Non-Energy Solid Leasable Minerals Royalty Rate Reduction Process

• Published date: 26 October 2020
• Citation: 85 FR 67671
• Record Number: 2020-23003
• Section: Rules and Regulations
• Court: Land Management Bureau

67671

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

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 Soda Ash leases increased, royalty revenues

were significantly lower than they would have been

absent the SARRA and that as a result of the lower

2-percent royalty rate, soda ash production had

shifted away from state and private land leases onto

Federal leases.

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).

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

: Final rule.

SUMMARY

: The Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) is amending 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 all non-

energy solid leasable minerals. This

final rule streamlines the process for

such reductions for non-energy solid

minerals leased by the Federal

Government and codifies 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. This final rule gives the

BLM more flexibility to respond to

changing market dynamics and to

promote development of the Federal

mineral estate when deemed necessary.

DATES

: This final rule is effective on

November 25, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

:

Lindsey Curnutt, Acting Division Chief

of Solid Minerals, WO–320; 480–708–

7339. 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. Background

II. Discussion of the Final Rule and

Comments on the Proposed Rule

III. Procedural Matters

I. 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. In addition to commonly known

energy resources, such as coal, oil, and

gas, the MLA 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 § 3501.2, the

subject minerals are those minerals

other than oil, gas, coal and oil shale,

leased under the mineral leasing acts,

and those hardrock minerals leasable

under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of

1946, on any unclaimed, undeveloped

area of available public domain or

acquired lands on which leasing of

these specific minerals is allowed by

law. Special areas identified in 43 CFR

part 3580 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

reduced 2 percent royalty rate for

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 and

may be dynamic based upon global

supply.

Section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209,

authorizes the Secretary to reduce

royalty rates and rental fees on mineral

leases for the purpose of encouraging

the greatest ultimate recovery, and in

the interest of conservation of natural

resources, whenever the Secretary

determines it is necessary to do so in

order to promote development, or when

the Secretary determines that leases

cannot be successfully operated under

the existing terms.

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 § 3513.15 of the section-by-section

discussion of this preamble for a more

detailed discussion of the overly

burdensome requirements that this final

rule removes.

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 those who are

seeking a reduction to submit specific

information in 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.

This final rule streamlines 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM 26OCR1

67672

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

4

Geological hardships are circumstances that

may slow or stop mining in a given area. These

hardships may include such things as a thinning

deposit, becoming exhausted, changing in

composition, or running into an underground

barrier, such as a structure that compromises the

integrity and or grade of the deposit. Such

circumstances often cannot be foreseen at the time

of leasing.

5

An Explanatory Statement for the Department of

the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Bill, 2018.

6

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Minerals

Yearbook data, editions from 2002 through 2018.

7

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.

8

Dennis S. Kostick, U.S. Geological Survey, 2005

Minerals Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2006).

9

Wallace P. Bolen, U.S. Geological Survey, 2014

Minerals Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2015).

10

Wallace P. Bolen, U.S. Geological Survey, 2016

Minerals Yearbook: Soda Ash 70.1 (2016).

reduction is appropriate, removing

unnecessary and overly burdensome

requirements. Additionally, this final

rule codifies 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 improves the BLM’s

ability to provide relief to producers of

non-energy solid leasable minerals from

burdens such as geological hardships

4

and market transformations.

This final rule also aligns with the

recommendations of congressional

committees. The American Soda Ash

Competitiveness Act was introduced in

Congress in 2017 and 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 Appropriations Committee also

noted in an explanatory statement for

the 2018 Interior, Environment, and

Related Agencies Appropriations bill

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.

5

By clarifying the BLM’s authority to

reduce the royalty rate for soda ash and

other non-energy solid leasable minerals

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

seeking a reduction for specific leases in

an operation, this final rule simplifies

the process the BLM would need to go

through if it were to determine certain

area- or industry-wide royalty rate

reductions were appropriate to promote

development. In such a scenario, if a

leaseholder is operating under a pre-

existing reduction at the time of an area

wide reduction, the lease will operate at

the pre-existing reduction unless the

area wide reduction is at a lesser rate.

The BLM has a history of receiving

applications requesting royalty rate

reductions for commodities such as

lead-zinc, gilsonite, and potash. Since

the early 1990s 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 on

any unclaimed, undeveloped area of

public domain and on acquired lands.

This final rule would further the goals

of E.O. 13817 by improving the BLM’s

ability to react to unforeseen market

forces and ensure continued production

of critical minerals on Federal lands.

Over the past two decades, U.S.

natural soda ash production has grown

at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent,

from 11.1 million short tons (MMst) in

1998 to 13.2 MMst in 2018, which

comprised 22 percent of world soda ash

production in 2018.

6

During this period,

however, Chinese synthetic soda ash

production grew at a 6.4 percent annual

rate, rising from less than one-quarter of

world total soda ash production to

nearly half.

7

China has used the Hue

and Solvay synthetic processes to ramp

up its soda ash production, surpassing

U.S. total production in 2003,

8

and

producing double the U.S. volume in

2011.

9

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.

10

It is the BLM’s view that in light of

world market developments, including

those described above, this final rule is

necessary to keep the United States

competitive in the world markets of

non-energy solid leasable commodities.

The BLM also views the 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

industry proponents’ ability to operate

successfully while paying all related

royalties and taxes.

The changes in this final rule will not

adversely affect the processing time for

royalty rate reduction applications. On

the contrary, the changes will reduce

the time required for a lessee to compile

and complete applications. Moreover,

the rule will allow the BLM to

implement industry- or area-wide

reductions on its own initiative in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM 26OCR1

67673

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

accordance with section 39 of the MLA,

30 U.S.C. 209.

II. Discussion of the Final Rule and

Comments on the Proposed Rule

Discussion of Comments by Topic

General Comments

Comment: Some commenters opposed

the rulemaking and asserted that

environmental impacts will increase

due to increased access to leasing and

ramping up of production. A commenter

suggested that ‘‘regulations should not

be streamlined for economic reasons’’

and that ‘‘environmental fortitude

should be valued above international

trade and local mining operations’’.

