis. The BLM would
determine durations of reductions and
tonnage limits based on projected
market conditions or geologic hazard
attributes for each application or area. If
a reduction is in response to an
application under 3513.17(b), the reason
for the application will help determine
the appropriate term or tonnage limit of
the reduction.
Prior to 1999, there was no
requirement in the BLM’s regulations
that a reduction would be temporary,
though in practice they generally are.13
Placing timing or tonnage constraints on
the reduction would ensure that the
BLM would allow reductions when
necessary to continue or promote
development, but no longer. At the end
of the reduction period, the royalty,
rental, or minimum production
requirements would increase to their
original rates. At that time, the lessee
would operate under the original lease
terms.
The BLM would generally set a time
limit when issuing an area- or industry13 See
E:\FR\FM\18OCP1.SGM
43 CFR 3503.2–4 (1998).
18OCP1
55878
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Proposed Rules
wide reduction to promote
development. The proposed rule would
limit the reduction to not more than 10
years, but the BLM may determine a
shorter period is appropriate. Market
conditions can fluctuate over a 10-year
period and a longer period in a single
grant would not be appropriate. Past
legislation for reductions expired after 5
years, so a 10 year term was chosen as
a maximum with the option to make the
term shorter if applicable. The BLM
requests comments on the 10-year limit
for reductions.
When a lessee submits an application
under section 3513.15, it might be more
appropriate to apply a fixed tonnage
rather than applying a time limit.
The BLM would calculate a fixed
tonnage using known, estimated, or
historic production rates and
extrapolating total tonnage verified by
BLM inspection personnel (see 43 CFR
subparts 3597 and 3598). Estimated
production will be determined based on
current mining style, rock type, and
operator production capabilities
according to their approved mine plan
on a case by case basis. The BLM would
extrapolate the production rates over a
fixed period to determine the total
tonnage that would qualify for a royalty
rate reduction. The BLM could apply
fixed tonnage constraints for a reduction
to areas of geologic concern where
production rates may differ.
Under the existing regulations, the
BLM has often used a fixed tonnage
when applying a constraint to the
royalty rate reduction for a lease. The
tonnage constraint ensures that the
lessee produces the amount of a mineral
projected over a particular period, but
prevents the lessee from refocusing
production exclusively to an area with
a reduced royalty rate and producing a
greater amount of the mineral at the
reduced royalty rate.
While there is no specific process in
the regulations for an extension of these
constraints, the BLM would not limit
the number of times lessees may apply
for a reduction under section 3513.15.
The BLM requests comment on the
implications of a fixed tonnage for
reductions.
IV. Procedural Matters
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides
that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs in the Office of
Management and Budget will review all
significant rules. The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has
determined that this rule is significant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
because it may raise novel legal or
policy issues.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of
E.O. 12866 while calling for
improvements in the nation’s regulatory
system to promote predictability, reduce
uncertainty, and use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools
for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O.
directs agencies to consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and
maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public where these
approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that
regulations must be based on the best
available science and that the rule
making process must allow for public
participation and an open exchange of
ideas. We have developed this rule in a
manner consistent with these
requirements.
The proposed rule would reduce
duplicative information requirements
for non-energy solid leasable minerals
operators who apply for a reduction of
rental, royalties or minimum
production. The proposed rule would
also more fully implement the
Secretary’s authority under section 39 of
the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209, to provide
these reductions to promote
development.
The BLM reviewed the requirements
of the proposed rule and determined
that it would not adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities. For more
detailed information, see the Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) prepared for this
proposed rule. The RIA has been posted
in the docket for the proposed rule on
the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Searchbox,
enter ‘‘RIN 1004–AE58’’, click the
‘‘Search’’ button, open the Docket
Folder, and look under Supporting
Documents.
Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs (E.O. 13771)
This proposed rule is an E.O. 13771
deregulatory action. As discussed in
Section 1 and detailed in Section 3, the
estimated cost of the proposed rule is
negative (a net benefit) in that it could
produce benefit to society from greater
overall non-energy solid leasable (NESL)
minerals economic activity in an upperbound scenario. This leads to the
proposed rule having an annual net
benefit (in $2018) of between $0 and
$452,000 per affected entity that could
be counted under Executive Order
13771, Section 2(c), as offsetting costs
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
from any new regulation that the
Department of the Interior may propose.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number
of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) (RFA) generally requires
that Federal agencies prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for rules
subject to the notice-and-comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
500 et seq.), if the rule would have a
significant economic impact, whether
detrimental or beneficial, on a
substantial number of small entities. See
5 U.S.C. 601–612. Congress enacted the
RFA to ensure that government
regulations do not unnecessarily or
disproportionately burden small
entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit
enterprises.
Soda ash is the NESL mineral most
likely to be impacted by BLM actions
under the proposed rule. Four out of the
five entities producing soda ash in the
United States belong to large, foreignowned holding companies whose
operations expand across multiple
industries including automobiles,
electronics, clothes, food and beverages,
cosmetics, soaps, detergents, and
specialty chemicals. The fifth company,
Genesis Energy, is an American firm
based in Houston, Texas, that
principally provides midstream energy
infrastructure and logistics. The total
number of employees for these entities
are as follows:
• As of 2017, Solvay employed 6,400
people at its North American operations
alone (includes industrial sites,
formulation centers, research and
formulation centers, and company
headquarters); 14
• As of publication of its 2018/2019
Annual Report, Tata Chemicals Limited
had 4,698 employees worldwide. Tata
Chemicals North America had 561
employees, but cannot be considered a
small business when considering those
employed by its foreign affiliates; 15
• Genesis Energy had approximately
2,100 employees as of December 31,
2018; 16
• As of December 31, 2018, Ciner
Resources had an estimated 488 full14 https://www.solvay.us/en/company/aboutsolvay/solvay-in-usa/.
15 https://www.tatachemicals.com/upload/
content_pdf/tata-chemicals-yearly-reports-201819.pdf.
16 https://www.genesisenergy.com/wp-content/
uploads/10k-18.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\18OCP1.SGM
18OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Proposed Rules
time employees working for its U.S.based operations.17 However, it is part
of holding company Ciner Group, which
employs 10,500 people; 18 and
• Searles Valley is fully owned by
India’s Nirma Group, which has
approximately 14,000 employees.19
Although the proposed rule could
potentially affect small NESL entities
producers outside of the soda ash
industry, the BLM does not believe at
this time that this is likely, based upon
its analysis under Section 3.1 of the
RIA. The BLM finds in this section that
of all of the NESL mineral industries
that could potentially be affected, only
soda ash has experienced economic
hardships of the kind and degree that
would make it a likely candidate for
industry-wide relief under § 3513.15(a).
The proposed rule is a deregulatory
action that would reduce the paperwork
and informational burden associated
with applying for a rental, royalty, or
minimum production reduction, and
would reduce the royalties that lessees
owe to the Federal Government based
on the value of sales of minerals
produced from Federal leases.
For the purpose of carrying out its
review pursuant to the RFA, the BLM
believes that the proposed rule would
not have a ‘‘significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities,’’ as that phrase is used in 5
U.S.C. 605. An initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is therefore not
required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more.
The BLM estimates that the proposed
rule would provide an annual benefit of
$619,000 on the economy. Please see the
RIA for this rule for a more detailed
discussion.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions. The proposed rule is
designed to lessen the burden on
industry when necessary while still
providing revenue to the government.
This revenue is based on commodity
price, adjusted royalty rate, and
production amounts.