Response: This rule does not reduce

any royalties, but merely changes the

process by which certain royalty

reductions may be considered and

made. No royalties will be reduced

unless and until a subsequent decision

or decisions are made pursuant to this

rule. Therefore, this rule will not result

in any environmental impacts.

Moreover, a reduced royalty does not

change the amount of acreage that has

been leased or the amount of minerals

in the leased lands. Instead, such a

royalty allows an operator to continue

mining the same volumes that were

available to develop under an approved

mining plan, but with a lower royalty

payment. BLM does not anticipate that

reduced royalties will increase the

footprint on Federal leases or result in

increased environmental impacts on

public lands.

Moreover, reduced royalties only

apply to existing leases with approved

mine plans, which have already

undergone environmental analysis in

compliance with NEPA regulations, not

to new development, therefore there is

no increased footprint from a royalty

reduction. Before BLM can approve a

mine plan of operations, a NEPA

analysis is conducted. Heretofore, a CX

has been completed for reductions on

leases that have already undergone an

environmental analysis for their

associated mine plan of operations. The

CX for a royalty rate reduction has been

done in accordance with our NEPA

handbook H–1790–1 Appendix 4, F4 on

page Appendix 4–152.

Comment: Some commenters

expressed concern that lowered royalty

rates will reduce revenue to states,

including funds for local school

districts. The commenters stated that

recent earthquakes caused damage to

local infrastructure and that earthquake

recovery efforts would cost the school

district in the vicinity of the earthquake

several millions of dollars.

Response: In 2019, the federal

government collected $57.1 million in

Royalties from non-energy solid leasable

minerals, 49% of which was transferred

back to the states, totaling $28 million.

By comparison, $3.2 billion dollars was

collected from oil, gas, and coal in 2019,

of which the states also received 49%,

totaling $1.6 billion. This means that

royalties from non-energy solid leasable

operations on federal lands only make

up 1.7% of total royalties paid to the

states, so temporary reductions for

which a lessee might qualify would not

substantially affect total royalties

received by the states. Moreover, it

should be noted that such temporary

reductions may increase aggregate state

revenues by allowing certain operations

to continue (rather than decrease

production or shut down entirely),

thereby assuring that payments to the

State would continue over a longer

period. The statute provides authority to

reduce royalty rates in order to ensure

the ‘‘greatest ultimate recovery’’ of the

mineral. 30 U.S.C. 209. If an operator is

forced to close due to a shift in

economic conditions or hardships, it

could lead to job losses and minerals

left undeveloped over the long term.

The ability to provide flexibility to

royalty rates may allow for production

to remain economic and keep operations

going, leading to the greater ultimate

recovery of the resource and continued

royalty payments to the states. The BLM

does not have control over the way in

which states allocate funds after

royalties are paid. The BLM does not

expect a change of revenues from

promulgation of this rule, as it does not

directly affect royalty rates. If the BLM

were to reduce royalty rates subsequent

to this rulemaking, there may be a

decrease in revenues collected in order

to ensure the greatest ultimate recovery.

Because this rule does not directly affect

royalty rates, the BLM cannot at this

time assess the impact of specific

royalty rate adjustments that may be

implemented at a future date. For

instance, in some cases, a royalty rate

reduction may allow operations and

royalty revenue to continue that may

otherwise have ceased.

Comment: Many commenters

supported the rule change, specifically

pertaining to soda ash, potash, and

gilsonite. However, some commenters

appeared to mistakenly assume that the

final rule would implement an

automatic royalty rate reduction for

certain industries.

Response: The final rule does not

reduce the royalty rates for any mineral.

Instead, it will streamline the

application process and will allow the

BLM to consider whether it will issue

an area- or industry-wide reduction on

its own initiative for non-energy solid

minerals leased by the Federal

Government, if the BLM determines that

such a reduction is necessary in order

to promote development. This will

improve the BLM’s ability to provide

relief to producers of non-energy solid

leasable minerals, including soda ash,

potash, and gilsonite, from burdens,

such as geological hardships and market

fluctuations, when necessary. The final

rule is intended to promote

development of the mineral resources in

accordance with section 39 of the MLA

(30 U.S.C. 209).

Comment: Some commenters

suggested that the BLM should consider

updating and publishing its guidance

documents, including the Non-Energy

Solid Leasable Handbook H–3500–01, to

be consistent with any rule amendments

or additions.

Response: The BLM will update its

guidance documents following this

rulemaking, including the Non-Energy

Solid Leasable Handbook H–3500–01, to

further clarify the parameters of

reductions. Updates to the rule’s

implementing guidance will be

coordinated with OMB. The updated

handbook will be posted online and

available to the public via the guidance

document section of the Department of

the Interior’s Electronic Library of the

Interior Policies (ELIPS) website

(https://www.doi.gov/elips/browse).

Current guidance can be found in BLM

Manual Section 3485—Reports,

Royalties, and Records, December 17,

1990 (https://www.blm.gov/sites/

blm.gov/files/uploads/mediacenter_

blmpolicymanual3485.pdf).

Comment: One commenter suggested

that the BLM should decline receiving

any royalties from potash, leaving the

balance to be deposited to the states

from which potash is mined. That

would decrease the amount of royalties

paid by the respective industries while

not hurting the entities benefiting from

the royalties in those states.