17 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/
1575051/000157505119000032/cinerresourceslp201810k.htm.
18 https://www.cinergroup.com.tr/en/about-us.
19 https://www.slideshare.net/nirali2301/finalppt-of-nirma-67176929.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
(c) Does not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule may foster positive effects in
each of these areas. This proposed rule
would improve the BLM’s ability to
provide relief to the affected industry.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, tribal
governments, or the private sector of
more than $100 million per year. The
rule does not have a significant or
unique effect on State, local, tribal
governments or the private sector. This
proposed rule would only affect the
BLM’s process for providing reductions
to rental, royalties or minimum
production requirements of Federal
leases. A statement containing the
information required by the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) is not required.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
This rule does not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under E.O. 12630.
Section 2(a) of E.O. 12630 identifies
policies that do not have takings
implications, such as those that abolish
regulations, discontinue governmental
programs, or modify regulations in a
manner that lessens interference with
the use of private property. The
proposed rule is a deregulatory action
and does not interfere with private
property. A takings implication
assessment is not required.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O.
13132, this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement. It does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The proposed rule
would reduce burdens on industry and
more closely align BLM regulations with
the relevant statute. A federalism
summary impact statement is not
required.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
This rule complies with the
requirements of E.O. 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a)
requiring that all regulations be
reviewed to eliminate errors and
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55879
ambiguity and be written to minimize
litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2)
requiring that all regulations be written
in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O.
13175 and Departmental Policy)
The Department of the Interior strives
to strengthen its government togovernment relationship with Indian
tribes through a commitment to
consultation with Indian tribes and
recognition of their right to selfgovernance and tribal sovereignty. We
have evaluated this rule under the
Department’s consultation policy and
under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and
have determined that it has no
substantial direct effects on federally
recognized Indian tribes and that
consultation under the Department’s
tribal consultation policy is not
required. The proposed rule would
apply to non-energy mineral leases on
the Uintah and Ouray Indian
Reservation, Hillcreek Extension, State
of Utah (43 CFR 3503.11(b)), but no
active leases have been present on those
lands for approximately 15 years. There
are no plans to grant new leases to any
entity at this time, nor is there any
entity interested in pursuing leases on
those lands. This is a procedural rule
that does not change any royalty rates.
If the BLM implements an area- or
industry-wide reduction under this
proposed rule, the BLM would initiate
tribal consultation, as appropriate, at
that time.
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
This proposed rule contains a new
collection of information that the BLM
will submit to the OMB for review and
approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. (PRA). As part of our continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burdens, the BLM invites
the public and other Federal agencies to
comment on any aspect of the proposed
information collection (IC) aspects of
this proposed rule. You may send your
comments directly to OMB and send a
copy of your comments to the BLM (see
the ADDRESSES section of this proposed
rule). Please reference control number
1004–0121 in your comments. The BLM
specifically requests comments
concerning the need for the information,
its practical utility, the accuracy of the
agency’s burden estimate, and ways to
minimize the burden. You may obtain a
copy of the supporting statement for the
collection of information by contacting
the Bureau’s Information Collection
E:\FR\FM\18OCP1.SGM
18OCP1
55880
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Clearance Officer at (202) 912–7405. To
see a copy of the entire IC request
submitted to OMB, go to https://
www.reginfo.gov (select Information
Collection Review, Currently under
Review).
The PRA provides that an agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection
of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
contained in these proposed regulations
30 to 60 days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it by November 18, 2019. This
guidance does not affect the deadline for
the public to comment to the BLM on
the proposed regulations.
Summary of Information Collection
Activities
Title: Leasing of Solid Minerals Other
Than Coal and Oil Shale.
OMB Control Number: 1004–0121.
Form: None.
Description of Respondents: Holders
of Federal leases of solid minerals other
than coal and oil shale.
Respondents’ Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Abstract: The BLM requests OMB to
revise control number 1004–0121 in
light of a proposed rule, which is
intended to streamline applications for
various forms of relief, including royalty
rate reductions.
Estimated Number of Responses: 2.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 190.
Estimated Total Non-Hour Cost:
$17,000.
Information Collection Request
Control number 1004–0121 authorizes
the BLM to collect information
pertaining to leases of solid minerals
other than coal and oil shale. A
regulation that this rulemaking would
revise, i.e., 43 CFR 3513.15, pertains to
applications for reduction of rental,
royalties, or minimum production
requirements. This rulemaking would
not affect the regulations in Subpart
3513 that pertain to applications for
suspension of operations (i.e., sections
3513.22 and 3513.32).
In this proposed rule, the BLM would
revise control number 1004–0121 by
dividing a single, previously approved
information collection activity (i.e.,
‘‘Application for Waiver, Suspension, or
Reduction of Rental or Minimum
Royalties, or for a Reduction in the
Royalty Rate’’) into the following 2
activities:
• Application for Reduction of
Rental, Royalties, or Minimum
Production Requirements; and
• Application for Suspension.
The proposed rule would revise
section 3513.15(e) by requiring a
description of the lands by legal
subdivision only if the application is for
a portion of a lease. In addition, the
proposed rule would revise section
3513.15 by:
• Removing current paragraph (f),
which at present requires a tabulated
statement of the leasable minerals
mined for each month covering at least
the last twelve months before the filing
of the application, and the average
production mined per day for each
month;
• Moving current paragraph (g) to
new paragraph (f), but making no other
changes to that paragraph, which
requires that an application for relief
from the minimum production include
complete information about why
minimum production was not attained;
• Removing paragraph (h), which
currently requires a detailed statement
of expenses and costs of operating the
entire lease, and the income from the
sale of any leased products;
• Revising current paragraph (i) by
requiring ‘‘justification’’ rather than ‘‘all
facts’’ showing why the operator cannot
successfully operate the mines under
the royalty or rental fixed in the lease
and other lease terms;
• Moving current paragraph (i) to new
paragraph (g);
• Removing current paragraph (j),
which at present requires that an
application for reduction of royalty
must include full information about any
royalties the lessee pays to anyone other
than the United States, and a
description of the efforts the lessee has
made to reduce the other royalties;
• Removing current paragraph (k),
which requires documents
demonstrating that the total amount of
overriding royalties the lessee will pay
will not exceed one-half the proposed
reduced royalties due the United States;
and
• Moving current paragraph (l) to new
paragraph (h).
While the proposed rule would not
revise the regulations pertaining to
applications for suspension found in 43
CFR 3513.20–3513.26 and 3513.30–
3513.34, we are proposing the addition
of an activity for such applications
because the regulations that would be
revised or replaced in this rulemaking
cover both types of applications as
indicated in the description of subpart
3513.
If finalized and approved by OMB,
this information collection request
would result in the net addition of 1
activity to the 32 activities currently
approved under control number 1004–
0121.
Hour and cost burdens to respondents
include time spent for researching,
preparing, and submitting information.
The following table shows our estimates
of the annual hour and hour-related cost
burdens that this proposed rule would
affect. The frequency of response for
both of the information collection
activities is ‘‘on occasion.’’
Type of response
Number of
responses
Hours per
response
Total hours
(column B ×
column C)
A.
B.
C.
D.
Application for Reduction of Rental, Royalties, or Minimum Production Requirements 43 CFR
3513.15 and 3513.16 ...............................................................................................................
Application for Suspension 43 CFR 3513.16, 3513.22 and 3513.32 .........................................
1
1
90
100
90
100
Totals ....................................................................................................................................
2
........................
190
National Environmental Policy Act
The BLM has determined that the
changes that would be made by this
proposed rule are administrative or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
procedural in nature in accordance with
43 CFR 46.210(i) (‘‘Policies, directives,
regulations, and guidelines: That are of
an administrative, financial, legal,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
technical, or procedural nature; or
whose environmental effects are too
broad, speculative, or conjectural to
lend themselves to meaningful analysis
E:\FR\FM\18OCP1.SGM
18OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2019 / Proposed Rules
and will later be subject to the NEPA
process, either collectively or case-bycase’’). Therefore, the proposed action is
categorically excluded from
environmental review under the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
We have also determined that the
proposed rule does not involve any of
the extraordinary circumstances listed
in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require
further analysis under NEPA.
Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O.
13211)
This rule is not a significant energy
action under the definition in E.O.
13211. This proposed rule would amend
only BLM regulations that could impact
non-energy solid leasable minerals. A
Statement of Energy Effects is not
required.
Clarity of This Regulation
We are required by E.O.s 12866
(section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section
3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and
by the Presidential Memorandum of
June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and
clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you believe that we have not met
these requirements, send us comments
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should
be as specific as possible. For example,
you should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that you find
unclear, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Author
The principal authors of this rule are:
Alfred Elser, Division of Solid Minerals;
Bill Radden-Lesage, Division of Solid
Minerals; Adam Merrill, Division of
Solid Minerals; Lindsey Curnutt,
Division of Solid Minerals; Charles
Yudson, Division of Regulatory Affairs;
assisted by the Office of the Solicitor.
Dated: October 8, 2019.
Casey Hammond,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and
Minerals Management.
16:07 Oct 17, 2019
Jkt 250001
43 CFR Chapter II
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Bureau of Land
Management proposes to amend 43 CFR
part 3500 as follows:
PART 3500—LEASING OF SOLID
MINERALS OTHER THAN COAL AND
OIL SHALE
1. The authority citation for part 3500
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 30 U.S.C. 189 and
192c; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; and sec. 402,
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 U.S.C.
appendix).
■
2. Revise § 3513.11 to read as follows:
§ 3513.11 May BLM relieve me of the lease
requirements of rental, minimum royalty, or
production royalty while continuing to hold
the lease?
Yes. The BLM has a process that may
allow you temporary relief from these
lease requirements (See 30 U.S.C. 209).
■ 3. Revise § 3513.15 to read as follows:
§ 3513.15 How do I apply for reduction of
rental, royalties or minimum production?
You must submit your application
with the following information for all
leases involved:
(a) The serial numbers;
(b) The name of the record title
holder(s);
(c) The name of the operator and
operating rights owners if different from
the record title holder(s);
(d) A description of the lands by legal
subdivision, if the application is for a
portion of the lease;
(e) A map showing the serial number
and location of each mine or excavation
and the extent of the mining operations;
(f) If you are applying for relief from
the minimum production requirement,
complete information as to why you did
not attain the minimum production;
(g) Justification showing why you
cannot successfully operate the mines
under the royalty or rental fixed in the
lease and other lease terms;
(h) Any other information BLM needs
to determine whether the request
satisfies the standards in § 3513.12 of
this part.
■ 4. Add a new § 3513.17 to read as
follows:
§ 3513.17 How will BLM implement a
reduction of rental, royalties or minimum
production?
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3500
Government contracts, Hydrocarbons,
Mineral royalties, Mines, Phosphate,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Potassium, Public lands-mineral
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sodium, Sulphur, Surety
bonds.
(a) The BLM may reduce rental,
royalties, or minimum production on its
own initiative if the BLM determines,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55881
based on available information, that it is
necessary to promote development of
the mineral resource. Such a reduction
may be for a specific geographic area, or
on an industry-wide basis.
(b) The BLM may reduce rental,
royalties, or minimum production in
response to an application submitted
under § 3513.15 if the application meets
the criteria in § 3513.12.
(c) The BLM may grant a reduction
not to exceed:
(1) 10 years from the date of
implementation under paragraph (a) of
this section, or
(2) 10 years from the date of the
decision to approve the application
submitted paragraph (b) of this section
or for a maximum quantity of mineral
production as determined by the BLM.
[FR Doc. 2019–22535 Filed 10–17–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–84–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket Nos. 05–6, 17–105, 17–264; FCC
19–97]
Filing of Applications; Modernization
of Media Regulation Initiative; Revision
of Requirements
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission adopted a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, in which it
sought comment on proposals to change
the rules governing local public notice
given by broadcast station applicants.
These specific rule changes were
proposed based on responses to the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this
proceeding.
DATES: Comments may be filed on or
before November 18, 2019 and reply
comments may be filed on or before
December 2, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No. 17–264, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal Communications
Commission’s website: https://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail
(although the Commission continues to
experience delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail). All filings must be
addressed to the Commission’s
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18OCP1.SGM
18OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55873-55881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22535]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 3500
[LLW0320000 L13300000 PP0000 20X]
RIN 1004-AE58
Non-Energy Solid Leasable Minerals Royalty Rate Reduction Process
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to amend its
regulations to revise the process for lessees to seek and for the BLM
to grant reductions of rental fees, royalty rates, and/or minimum
production requirements associated with non-energy solid leasable
minerals. The proposed rule would streamline the process for such
reductions for non-energy solid minerals leased by the Federal
Government and would codify the BLM's authority to issue an area- or
industry-wide reduction on its own initiative. Existing regulatory
requirements are overly restrictive, inflexible, and burdensome. A
report from the Senate Committee on Appropriations on the 2019
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill encouraged the BLM to work with soda ash producers
to reduce the Federal royalty rate, as appropriate. The proposed rule
would give the BLM more flexibility to respond to changing market
dynamics by improving the BLM's ability to boost production and support
development of the Federal mineral estate when deemed necessary.
DATES: Please submit comments on or before December 17, 2019. As
explained later, this proposed rule would include revisions to
information collection requirements that must be approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). If you wish to comment on the revised
information collection requirements in this proposed rule, please note
that such comments should be sent directly to the OMB, and that the OMB
is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information
contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a
comment to the OMB on the proposed information collection revisions is
best assured of being given full consideration if the OMB receives it
by November 18, 2019.
[[Page 55874]]
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number RIN 1004-
AE58, by any of the following methods:
Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior, Director (630), Bureau of
Land Management, Mail Stop 2134 LM, 1849 C St. NW, Washington, DC
20240, Attention: RIN 1004-AE58.
Personal or messenger delivery: U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street SE, Room 2134LM, Washington, DC
20003, Attention: Regulatory Affairs.
Federal eRulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the
Searchbox, enter ``RIN 1004-AE58'' and click the ``Search'' button.
Follow the instructions at this website.
For Comments on Information-Collection Activities
Fax: Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Desk Officer for the Department of the
Interior, fax 202-395-5806.
Electronic mail: [email protected].
Please indicate ``Attention: OMB Control Number 1004-0121,''
regardless of the method used to submit comments on the information
collection burdens. If you submit comments on the information
collection burdens, you should provide the BLM with a copy at one of
the street addresses shown earlier in this section, so that we can
summarize all written comments and address them in the final
rulemaking. Please do not submit to OMB comments that do not pertain to
the proposed rule's information collection burdens. The BLM is not
obligated to consider or include in the Administrative Record for the
final rule any such comments that you improperly direct to OMB, rather
than the BLM.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mitch Leverette, Division Chief of
Solid Minerals, WO-320; 202-912-7113. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to
leave a message or question with the above individuals. You will
receive a reply during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Comment Procedures
II. Background
III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
IV. Procedural Matters
I. Public Comment Procedures
You may submit comments, marked with the number RIN 1004-AE58, by
any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section. If you wish to
comment on the information collection requirements, you should send
those comments directly to the OMB as outlined (see ADDRESSES);
however, we ask that you also provide a copy of those comments to the
BLM.