Response: The BLM is required to

collect royalties on federally owned

minerals as described in the Mineral

Leasing Act at 30 U.S.C. 181 and 43 CFR

3504.20, which states: ‘‘you must pay

royalties on any production from your

lease in accordance with the terms

specified in the lease.’’ Any potential

revisions to 43 CFR 3504.20 would be

outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Market Conditions

Comment: Many commenters

expressed support for the final rule,

including the new provision that

codifies the BLM’s authority to issue an

area- or industry-wide reduction on its

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM 26OCR1

67674

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

own initiative. These commenters

expressed support for the BLM’s use of

an industry-wide reduction or

reductions to support producers on

public lands in the domestic and global

markets.

Response: In accordance with section

39 of the MLA (30 U.S.C. 209) and with

this final rule, the BLM may issue a

reduction on its own initiative when it

determines ‘‘it is necessary to do so in

order to promote development.’’

Following publication of this final rule,

the BLM will consider all available and

applicable information when

determining whether such a reduction is

necessary.

Comment: Some commenters

provided detailed information about the

historical trends and projected future of

the soda ash market, which included an

expectation for domestic demand to

remain flat for the foreseeable future.

Some commenters also provided

information about market conditions for

other commodities, as well as

information about international

production.

Response: While the BLM did not

make any changes to the final rule as a

result of these comments, this is the

kind of data that the BLM would find

useful in the future when determining

whether it is necessary to issue an

industry-wide or area-wide reduction to

promote development. Lessees are

welcome to present helpful data at any

time. This rule does not implement a

royalty rate reduction but merely

clarifies the procedures for doing so.

Application Process

Comment: Many commenters

supported the BLM’s revisions to

streamline the application process.

These commenters agreed that it is

unnecessary for applicants to submit

some of the information required in the

current regulation and that the changes

do not alter the substantive criteria.

Response: The BLM appreciates the

support for this rule.

Comment: Some commenters noted

that in some cases, royalty rates are

lower on State leases than on Federal

leases. They also noted that it is often

less expensive for a company to mine a

commodity on privately held lands than

on public lands.

Response: Although the BLM did not

make any changes to the final rule in

response to this comment, this is the

sort of information that should be

included in applications for reductions

that are submitted by operators under

§ 3513.15 of this rule.

Comment: A commenter asserted that

every effort should be made to facilitate

domestic critical mineral production.

The commenter not only supported the

changes in the proposed rule concerning

rent and royalty reduction requests, but

also argued that the Federal processes

for obtaining mine permits should be

streamlined more generally.

Response: The additional changes

supported by the commenter are beyond

the scope of this rulemaking. We note

that the BLM may take additional

actions in the future to facilitate the

production of critical minerals on

public lands.

Comment: Some commenters

provided a suggested revision to

proposed § 3513.15(f), which proposed

to describe the information necessary to

support a reduction request for a

minimum mineral production

requirement. The proposed rule would

have required that the applicant submit

‘‘complete information’’ with a

reduction request. The commenters

believe that such a requirement is

unnecessarily broad and recommend

that the rule require only ‘‘the

information sufficient to demonstrate’’

the need for the reduction.

Response: The BLM agrees with this

comment and has revised § 3513.15(f) in

the final rule. See the discussion of

§ 3513.15 for more information about

this change.

Comment: Some commenters believe

that an additional paragraph should be

added under § 3513.17(c), authorizing

the BLM to grant an extension to an

existing rate reduction if the economic

conditions continue to warrant such

reduction. The commenters suggest that

this would obviate the need for the

creation and filing of a completely new

reduction request.

Response: The royalty rate at which a

commodity is set is analyzed by the

same criteria regardless of the type of

request. Therefore, a regulatory

mechanism for an extension would be

redundant. An operator that was granted

a reduction under § 3513.15 could apply

for another reduction after the initial

reduction ends and could reuse any

information in a new application that

has not changed since the initial

application was submitted.

Area and Industry Wide Reductions

Comment: Some commenters agreed

with the BLM that the MLA explicitly

grants the BLM the authority to lower

royalty rates to promote development,

based on any information available to it,

including information submitted in

lease-specific applications. The

commenters noted that the MLA does

not limit the information that the BLM

may consider in exercising its judgment.

Some commenters support the addition

of § 3513.17, but encourage the BLM to

broaden the language of the rule to

clarify that lessees or industry

representatives may request the BLM to

reduce royalties or the minimum

production amount under 3513.17(a),

instead of allowing the BLM to do so on

its own initiative only.

Response: The BLM may use

information received through the

application process under § 3513.15

when determining whether an area- or

industry-wide reduction is necessary to

promote development. This rule does

not disallow lessees or industry

representatives from submitting to the

BLM any communications about

whether an area- or industry-wide

reduction is warranted. The BLM may

consider any applicable data submitted

by the public when evaluating an

industry wide or area wide reduction.

This final rule also does not limit how

many operators could jointly file an

application, so long as information is

included ‘‘for all leases involved.’’ If

several interested parties jointly submit

an application for a royalty rate

reduction, the BLM could approve that

application for the leases identified in

the application or could initiate an

industry-wide reduction under

§ 3513.17(a).

Comment: Some commenters asserted

that the BLM should prepare a

competitive analysis before granting an

area-wide rate reduction. These

commenters expressed concern that

issuing a reduction in one area could

cause direct and indirect competitive

impacts on the affected industry at

large, as well as individual members of

that industry. In addition, these

commenters stated that there is

potential for BLM rate reductions in one

region of the country to have

unintended and anti-competitive

impacts to market participants in other

regions.