Please make your comments on the proposed rule as specific as
possible, confine them to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, and
explain the reason for any changes you recommend. Where possible, your
comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the
proposal that you are addressing. The comments and recommendations that
will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are:
1. Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and
2. Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable
laws and regulations.
The BLM is not obligated to consider or include in the
Administrative Record for the final rule comments that we receive after
the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an
address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES).
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will
be available for public review at the address listed under ADDRESSES:
Personal or messenger delivery'' during regular business hours (7:45
a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that
your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--
may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in
your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from
public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
II. Background
Pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), 30 U.S.C. 181 et
seq., and other legal authorities, the BLM is authorized to lease
deposits of certain minerals on lands owned by the United States. The
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.,
charges the BLM with managing public lands in a manner that allows for
responsible and appropriate resource development. In addition to
commonly known energy resources, such as coal, oil, and gas, the MLA
also authorizes the BLM to lease non-energy minerals, such as
gilsonite, phosphate, sodium, potassium, and sulfur. The BLM
regulations implementing this authority for solid minerals (other than
coal) are found at 43 CFR part 3500--Leasing of Solid Minerals Other
than Coal and Oil Shale. As described in section 3501.2, the subject
minerals are ``minerals other than oil, gas, coal and oil shale, leased
under the mineral leasing acts, and . . . hardrock minerals leasable
under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, on any unclaimed, undeveloped
area of available public domain or acquired lands where leasing of
these specific minerals is allowed by law. Special areas identified in
part 3580 of this title and asphalt on certain lands in Oklahoma also
are leased under this part.'' Leasing these minerals on Federal land
provides valuable revenue to the states and the Federal Government.
The United States was once the leading producer in the world of one
such mineral, sodium carbonate (natural soda ash), before falling
behind China in 2003.\1\ This change stimulated a move in Congress to
provide relief to American soda ash producers. The Soda Ash Royalty
Reduction Act of 2006 (SARRA) (Pub. L. 109-338) prescribed a 2 percent
royalty rate on sodium compounds produced from Federal land in the 5-
year period beginning on October 12, 2006.\2\ Additionally, the Helium
Stewardship Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-40) included a provision that set
a 4 percent royalty rate on soda ash for a 2-year period, which ended
on October 1, 2015. These reductions have expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dennis S. Kostick, U.S. Geological Survey, 2005 Minerals
Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2006).
\2\ The SARRA required that the Department report to Congress on
the impacts of the 2-percent royalty rate. The report to Congress,
completed in 2011, concluded that while total sales revenues from
Federal sodium leases increased, royalty revenues were significantly
lower than they would have been absent the SARRA and production
shifted away from state and private land leases onto Federal leases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The minimum royalty rates for soda ash, along with other non-energy
solid minerals on Federal lands are set in the MLA and BLM regulations
(see 43 CFR 3504.21). The MLA authorizes the Secretary to establish
royalty rates higher than the minimum, along with rental fees and
minimum production requirements through regulation. The BLM sets the
royalty rates for each lease at or above the specified minimum royalty
rate (see 43 CFR 3504.22) based on current market conditions at the
time of lease issuance, but those conditions may change over the life
of the lease.
The BLM requests information from the public about current market
conditions for soda ash and other types of non-energy solid leasable
minerals
[[Page 55875]]
leased pursuant to 43 CFR part 3500, including non-energy solid
leasable minerals identified as ``critical minerals'' in the ``Final
List of Critical Minerals 2018,'' which was published in the Federal
Register on May 18, 2018.
Section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209, authorizes the Secretary to
reduce royalty rates and rental fees:
The Secretary of the Interior, for the purpose of encouraging
the greatest ultimate recovery of coal, oil, gas, oil shale,
gilsonite, . . . phosphate, sodium, potassium and sulfur, and in the
interest of conservation of natural resources, is authorized to
waive, suspend, or reduce the rental, or minimum royalty, or reduce
the royalty on an entire leasehold, or on any tract or portion
thereof segregated for royalty purposes, whenever in his judgement
it is necessary to do so in order to promote development, or
whenever in his judgment the leases cannot be successfully operated
under the terms provided therein.
The BLM regulations contain a process for reducing royalty rates,
along with rental fees and minimum production requirements, for non-
energy solid minerals leased by the Federal Government in 43 CFR
subpart 3513--Waiver, Suspension or Reduction of Rental and Minimum
Royalties. The process described in this subpart of the regulations
imposes requirements beyond what section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209,
requires. The BLM has reviewed the existing regulatory requirements for
non-energy solid minerals and has determined that the royalty reduction
process codified in 43 CFR subpart 3513 is unnecessarily restrictive,
inflexible, and burdensome. See Sec. 3513.15 of the section-by-section
discussion of this preamble for a more detailed discussion of the
overly burdensome requirements that would be removed by this proposed
rule.
The BLM promulgated the current regulations during the late 1990s
to ``streamline and rewrite necessary regulations in plain English.''
\3\ The effect of rewriting the language, however, introduced some
substantive changes as compared with the previous regulations by
requiring specific information for all applications that may not always
be necessary. In contrast, previous versions of the royalty rate
reduction regulations from 1946, 1964, and 1983 were more closely
aligned with the statutory language and did not list specific data
requirements for an application.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``The purpose of this rule is to comply with President
Clinton's government-wide regulatory reform initiative to eliminate
unnecessary regulations, and streamline and rewrite necessary
regulations in plain English.'' 64 FR 53,512, 53,512 (Oct. 1, 1999).
\4\ ``In order to encourage the greatest ultimate recovery of
the leased minerals, and in the interest of conservation, whenever
the authorized officer determines it is necessary to promote
development or finds that leases cannot be successfully operated
under the terms provided therein, the rental or minimum royalty
payments may be waived, suspended or reduced, or the rate of royalty
reduced.'' 43 CFR 3503.2-4(a) (1998). See also 43 CFR 3503.3-1(d)
(1983); 43 CFR 3102.3(a) (1964); 43 CFR 191.25 (1946).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would streamline the process to reduce rental
fees, royalty rates, or minimum production requirements for all non-
energy solid minerals leased by the Federal Government, without
altering the substantive criteria that BLM will use to determine
whether a reduction is appropriate. This proposed rule would remove
unnecessary and overly burdensome requirements. Additionally, this
proposed rule would codify in regulation the BLM's authority to
implement area- or industry-wide reductions on the BLM's own
initiative, thus giving greater effect in 43 CFR part 3500 to the broad
authority that the MLA grants to the Secretary of the Interior to
reduce rental fees, royalty rates, and/or minimum production
requirements to promote development. This would improve the BLM's
ability to provide relief to producers of non-energy solid leasable
minerals, from burdens, such as geological hardships \5\ and market
transformations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Geological hardships are circumstances that may slow or stop
mining in a given area. These hardships may include such things as a
deposit thinning, becoming exhausted, or changing in composition, or
running into an underground barrier such as a structure that
compromises the integrity and or grade of the deposit. These often
cannot be foreseen at the time of leasing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress introduced the American Soda Ash Competitiveness Act in
2017, which recommended setting the Federal royalty rate for soda ash
at the minimum of 2 percent for a 5-year period. Although this proposed
legislation was not enacted, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
expressed concern about keeping the United States competitive in the
global soda ash market, and encouraged ``the Bureau to work with soda
ash producers to assist them in reducing royalty rates and [directing]
the Bureau to take the necessary steps to reduce the Federal royalty
rate for soda ash as appropriate.'' S. Rep. No. 115-276, at 14 (2018).