Response: As described in the section-

by-section analysis, an area-wide

reduction would generally be issued to

overcome a geological hardship in a

specific area. Such a reduction would be

limited to a specific period of time. If

the BLM determines that a condition

impacts more than one specific area, it

could initiate an industry-wide

reduction under § 3513.17(a). The BLM

will determine what analysis is

necessary on a case-by-case basis, but no

change to the rule is necessary. The

level and type of analyses appropriate to

a particular case may differ from case to

case, and it would be inefficient for the

regulations to impose unnecessary or

overly burdensome requirements on the

process.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM 26OCR1

67675

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Timing and Fixed Tonnage

Comment: The BLM received

comments both in favor of, and opposed

to, timing restrictions for a reduction.

Some commenters believed that the

BLM should not issue a reduction for

less than 10 years, because anything less

than 10 years would not provide

sufficient stability for the affected

industry.

Response: The BLM will determine

the appropriate length of time for each

reduction based on the best available

information. For more information

about the 10-year limit on reductions,

see the section-by-section discussion of

§ 3513.17(c). The final rule will retain

the flexibility to issue a reduction for

less than 10 years. The BLM recognizes

that some business decisions will be

made based on this timeframe, and will

designate appropriate timeframes based

on the best data available to provide

more certainty to affected parties and

communities, facilitating longer-term

planning, investment, and hiring

decisions.

Comment: Some commenters

suggested that the timeframe of a

reduction should take into account the

time it can take a company to launch a

plant or mine expansion. The

commenters encouraged the BLM to

look for constructive ways to ensure that

the full extent of royalty relief is made

available by allowing for the tolling of

the royalty reduction for projects that

are under construction, until they are

completed.

Response: The BLM will take into

account all available information when

determining the appropriate length of

time for a reduction. If a project takes

longer to complete than the length of the

reduction, the lessee could apply for an

additional reduction under § 3513.15 if

the lessee would be unable to meet the

terms and conditions of the lease.

Lessees should recognize that these

reductions are temporary in nature, and

business decisions should not be made

that assume that a reduction will be in

place for longer than the period of time

for which the reduction is issued. This

rule does not implement a royalty rate

reduction but merely clarifies the

procedures for doing so.

Comment: Some commenters

disagreed with the BLM’s being able to

apply a fixed tonnage rather than

applying a time limit. These

commenters expressed frustration and

confusion with BLM’s explanation in

the preamble of its proposal as to how

this fixed tonnage amount would be

determined.

Response: The BLM revised the

preamble in the final rule to more

clearly explain how a fixed tonnage is

determined. A tonnage constraint allows

for a royalty rate reduction to be applied

without a time limit for a designated ore

block and gives BLM the flexibility to

apply the best reduction strategy for a

given application or area. The use of a

fixed tonnage could prevent a lessee

from exploiting a reduction issued by

the BLM to produce excessive quantities

of a commodity at a reduced rate. Some

geologic hazards may present a

challenge where it would be difficult to

estimate how long it would take for a

lessee to overcome the problem

presented by a particular hazard, and a

fixed tonnage could provide the BLM

flexibility to provide relief without a

time constraint on the lessee.

Comment: A commenter expressed

concern that the proposed rule would

not require the BLM to notify lessees

when a reduction ends.

Response: The BLM will issue a

reduction with a specific end date or a

maximum fixed tonnage. The lessee is

responsible for adhering to the agreed

terms of the reduction. The BLM case

file will include the terms of this

agreement, and a lessee may consult

with the BLM if the lessee needs this

information. It will also be BLM policy

to notify lessees before and when

reductions end. This information is

included in the initial notification letter

describing the royalty rate reduction, its

start and end date, and the reduced rate.

Comment: A commenter suggested

that the BLM should clarify in the final

rule that it will not adjust the time

period for a rate reduction after that

reduction has already been issued,

unless the BLM determines, after

providing the applicant with notice and

an opportunity to be heard, that the

criteria for the rate reduction are no

longer present.

Response: The BLM recognizes that

lessees may make planning, investment,

and hiring decisions as a result of the

BLM’s issuing a reduction. The BLM

makes these determinations on a case-

by-case basis with the best available

information, but recognizes that some

estimates may not align exactly with the

time needed to overcome a hardship.

The final rule includes a 10-year limit

to prevent unnecessary loss of revenue.

Under new paragraph 3513.17(d), the

BLM will not end a reduction before the

end of the term or fixed tonnage

originally identified.

Section-by-Section Discussion of the

Final 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 as listed in 43

CFR 3501.1. This final rule revises the

authority citation for part 3500 by

adding section 39 of the MLA (30 U.S.C.

209), which authorizes the Secretary to

reduce royalty rates and rental fees. This

is consistent with other provisions in

this final rule and is not a substantive

change.

The final rule streamlines the process

to apply for rental fee, royalty rate, and

minimum production requirement

reductions for non-energy solid mineral

leases. This final rule also reduces the

burden on lease holders by simplifying

the regulatory requirements 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.

Section 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 § 3513.15 on a case-by-

case basis based on the data in the

application for relief from lease

requirements. This existing section is

the introductory provision in subpart

3513, which explains that process in

greater detail. The BLM Manual Section

3485-Reports, Royalties, and Records,

December 17, 1990 (https://

www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/

uploads/mediacenter_

blmpolicymanual3485.pdf), includes

guidance for processing applications for

temporary relief from the rental,

minimum royalty, or production royalty

provisions and will be updated

following this rulemaking.

This final rule adds to § 3513.11 a

citation to the relevant section of the

Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 209).

This is not a substantive change.

Section 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 to BLM. The BLM

needs the information provided in an

application to determine whether the

request satisfies the reduction criteria

described in 43 CFR 3513.12.

This final rule removes the

requirement to submit two copies of an

application, because two copies are no

longer necessary. When the BLM

promulgated these regulations, lessees

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM 26OCR1

67676

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

submitted applications to the BLM via

hard copy mail and the BLM used both

paper copies during its processing. The

BLM is able to receive and process these

applications electronically, or the BLM

is able to make physical or electronic

copies of the paper submissions.

Section 3513.15(d) in the current

regulations requires an application to

include a description of the lands for

which the reduction would apply. This

final rule revises 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 revision makes

the application easier to complete and

improves processing timeliness.

This final rule removes paragraphs (f)

and (h) of the previous regulations,

which required 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 the expenses and

costs of operating the entire lease; and

the income from the sale of any leased

products. This information is not

required under the final rule, 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

that the lessee is meeting minimum

production requirements as indicated

on its lease form in accordance with 43

CFR 3504.20. Similarly, the Office of

Natural Resources Revenue also gathers

information pertaining to income from

the sale of minerals. The detailed

statement of expenses and costs 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. BLM may request information

under the new 43 CFR 3513.15(h)

(formerly (l)) if it finds that such

information would be necessary to

assess a specific application. For

example, the applicant’s fixed utility

costs will generally not change with the

commodity’s market fluctuations, so we

know that the applicant’s costs to run

the operation will not decrease at the

same rate as its income from the

commodity price decreases. Removing

this unnecessary requirement also

makes the application easier to

complete, further improving the

timeliness of the reduction process.

In the proposed rule, paragraph (g) in

the previous rule became new paragraph

(f). New § 3513.15(f) is revised in this

final rule from the language initially

proposed in response to comments

received. The language in proposed

§ 3513.15(f) was not changed from

language in previous paragraph (g),

which required applicants to provide

‘‘complete information’’ about why they

were unable to meet the terms and

conditions of their leases. The

commenters believe that this

requirement is unnecessarily broad and

recommended that the BLM require

only ‘‘the information sufficient to

demonstrate’’ the need for the

reduction. The BLM agrees that the

initially proposed text was unclear, and

the final rule incorporates the suggested

revisions. The language in the final rule

more accurately describes how much

information an applicant must include

in its application. Similar to paragraph

(g) of this section, this clarification will

not result in any substantive impacts.

Section 3513.15(g) of the final rule

contains the requirement found in

§ 3513.15(i) of the previous regulations.

However, instead of requiring ‘‘all facts’’

showing why the lessee cannot

successfully operate a mine, the final

rule requires the application to provide

‘‘justification’’ showing why the lessee

cannot successfully operate a mine

under the existing royalty or rental. The

final rule provides a more measured

requirement for the applicant to

demonstrate why it is 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 it 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 that an individual

mine is facing.

This final rule also removes

paragraphs (j) and (k) of § 3513.15,

which required 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,

discussed in 43 CFR 3504.26, 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

§ 3513.15(g) and (h) of the final rule

because the BLM has authority to order

the operator to suspend or reduce an

overriding royalty as stated in 43 CFR

3504.26. The removal of paragraphs (j)

and (k) makes the application easier to

complete, improving the timeliness of

the process.

Section 3513.15(h) of the final rule

contains the requirement, set forth in

§ 3513.15(l) of the previous regulations,

that the applicant include any

additional information that the BLM

requires to determine whether the

applicant meets the standards of

§ 3513.12. Section 3513.12, which this

rule does 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.

Section 3513.17 How will the BLM

implement a reduction of rental,

royalties, or minimum production?

This final rule adds a new § 3513.17,

which explains how the BLM

implements royalty rate reductions

Section 39 of the MLA, 30 U.S.C. 209,

authorizes the Secretary to reduce

royalty rates and rental fees when in his

judgment it is necessary to do so to

promote development, or when in his

judgment the leases cannot be

successfully operated under the terms

provided therein. 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,

preserve jobs, and help ensure that

domestic commodities from those

operations remain available.

Section 3513.17 is outlined as

follows:

Paragraph (a) of § 3513.17 implements

section 39 of the MLA in the

regulations, enabling the BLM to reduce

rental fees, royalty rates, or minimum

production requirements on its own

initiative, whereas previously, the BLM

could provide rate relief only upon

application on a case-by-case basis. This

new section allows the BLM, on behalf

of the Secretary of the Interior, to

provide such relief in order to promote

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM 26OCR1

67677

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

11

See 43 CFR 3503.2–4 (1998).

the overall development of a mineral

resource for all leases in a geographic

area or across an industry. This section

more fully implements in 43 CFR part

3500 the broad authority that the MLA

grants to the Secretary of the Interior for

implementing these reductions in order

to promote development, in addition to

the reductions based on individual

lease-by-lease applications.

Paragraph (b) of § 3513.17 explains

that the BLM may implement a

reduction in response to an application

submitted under § 3513.15. This is not

a change from existing practice, but it is

included to demonstrate the difference

between the application process of

§ 3513.15 and a BLM-initiated reduction

under § 3513.17(a).

Paragraph (c) of § 3513.17 describes

how the BLM will limit reductions

implemented under § 3513.17. Section

3513.17(c) applies both to reductions

that the BLM implements on its own

initiative under § 3513.17(a) and to

reductions that the BLM implements in

response to an application under

§ 3513.17(b). Under paragraph (c) of this

section, reductions are limited either by

duration or by tonnage. That is,

reductions either are limited in duration

to not more than 10 years from the date

on which BLM implements a reduction

under either paragraph (a) or (b), or are

limited to not more than a specific

tonnage that the lessee produces, as

determined by the BLM, under

paragraph (b). The BLM determines the

specific time or tonnage limit

appropriate for each reduction on a

case-by-case basis. The BLM will

determine the duration of a reduction or

a tonnage limit based on projected

market conditions or geologic hazard

attributes for each application, or for the

subject area or industry. If a reduction

is in response to an application under

§ 3513.17(b), the reason or reasons set

forth in 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 reductions generally

have been temporary.