The House also noted that ``the Committees are concerned about
maintaining the United States' global competitiveness in the production
of natural soda ash. The United States contains approximately 90
percent of the world's natural soda ash deposits, while many
international competitors are producing synthetic soda ash using more
energy and generating higher emissions than natural soda ash
production. Therefore, the Committees expect the Bureau to consider
using its authority to reduce the Federal royalty rate for soda ash to
2 percent.'' \6\ This rulemaking is the first step the BLM must take in
order to clarify its authority to reduce the royalty rate for soda ash
in general (i.e., for the industry as a whole or for a particular area)
in the absence of an individual lease-by-lease application submitted by
a leaseholder for specific leases in an operation. Under the proposed
rule, the BLM could consider these recommendations and move forward
with area- or industry-wide royalty rate reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ An Explanatory Statement for the Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BLM has a history of receiving applications requesting royalty
rate reductions for commodities such as lead-zinc, gilsonite, and
potash. Since the early 1990's the BLM has received between ten and
fifteen applications seeking a reduction, and approximately half of
those were considered complete applications. The BLM has approved about
five applications for reduction since 1993. Although the BLM has no
history of implementing area- or industry-wide royalty rate reductions
in the context of non-energy solid leasable minerals under 43 CFR part
3500, the BLM has reduced royalty rates on an area-wide basis for coal
leases under section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209. As an example, the
BLM reduced the royalty rate for coal leases in a specific area of
North Dakota in the spring of 2019 to 2.2 percent as a ``category 5''
reduction due to market conditions.
Executive Order 13817, ``A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and
Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals'' emphasizes the need for the
United States to domestically source critical minerals. The Secretary
of the Interior published a ``Final List of Critical Minerals'' on May
18, 2018. This list includes commodities that can be leased as non-
energy minerals, such as potash and metals like lithium or rare earth
elements on acquired lands. This proposed rule would meet the goals of
E.O. 13817 by improving the BLM's ability to ensure continued
production of critical minerals on public lands.
Over the past two decades, U.S. natural soda ash production has
grown at an average compound annual rate of 0.9 percent, from 11.1
million short tons
[[Page 55876]]
(MMst) in 1998 to 13.2 MMst in 2018.\7\ During this period, however,
Chinese synthetic soda ash production grew at a 6.4 percent compound
annual rate, rising from less than one-quarter of world production to
nearly half.\8\ China has used the Hue and Solvay synthetic processes
to ramp up its soda ash production, surpassing U.S. total production in
2003,\9\ and doubling U.S. volumes in 2011.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Minerals Yearbook data,
editions from 2002 through 2018.
\8\ USGS Minerals Yearbook data through 2017, with National
Bureau of Statistics of China monthly data from January through
October 2018 used to project the 2018 total.
\9\ Dennis S. Kostick, U.S. Geological Survey, 2005 Minerals
Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2006).
\10\ Wallace P. Bolen, U.S. Geological Survey, 2014 Minerals
Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although China's soda ash production has largely focused on
producing glass for its automotive and construction industries (among
others), its rise has reduced the ability of U.S. producers to satisfy
the burgeoning demand for the mineral. It has also caused the U.S.
share of world soda ash production to decline from 31 percent of the
world total in 1998 to 22 percent in 2018. Moreover, while China's more
expensive synthetic soda ash production has largely gone to its
domestic manufacturing industry, relatively low-cost natural soda ash
produced from Turkey's significant trona ore deposits compete directly
with U.S. exports to countries in the European Union and elsewhere.
Recent announcements point to soda ash production expansions in Turkey,
as well as in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, India, Thailand, and
Pakistan.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Wallace P. Bolen, U.S. Geological Survey, 2016 Minerals
Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the BLM's view that this proposed rule is necessary in light
of the world market developments such as those described above to keep
the United States competitive in the world markets of non-energy solid
leasable commodities. The BLM also views the proposed rule as necessary
to promote development of non-energy solid leasable mineral resources
in accordance with the MLA, particularly during periods of market
fluctuation. For example, from 2008 to 2010, the price of soda ash, as
with many other commodities, spiked and then dropped precipitously,
threatening the industry's ability to operate successfully while paying
all related royalties and taxes. The changes in this proposed rule
would not adversely impact the processing time for royalty rate
reduction applications. On the contrary, the proposed changes would
reduce the time required for a lessee to compile an application and it
would be easier for lessees to achieve application completeness.
Moreover, the rule would allow the BLM to implement reductions
industry-wide or area-wide of its own initiative in accordance with
section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209.
III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
The regulations in 43 CFR part 3500 are authorized by the Mineral
Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) and other statutory
authorities. The proposed rule would streamline the process to apply
for rental fee, royalty rate, and minimum production requirement
reductions for non-energy solid mineral leases. This proposed rule
would also reduce the burden on lease holders by simplifying the
regulatory requirements so as to better align the regulations with the
statute.
You may find the BLM regulations that implement this authority for
solid minerals (other than coal) in 43 CFR subpart 3513--Waiver,
Suspension or Reduction of Rental and Minimum Royalties.
Sec. 3513.11 May BLM relieve me of the lease requirements of rental,
minimum royalty, or production royalty while continuing to hold the
lease?
Section 3513.11 states that the BLM has a process that allows for
temporary relief from the rental, minimum royalty, or production
royalty provisions in a lease. The BLM considers applications submitted
under section 3513.15 on a case by case basis based on the data in the
application for lease requirement relief. This existing section
introduces subpart 3513, which explains that process in greater detail.
The Non-Energy Solid Leasable Handbook, H-3500-01, includes guidance
for processing applications for temporary relief from the rental,
minimum royalty, or production royalty provisions.
This proposed rule would add to section 3513.11 a citation to the
relevant section of the Mineral Leasing Act. 30 U.S.C. 209. This is not
a substantive change and would have no impacts beyond providing
additional information.
Sec. 3513.15 How do I apply for reduction of rental, royalties or
minimum production?
Section 3513.15 sets out the information that a lessee must include
in an application for BLM to make its decision. The BLM needs the
information provided in this application to determine whether the
request satisfies the reduction criteria described in 43 CFR 3513.12.
This proposed rule would remove the requirement to submit two
copies of an application because two copies are no longer necessary
with current technology. When the BLM promulgated these regulations,
lessees submitted applications to the BLM via hard copy mail and the
BLM used both paper copies during its processing. The BLM now receives
and processes these applications electronically, or the BLM is able to
make physical or electronic copies of the paper submissions.
Paragraph 3513.15(d) in the current regulations requires an
application to include a description of the lands for which the
reduction would apply. This proposed rule would revise this requirement
to be applicable only when the application is for a portion of the
lease or leases. If the application is for the lease in its entirety,
the BLM already has that information on hand and a land description
would not be necessary for that application. This proposed revision
would make the application easier to complete, which would help improve
processing timeliness.