11

Placing timing

or tonnage constraints on reductions in

this final rule will ensure that any

reductions that the BLM grants or

initiates would be applied when

necessary to promote development, but

not longer than necessary. At the end of

the reduction period, the royalty, rental,

or minimum production requirements

will increase to their original rates. At

that time, the lessee would operate

under the original lease terms.

The BLM anticipates setting a time

limit (rather than a maximum

production volume) when issuing an

area- or industry-wide reduction to

promote development. The final rule

limits the reduction to not more than 10

years, but the BLM may determine that

a shorter period is appropriate. Market

conditions can fluctuate over a 10-year

period, and a longer period in a single

grant may 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 appropriate.

When a lessee submits an application

under § 3513.15, in certain

circumstances, such as areas with

geologic hazards, it might be more

appropriate to apply a fixed tonnage

limit rather than applying a time limit.

Qualified BLM personnel would then

calculate a fixed tonnage using known,

estimated, or historic production

determined by current mining style,

rock type, and operator production

capabilities or volume required to

overcome a geologic hazard.

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 final rule does not limit

the number of times that lessees may

apply for a reduction under § 3513.15.

III. 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

rulemaking 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 final rule will reduce duplicative

information requirements for non-

energy solid leasable minerals operators

who apply for a reduction of rental,

royalties or minimum production. The

final rule will 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 final 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

rule. The RIA has been posted in the

docket for the 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 final rule is an E.O. 13771

deregulatory action. As discussed in

section 1 and detailed in section 3 of the

RIA, the estimated cost of the final rule

is negative (a net benefit) in that it could

produce a benefit to society from greater

overall non-energy solid leasable (NESL)

minerals economic activity. This leads

to the final rule having an annual net

benefit of between $0 and $1.62 million

in 2018 dollars ($1.45 million in 2016

dollars) per affected industry depending

on the resource 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.

The BLM does not expect a change of

Federal revenues from promulgation of

this rule, as it does not directly affect

royalty rates. If the BLM were to reduce

royalty rates subsequent to this

rulemaking, there may be a decrease in

federal revenues collected in order to

ensure the greatest ultimate recovery.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM 26OCR1

67678

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

This, however, would depend on the

specific parameters of the royalty

adjustments and the market

environment at the time of action, as a

royalty rate reduction may allow

operations and royalty revenue to

continue from operations that may

otherwise have ceased if they did not

receive a royalty reduction.

Administrative PAYGO (E.O. 13893)

E.O. 13893, ‘‘Increasing Government

Accountability for Administrative

Actions by Reinvigorating

Administrative PAYGO’’ (Oct. 10, 2019),

requires agencies to ‘‘include one or

more proposals for reducing mandatory

spending whenever an agency proposes

to undertake a discretionary

administrative action that would

increase mandatory spending. section 3

of E.O. 13893 defines ‘‘discretionary

administrative action’’ in part as an

administrative action that is not

required by statute and would impact

mandatory spending. This rulemaking

adopts regulatory language to more

closely align with the broad statutory

authority, including at 30 U.S.C. 290.

For the purpose of examining the rule

under E.O. 12866, the BLM analyzed

what the potential impacts would be if

the royalty rates for these commodities

were reduced, including reduced

contributions to the U.S. Treasury. The

scenarios examined are hypothetical

and would not take effect with the

issuance of this rule. Because this rule

does not directly affect royalty rates, the

BLM cannot at this time assess the

impact of specific royalty rate

adjustments that may be implemented at

a future date. The statute allows the

Secretary to make a decision in order to

ensure the greatest ultimate recovery of

the resource. While we estimate that the

potential royalty rate reductions could

reduce contributions to the U.S.

Treasury, there may be instances where

royalty reductions could incentivize

mining to continue for a longer duration

on public lands, versus closure of

operations, and therefore could ensure

royalty payments at a reduced rate for

a longer time horizon. The Mineral

Leasing Act envisions a fluctuating

minerals market in which the Secretary

may need to waive, suspend, or reduce

royalty rates in order to ensure the

greatest ultimate recovery of the

resource. This rulemaking takes into

account the markets for a given mineral

at a certain snapshot in time.

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.

The BLM examined current BLM

lessors for soda ash and potash and

found that 0 of 5 soda ash lessors, 1 of

3 potash lessors, and 1 of 1 gilsonite

lessors are entities that constitute a

small business. While this could be

considered a substantial number of

small businesses in the context of

entities affected by this rule, the final

rule does not directly have a significant

economic impact.

The final rule’s only direct economic

impact is the reduced information

collection requirements for an

application, which lessens the burden

on the company when applying for a

royalty rate reduction. We have

calculated this to be an average saving

of $680 a year. The rest of this rule gives

the BLM tools to potentially reduce

royalty rates in the future but does not

currently affect industry. The BLM will

consider the economic impacts on

affected entities when issuing

reductions under this final rule.

For the purpose of carrying out its

review pursuant to the RFA, the head of

the BLM certifies that this final rule will

not have a ‘‘significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.’’. The agency certifies this on

the basis that the final rule does not

have a significant economic impact. A

final regulatory flexibility analysis is

therefore not required. For a more

detailed discussion see the section 2.8

of the RIA.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA)

This rule is not a major rule under the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule:

(a) Does not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million or more.

The BLM estimates that the rule would

provide an annual benefit of $619,000 to

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 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 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

rule would affect only 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 affect 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 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 rule would

reduce burdens on industry and more

closely align BLM regulations with the

relevant statute. A federalism summary

impact statement is not required.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM 26OCR1

67679

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

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 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 considers implementing an area-

or industry-wide reduction under this

rule that may have impacts on a tribe or

tribes, the BLM would initiate tribal

consultation, as appropriate, at that

time.