This proposed rule would remove paragraphs (f) and (h) of this
section, which require a tabulated statement of the leasable minerals
mined for each month, covering at least the last twelve months before a
lessee files an application; the average production mined per day for
each month; a detailed statement of expenses and costs of operating the
entire lease; and the income from the sale of any leased products. This
information would not be required because the BLM already knows the
quantity of leasable minerals that the lessees are mining on each
lease. The BLM can extrapolate the average production mined per day
from production records and mine plan reports that the lessee already
submits to the BLM and Office of Natural Resources Revenue (formerly
Mineral Management Service) for royalty payment purposes and to prove
they are meeting minimum production requirements as indicated on their
lease form in accordance with 43 CFR 3504.20. The detailed statement of
expenses and costs is extraneous information and is not necessary for
the application because the reduction is based on market conditions and
geologic interferences that are not tied to past costs and expenses
(for example, the applicant's utility costs will not change with the
commodity's market fluctuations, so we know their costs to run the
operation will not decrease at the same rate that their income from the
commodity price decreases, making them exclusive values). Removing this
unnecessary requirement would also
[[Page 55877]]
make the application easier to complete, further improving the
timeliness of the reduction process.
Proposed section 3513.15(g) would contain the requirement found in
section 3513.15(i) of the current regulations. However, instead of
requiring ``all facts'' showing why the lessee cannot successfully
operate a mine, the proposed rule would require the application to
provide ``justification'' showing why the lessee cannot successfully
operate a mine under the existing royalty or rental. The proposed rule
provides a more measured requirement for the applicant to demonstrate
why they are unable to meet the terms of the lease. It is still
imperative for the application to provide sufficient justification for
the BLM to make its determination in each applicant's case. While this
is a change to the wording of the regulation, the BLM does not expect
any substantive impact from this revision because the applicant will
still need to demonstrate why they cannot operate the lease under
current conditions. Data that may be seen in these types of
applications include: geologic maps and reports about hazards being
encountered, cost per ton of product, revenue per ton of product, or
reports discussing any financial hardship an individual mine is facing.
This proposed rule would also remove paragraphs (j) and (k) of
section 3513.15, which require full information as to whether the
lessee pays royalties or payments out of production to anyone other
than the United States, the amounts paid and efforts the lessee has
made to reduce them, and documents demonstrating that the total amount
of overriding royalties paid for the lease will not exceed one-half the
proposed reduced royalties due the United States. The BLM expects that
the application would disclose any relevant information regarding
overriding royalties under the informational requirements of proposed
sections 3513.15(g) and (h) because BLM has authority to order the
operator to suspend or reduce an overriding royalty as stated in 43 CFR
3504.26. The proposed removal of these two paragraphs would make the
application easier to complete, which would help improve the timeliness
of the reduction process.
Proposed section 3513.15(h) would contain the requirements of
existing section 3513.15(l) that the applicant include any additional
information the BLM requires to determine if the applicant meets the
standards of section 3513.12. Section 3513.12, which the proposed rule
would not amend, explains the criteria that the BLM considers when
approving a waiver, suspension, or reduction in rental, or minimum
royalty, or a reduction in the royalty rate.
Sec. 3513.17 How will the BLM implement a reduction of rental,
royalties or minimum production?
This proposed rule would add a new section 3513.17, which explains
how the BLM would implement a reduction on its own initiative. Prior to
1999, there was no requirement that a reduction would be temporary.\12\
Placing timing or tonnage constraints on the reduction would ensure
that the rule is applied when necessary to continue development, but
not longer than necessary. As markets fluctuate and lessees overcome
geologic hardships, the need for a reduction may end. When the term of
the reduction ends, the royalty can increase to its original rate,
thereby increasing revenue to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 43 CFR 3503.2-4 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209, authorizes the Secretary to
reduce royalty rates and rental fees ``whenever in his judgement it is
necessary to do so in order to promote development, or whenever in his
judgment the leases cannot be successfully operated under the terms
provided therein.'' 30 U.S.C. 209. This provision of the MLA authorizes
the Secretary to provide across-the-board royalty rate relief for all
lessees who are developing non-energy minerals leased by the Federal
Government, as long as the Secretary finds that it is necessary to do
so in order to promote development. Promoting development will help
ensure operations can continue, preserving jobs and helping domestic
commodities from those operations to remain in the market. The proposed
section is outlined as follows:
Proposed section 3513.17(a) would implement this provision in the
regulations, allowing the BLM to reduce rental fees, royalty rates, or
minimum production requirements on its own initiative, whereas
currently BLM can only provide rate relief upon application on a case
by case basis. This proposed section would allow the BLM, on behalf of
the Secretary of the Interior, to provide such relief in order to
promote the overall development of a mineral resource for all leases in
a geographic area or across an industry. This would more fully
implement in 43 CFR part 3500 the broad authority that the MLA grants
to the Secretary of the Interior for allowing these reductions in order
to promote development, in addition to the reductions based on
individual lease-by-lease applications. The BLM requests comment on the
types of information the BLM should consider before implementing an
area- or industry-wide reduction to promote development, including
information related to quantifying the potential costs and benefits of
this proposed rule with respect to NESL minerals other than soda ash.
Proposed paragraph (b) of section 3513.17 explains that the BLM may
implement a reduction in response to an application submitted under
section 3513.15. This is not a change from existing practice, but it
would be included here to demonstrate the difference between the
application process of section 3513.15 and a BLM-initiated reduction
under proposed section 3513.17(a).
Proposed section 3513.17(c) describes how the BLM would limit
reductions implemented under proposed section 3513.17.
Section 3513.17(c) would apply to reductions that the BLM
implements on its own initiative under section 3513.17(a) and those
that the BLM implements in response to an application under section
3513.17(b). Under proposed paragraph (c) of this section, reductions
would be limited to not more than 10 years from the date that BLM
implements a reduction or not more than a specific tonnage that the
lessee produces, as determined by the BLM. The BLM would determine the
specific time or tonnage limit appropriate for each reduction on a
case-by-case basis. The BLM would determine durations of reductions and
tonnage limits based on projected market conditions or geologic hazard
attributes for each application or area. If a reduction is in response
to an application under 3513.17(b), the reason for the application will
help determine the appropriate term or tonnage limit of the reduction.
Prior to 1999, there was no requirement in the BLM's regulations
that a reduction would be temporary, though in practice they generally
are.\13\ Placing timing or tonnage constraints on the reduction would
ensure that the BLM would allow reductions when necessary to continue
or promote development, but no longer. At the end of the reduction
period, the royalty, rental, or minimum production requirements would
increase to their original rates. At that time, the lessee would
operate under the original lease terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 43 CFR 3503.2-4 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BLM would generally set a time limit when issuing an area- or
industry-
[[Page 55878]]
wide reduction to promote development. The proposed rule would limit
the reduction to not more than 10 years, but the BLM may determine a
shorter period is appropriate. Market conditions can fluctuate over a
10-year period and a longer period in a single grant would not be
appropriate. Past legislation for reductions expired after 5 years, so
a 10 year term was chosen as a maximum with the option to make the term
shorter if applicable. The BLM requests comments on the 10-year limit
for reductions.
When a lessee submits an application under section 3513.15, it
might be more appropriate to apply a fixed tonnage rather than applying
a time limit.
The BLM would calculate a fixed tonnage using known, estimated, or
historic production rates and extrapolating total tonnage verified by
BLM inspection personnel (see 43 CFR subparts 3597 and 3598). Estimated
production will be determined based on current mining style, rock type,
and operator production capabilities according to their approved mine
plan on a case by case basis. The BLM would extrapolate the production
rates over a fixed period to determine the total tonnage that would
qualify for a royalty rate reduction. The BLM could apply fixed tonnage
constraints for a reduction to areas of geologic concern where
production rates may differ.
Under the existing regulations, the BLM has often used a fixed
tonnage when applying a constraint to the royalty rate reduction for a
lease. The tonnage constraint ensures that the lessee produces the
amount of a mineral projected over a particular period, but prevents
the lessee from refocusing production exclusively to an area with a
reduced royalty rate and producing a greater amount of the mineral at
the reduced royalty rate.
While there is no specific process in the regulations for an
extension of these constraints, the BLM would not limit the number of
times lessees may apply for a reduction under section 3513.15. The BLM
requests comment on the implications of a fixed tonnage for reductions.
IV. Procedural Matters
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and
Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is significant because
it may raise novel legal or policy issues.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for
improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O.
directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens
and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where
these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be
based on the best available science and that the rule making process
must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We
have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these
requirements.
The proposed rule would reduce duplicative information requirements
for non-energy solid leasable minerals operators who apply for a
reduction of rental, royalties or minimum production. The proposed rule
would also more fully implement the Secretary's authority under section
39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209, to provide these reductions to promote
development.
The BLM reviewed the requirements of the proposed rule and
determined that it would not adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities. For more detailed information, see the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) prepared for this proposed rule. The
RIA has been posted in the docket for the proposed rule on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Searchbox,
enter ``RIN 1004-AE58'', click the ``Search'' button, open the Docket
Folder, and look under Supporting Documents.
Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (E.O. 13771)
This proposed rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. As
discussed in Section 1 and detailed in Section 3, the estimated cost of
the proposed rule is negative (a net benefit) in that it could produce
benefit to society from greater overall non-energy solid leasable
(NESL) minerals economic activity in an upper-bound scenario. This
leads to the proposed rule having an annual net benefit (in $2018) of
between $0 and $452,000 per affected entity that could be counted under
Executive Order 13771, Section 2(c), as offsetting costs from any new
regulation that the Department of the Interior may propose.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) (RFA) generally requires that Federal agencies prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for rules subject to the notice-and-
comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act
(5 U.S.C. 500 et seq.), if the rule would have a significant economic
impact, whether detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of
small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Congress enacted the RFA to
ensure that government regulations do not unnecessarily or
disproportionately burden small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit
enterprises.
Soda ash is the NESL mineral most likely to be impacted by BLM
actions under the proposed rule. Four out of the five entities
producing soda ash in the United States belong to large, foreign-owned
holding companies whose operations expand across multiple industries
including automobiles, electronics, clothes, food and beverages,
cosmetics, soaps, detergents, and specialty chemicals. The fifth
company, Genesis Energy, is an American firm based in Houston, Texas,
that principally provides midstream energy infrastructure and
logistics. The total number of employees for these entities are as
follows:
As of 2017, Solvay employed 6,400 people at its North
American operations alone (includes industrial sites, formulation
centers, research and formulation centers, and company headquarters);
\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.solvay.us/en/company/about-solvay/solvay-in-usa/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of publication of its 2018/2019 Annual Report, Tata
Chemicals Limited had 4,698 employees worldwide. Tata Chemicals North
America had 561 employees, but cannot be considered a small business
when considering those employed by its foreign affiliates; \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://www.tatachemicals.com/upload/content_pdf/tata-chemicals-yearly-reports-2018-19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis Energy had approximately 2,100 employees as of
December 31, 2018; \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.genesisenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/10k-18.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2018, Ciner Resources had an estimated
488 full-
[[Page 55879]]
time employees working for its U.S.-based operations.\17\ However, it
is part of holding company Ciner Group, which employs 10,500 people;
\18\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575051/000157505119000032/cinerresourceslp-201810k.htm.
\18\ https://www.cinergroup.com.tr/en/about-us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Searles Valley is fully owned by India's Nirma Group,
which has approximately 14,000 employees.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.slideshare.net/nirali2301/final-ppt-of-nirma-67176929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the proposed rule could potentially affect small NESL
entities producers outside of the soda ash industry, the BLM does not
believe at this time that this is likely, based upon its analysis under
Section 3.1 of the RIA. The BLM finds in this section that of all of
the NESL mineral industries that could potentially be affected, only
soda ash has experienced economic hardships of the kind and degree that
would make it a likely candidate for industry-wide relief under Sec.
3513.15(a).
The proposed rule is a deregulatory action that would reduce the
paperwork and informational burden associated with applying for a
rental, royalty, or minimum production reduction, and would reduce the
royalties that lessees owe to the Federal Government based on the value
of sales of minerals produced from Federal leases.
For the purpose of carrying out its review pursuant to the RFA, the
BLM believes that the proposed rule would not have a ``significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,'' as that
phrase is used in 5 U.S.C. 605. An initial regulatory flexibility
analysis is therefore not required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more. The BLM estimates that the proposed rule would provide an
annual benefit of $619,000 on the economy. Please see the RIA for this
rule for a more detailed discussion.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions. The proposed rule is designed to
lessen the burden on industry when necessary while still providing
revenue to the government. This revenue is based on commodity price,
adjusted royalty rate, and production amounts.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This
rule may foster positive effects in each of these areas. This proposed
rule would improve the BLM's ability to provide relief to the affected
industry.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local,
tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State,
local, tribal governments or the private sector. This proposed rule
would only affect the BLM's process for providing reductions to rental,
royalties or minimum production requirements of Federal leases. A
statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under E.O. 12630. Section 2(a) of E.O. 12630
identifies policies that do not have takings implications, such as
those that abolish regulations, discontinue governmental programs, or
modify regulations in a manner that lessens interference with the use
of private property. The proposed rule is a deregulatory action and
does not interfere with private property. A takings implication
assessment is not required.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement. It does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed
rule would reduce burdens on industry and more closely align BLM
regulations with the relevant statute. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be
written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175 and Departmental Policy)
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government
to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to
consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-
governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under
the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O.
13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on
federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the
Department's tribal consultation policy is not required. The proposed
rule would apply to non-energy mineral leases on the Uintah and Ouray
Indian Reservation, Hillcreek Extension, State of Utah (43 CFR
3503.11(b)), but no active leases have been present on those lands for
approximately 15 years. There are no plans to grant new leases to any
entity at this time, nor is there any entity interested in pursuing
leases on those lands. This is a procedural rule that does not change
any royalty rates. If the BLM implements an area- or industry-wide
reduction under this proposed rule, the BLM would initiate tribal
consultation, as appropriate, at that time.
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This proposed rule contains a new collection of information that
the BLM will submit to the OMB for review and approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (PRA). As part
of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens,
the BLM invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any
aspect of the proposed information collection (IC) aspects of this
proposed rule. You may send your comments directly to OMB and send a
copy of your comments to the BLM (see the ADDRESSES section of this
proposed rule). Please reference control number 1004-0121 in your
comments. The BLM specifically requests comments concerning the need
for the information, its practical utility, the accuracy of the
agency's burden estimate, and ways to minimize the burden. You may
obtain a copy of the supporting statement for the collection of
information by contacting the Bureau's Information Collection
[[Page 55880]]
Clearance Officer at (202) 912-7405. To see a copy of the entire IC
request submitted to OMB, go to https://www.reginfo.gov (select
Information Collection Review, Currently under Review).