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.)

This final rule contains a collection of

information that the BLM has submitted

to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and approval under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not

conduct or sponsor and you are not

required to respond to a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

Collections of information include

requests and requirements that an

individual, partnership, or corporation

obtain information, and report it to a

Federal agency (44 U.S.C. 3502; 5 CFR

1320.3(c) and (k)). The OMB has

reviewed and approved the information

collection requirements in this rule and

assigned OMB Control Number 1004–

0121, which expires October 31, 2022.

The proposed rule, soliciting

comments on the collections of

information for 60 days, was published

in the Federal Register on October 18,

2019 (84 FR 55873). No comments were

received related to the information

collection activities.

This final rule retains most of the text

of the existing regulations while making

only a small number of changes. The

BLM has determined that the changes in

the final rule are necessary to update 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 all non-energy solid leasable

mineral under 43 CFR part 3500.

At present, 32 information collection

activities are authorized under control

number 1004–0121. This information

collection request pertains to this final

rule in which the BLM will revise

control number 1004–0121 by dividing

one previously approved information

collection activity, Application for

Waiver, Suspension, or Reduction of

Rental or Minimum Royalties, or for a

Reduction in the Royalty Rate, into two

activities. One activity will be limited to

applications for suspension of

operations, and the other activity will

include applications for reductions of

rental, royalties, and minimum

production. The net result of this

revision will be that control number

1004–0121 will include 33 information

collection activities.

In addition, the BLM is reducing the

hours for the application for reduction

of rental, royalties, or minimum

production (43 CFR 3513.15 and

3513.16). The result will be a 10-hour

reduction of estimated industry staff

time, from 100 hours to 90 hours per

application, of information that industry

has to collect at present to submit an

application.

The net reduction of 10 burden hours

per year will be a result of revisions of

43 CFR 3513.15 that will simplify

applications for reduction of rental,

royalties, or minimum production

requirements. These revisions will:

•Remove current § 3513.15(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;

•Move current paragraph (g) to new

paragraph (f), but make no other

changes to that paragraph, which

requires that an application for relief

from the minimum production include

complete information why minimum

production was not attained;

•Remove 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;

•Revise 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;

•Move current paragraph (i) to new

paragraph (g);

•Remove 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;

•Remove 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;

•Revise current paragraph (l) to

require ‘‘any other information BLM

needs to determine whether the request

satisfies the standards in [43 CFR]

3504.25 or [43 CFR] 3513.12.’’;

•Move current paragraph (l) to new

paragraph (h).

Abstract: The BLM requests OMB to

approve the revision of control number

1004–0121 in light of a final rule, which

is intended to streamline applications

for various forms of relief, including

royalty rate reductions. Information

Collection burdens associated with 43

CFR 3500 are approved under OMB

Control Number 1004–0121 (27,306

annual burden hours, 507 annual

responses, and $2,050,695 non-hour

costs; expires October 31, 2022). This

rule reduces annual burden hours by 10

hours. There are no changes to number

of response or non-hour cost burdens.

Title of Collection: Leasing of Solid

Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil

Shale.

OMB Control Number: 1004–0121.

Form:

•Form 3504–1, Personal Bond and

Power of Attorney under Mineral Lease

or Prospecting Permit for Mining

Deposits;

•Form 3504–3, Bond Under Lease for

Mining Deposits;

•Form 3504–4, Statewide or

Nationwide Personal Mineral Bond for

Prospecting Permits and Leases—Coal,

Sodium, Phosphate, Potassium,

Sulphur, and Other Mineral Deposit;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM 26OCR1

67680

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

•Form 3510–1, Prospecting

Application and Permit;

•Form 3510–2, Phosphate or Sodium

Use Permit; and

•Form 3520–7, lllLease.

Type of Review: Revision of a

currently approved information

collection.

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.

Estimated Number of Annual

Responses: 507.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 27,296.

Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour

Cost: $2,050,695.

As part of our continuing effort to

reduce paperwork and respondent

burdens, we invite the public and other

Federal agencies to comment on any

aspect of this information collection,

including:

(1) Whether or not the collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether or not the

information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the

burden for this collection of

information, including the validity of

the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of

the collection of information on those

who are to respond, including through

the use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

response.

If you wish to comment on the

information collection activities, you

may send your comments and

suggestions on this information

collection to the Desk Officer for the

Department of the Interior at OMB–

OIRA. To see a copy of the information

collection request submitted to OMB, go

to http://www.reginfo.gov (select

Information Collection Review,

Currently Under Review); or you may

obtain a copy of the supporting

statement for the collection of

information by contacting the Bureau’s

Information Collection Clearance

Officer. Send your comments and

suggestions on this information

collection to the Desk Officer for the

Department of the Interior at OMB–

OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov (email).

Please provide a copy of your comments

to Faith Bremner, Senior Regulatory

Analyst, Bureau of Land Management,

20 M Street SE, Room 2134 LM,

Washington, DC 20003; or by email to

fbremner@blm.gov. Please reference

OMB Control Number 1004–0121 in the

subject line of your comments.’’

National Environmental Policy Act

The BLM has determined that the

changes made by this final 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 and will later be subject to the

NEPA process, either collectively or

case-by-case’’). Further, the final rule

does not involve any of the

extraordinary circumstances listed in 43

CFR 46.215 that would require further

analysis under NEPA. Therefore, this

action is categorically excluded from

environmental review under the

National Environmental Policy Act

(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 rule would amend only

BLM regulations that could impact non-

energy solid leasable minerals. A

Statement of Energy Effects is not

required.