The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the collection of information
contained in these proposed regulations 30 to 60 days after publication
of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB
is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by
November 18, 2019. This guidance does not affect the deadline for the
public to comment to the BLM on the proposed regulations.
Summary of Information Collection Activities
Title: Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale.
OMB Control Number: 1004-0121.
Form: None.
Description of Respondents: Holders of Federal leases of solid
minerals other than coal and oil shale.
Respondents' Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Abstract: The BLM requests OMB to revise control number 1004-0121
in light of a proposed rule, which is intended to streamline
applications for various forms of relief, including royalty rate
reductions.
Estimated Number of Responses: 2.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 190.
Estimated Total Non-Hour Cost: $17,000.
Information Collection Request
Control number 1004-0121 authorizes the BLM to collect information
pertaining to leases of solid minerals other than coal and oil shale. A
regulation that this rulemaking would revise, i.e., 43 CFR 3513.15,
pertains to applications for reduction of rental, royalties, or minimum
production requirements. This rulemaking would not affect the
regulations in Subpart 3513 that pertain to applications for suspension
of operations (i.e., sections 3513.22 and 3513.32).
In this proposed rule, the BLM would revise control number 1004-
0121 by dividing a single, previously approved information collection
activity (i.e., ``Application for Waiver, Suspension, or Reduction of
Rental or Minimum Royalties, or for a Reduction in the Royalty Rate'')
into the following 2 activities:
Application for Reduction of Rental, Royalties, or Minimum
Production Requirements; and
Application for Suspension.
The proposed rule would revise section 3513.15(e) by requiring a
description of the lands by legal subdivision only if the application
is for a portion of a lease. In addition, the proposed rule would
revise section 3513.15 by:
Removing current paragraph (f), which at present requires
a tabulated statement of the leasable minerals mined for each month
covering at least the last twelve months before the filing of the
application, and the average production mined per day for each month;
Moving current paragraph (g) to new paragraph (f), but
making no other changes to that paragraph, which requires that an
application for relief from the minimum production include complete
information about why minimum production was not attained;
Removing paragraph (h), which currently requires a
detailed statement of expenses and costs of operating the entire lease,
and the income from the sale of any leased products;
Revising current paragraph (i) by requiring
``justification'' rather than ``all facts'' showing why the operator
cannot successfully operate the mines under the royalty or rental fixed
in the lease and other lease terms;
Moving current paragraph (i) to new paragraph (g);
Removing current paragraph (j), which at present requires
that an application for reduction of royalty must include full
information about any royalties the lessee pays to anyone other than
the United States, and a description of the efforts the lessee has made
to reduce the other royalties;
Removing current paragraph (k), which requires documents
demonstrating that the total amount of overriding royalties the lessee
will pay will not exceed one-half the proposed reduced royalties due
the United States; and
Moving current paragraph (l) to new paragraph (h).
While the proposed rule would not revise the regulations pertaining
to applications for suspension found in 43 CFR 3513.20-3513.26 and
3513.30-3513.34, we are proposing the addition of an activity for such
applications because the regulations that would be revised or replaced
in this rulemaking cover both types of applications as indicated in the
description of subpart 3513.
If finalized and approved by OMB, this information collection
request would result in the net addition of 1 activity to the 32
activities currently approved under control number 1004-0121.
Hour and cost burdens to respondents include time spent for
researching, preparing, and submitting information. The following table
shows our estimates of the annual hour and hour-related cost burdens
that this proposed rule would affect. The frequency of response for
both of the information collection activities is ``on occasion.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total hours
Type of response Number of Hours per (column B x
responses response column C)
A. B. C. D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application for Reduction of Rental, Royalties, or Minimum 1 90 90
Production Requirements 43 CFR 3513.15 and 3513.16.............
Application for Suspension 43 CFR 3513.16, 3513.22 and 3513.32.. 1 100 100
-----------------------------------------------
Totals...................................................... 2 .............. 190
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Environmental Policy Act
The BLM has determined that the changes that would be made by this
proposed rule are administrative or procedural in nature in accordance
with 43 CFR 46.210(i) (``Policies, directives, regulations, and
guidelines: That are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical,
or procedural nature; or whose environmental effects are too broad,
speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis
[[Page 55881]]
and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively or
case-by-case''). Therefore, the proposed action is categorically
excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
We have also determined that the proposed rule does not involve any
of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would
require further analysis under NEPA.
Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition
in E.O. 13211. This proposed rule would amend only BLM regulations that
could impact non-energy solid leasable minerals. A Statement of Energy
Effects is not required.
Clarity of This Regulation
We are required by E.O.s 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section
3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This
means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you believe that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful,
etc.
Author
The principal authors of this rule are: Alfred Elser, Division of
Solid Minerals; Bill Radden-Lesage, Division of Solid Minerals; Adam
Merrill, Division of Solid Minerals; Lindsey Curnutt, Division of Solid
Minerals; Charles Yudson, Division of Regulatory Affairs; assisted by
the Office of the Solicitor.
Dated: October 8, 2019.
Casey Hammond,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3500
Government contracts, Hydrocarbons, Mineral royalties, Mines,
Phosphate, Potassium, Public lands-mineral resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sodium, Sulphur, Surety bonds.
43 CFR Chapter II
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Bureau of Land
Management proposes to amend 43 CFR part 3500 as follows:
PART 3500--LEASING OF SOLID MINERALS OTHER THAN COAL AND OIL SHALE
0
1. The authority citation for part 3500 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 30 U.S.C. 189 and 192c; 43 U.S.C. 1701
et seq.; and sec. 402, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 U.S.C.
appendix).
0
2. Revise Sec. 3513.11 to read as follows:
Sec. 3513.11 May BLM relieve me of the lease requirements of rental,
minimum royalty, or production royalty while continuing to hold the
lease?
Yes. The BLM has a process that may allow you temporary relief from
these lease requirements (See 30 U.S.C. 209).
0
3. Revise Sec. 3513.15 to read as follows:
Sec. 3513.15 How do I apply for reduction of rental, royalties or
minimum production?
You must submit your application with the following information for
all leases involved:
(a) The serial numbers;
(b) The name of the record title holder(s);
(c) The name of the operator and operating rights owners if
different from the record title holder(s);
(d) A description of the lands by legal subdivision, if the
application is for a portion of the lease;
(e) A map showing the serial number and location of each mine or
excavation and the extent of the mining operations;
(f) If you are applying for relief from the minimum production
requirement, complete information as to why you did not attain the
minimum production;
(g) Justification showing why you cannot successfully operate the
mines under the royalty or rental fixed in the lease and other lease
terms;
(h) Any other information BLM needs to determine whether the
request satisfies the standards in Sec. 3513.12 of this part.
0
4. Add a new Sec. 3513.17 to read as follows:
Sec. 3513.17 How will BLM implement a reduction of rental, royalties
or minimum production?
(a) The BLM may reduce rental, royalties, or minimum production on
its own initiative if the BLM determines, based on available
information, that it is necessary to promote development of the mineral
resource. Such a reduction may be for a specific geographic area, or on
an industry-wide basis.
(b) The BLM may reduce rental, royalties, or minimum production in
response to an application submitted under Sec. 3513.15 if the
application meets the criteria in Sec. 3513.12.
(c) The BLM may grant a reduction not to exceed:
(1) 10 years from the date of implementation under paragraph (a) of
this section, or
(2) 10 years from the date of the decision to approve the
application submitted paragraph (b) of this section or for a maximum
quantity of mineral production as determined by the BLM.
[FR Doc. 2019-22535 Filed 10-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P