Author

The principal authors of this rule are:

Lindsey Curnutt, Division of Solid

Minerals; Charles Yudson, Division of

Regulatory Affairs; assisted by the Office

of the Solicitor.

Katharine Sinclair MacGregor,

Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the

Interior.

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.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Bureau of Land

Management amends 43 CFR part 3500

as follows:

PART 3500—LEASING OF SOLID

MINERALS OTHER THAN COAL AND

OIL SHALE

■1. Revise the authority citation for part

3500 to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 30 U.S.C. 189,

192c, and 209; 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 in accordance with

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,

the information sufficient to

demonstrate 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 that BLM

needs to determine whether the request

satisfies the standards in § 3513.12.

■4. Add § 3513.17 to read as follows:

§ 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 § 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM 26OCR1

67681

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

1

85 FR 16456.

2

See, e.g., 85 FR at 16469.

3

85 FR 25315.

4

See id. for table of extended deadlines for

compliance.

5

The STSAC was established under the authority

of Section 1969 of the TSA Modernization Act

(Division K, Title I), of the FAA Reauthorization Act

of 2018 (Pub. L. 115–254, 132 Stat. 3186, Oct. 5,

2018). Section 1969 amended Subtitle A of title IV

of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 201

et seq.). The statute exempts the committee, and

any subcommittees, from the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). The STSAC is

chartered for the purpose of advising, consulting

with, reporting to, and making recommendations to

the TSA Administrator on surface transportation

security matters, including the development,

refinement, and implementation of policies,

programs, initiatives, rulemakings, and security

directives pertaining to surface transportation

security. Additional information on the STSAC is

available on TSA’s website at: https://www.tsa.gov/

for-industry/surface-transportation-security.

6

See Docket No. TSA–2015–0001–0045 at

Regulations.gov for Letter from Thomas Farmer of

the Association of American Railroads; Polly

Hanson of the American Public Transportation

Association; Chief Ronald Pavlick of the

Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation

Authority; Colonel (Ret.) Michael Licata, Academy

Bus; and J.R. Gelnar of the American Short Line and

Regional Railroad Association (dated Aug. 10,

2020).

7

Id.

8

Under the rule, owner/operators have up to one

year (12 months) after their security training

program is approved by TSA to provide initial

training to all of their security-sensitive employees.

See §1570.111. Once the proposed program is

submitted to TSA, the agency has 60 days (2

months) to review and approve a security program,

with the ability to extend the review period and/

or require the owner/operator to modify the

program, which would stay the 60-day period.

Thus, from the date the program is submitted to

Continued

submitted under paragraph (b) of this

section, or for a maximum quantity of

mineral production as determined by

the BLM.

[FR Doc. 2020–23003 Filed 10–23–20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY

Transportation Security Administration

49 CFR Part 1570

[Docket No. TSA–2015–0001]

RIN 1652–AA55

Security Training for Surface

Transportation Employees;

Compliance Dates; Amendment

AGENCY

: Transportation Security

Administration, DHS.

ACTION

: Final rule.

SUMMARY

: This final rule amends the

‘‘Security Training for Surface

Transportation Employees’’ (Security

Training) final rule (published March

23, 2020, and amended May 1, 2020) to

extend the compliance dates by which

certain requirements must be

completed. TSA is aware that many

owner/operators within the scope of this

rule’s applicability may be unable to

meet the compliance deadline for

submission of the required security

training programs to TSA for approval

because of the impact of COVID–19 as

well as actions taken at various levels of

government to address this public

health crisis. In response, TSA is

extending the compliance deadline for

submission of the required security

training program to no later than March

22, 2021. Should TSA determine that an

additional extension of time is

necessary based upon the impact of the

COVID–19 public health crisis, TSA

will publish a document in the Federal

Register announcing an updated

compliance date for this requirement.

DATES

: Effective Date: This rule is

effective October 26, 2020.

Compliance Dates: Compliance date

for submission of security training

program to TSA under § 1570.19(b)(1)

and (2): March 22, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

:

Harry Schultz (TSA; Policy, Plans, and

Engagement, Surface Division) or David

Kasminoff (TSA, Senior Counsel;

Regulations and Security Standards;

Office of Chief Counsel) by telephone at

(571) 227–5563 or email to

SecurityTrainingPolicy@tsa.dhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

:

I. Background

TSA published the Security Training

Final Rule on March 23, 2020.

1

This

rule requires owner/operators of higher-

risk freight railroad carriers, public

transportation agencies (including rail

mass transit and bus systems), passenger

railroad carriers, and over-the-road bus

companies, to provide TSA-approved

security training to employees

performing security-sensitive functions.

As published on March 23, 2020, TSA

scheduled the final rule to take effect on

June 22, 2020, with the first compliance

deadline set for July 22, 2020.

2

On May

1, 2020, TSA delayed the effective date

of the final rule to September 21, 2020,

in recognition of the potential impact of

COVID–19 measures and related strain

on resources for owner/operators

required to comply with the regulation.

3

TSA revised all compliance dates

within the rule to reflect the new

effective date.

4

II. Request for Delay

On August 10, 2020, several members

of the Surface Transportation Security

Advisory Committee (STSAC)

5

submitted a request to the TSA

Administrator to further delay the

effective date of the Security Training

Final Rule.

6

In their letter,

representatives from the three modes

affected by this rulemaking argued that

the effective date should be extended

because they are unable to comply with

the regulation’s requirements due to the

impact of the COVID–19 public health

crisis as well as the need to prepare for,

and address, the impact of

contingencies such as the hurricane and

tropical storm season.

They also indicated a need to focus on

training to address these issues, such as

employee responsibilities for personal

medical screening, workplace hygiene,

social distancing, and repeated

cleanings daily of transportation

vehicles and facilities used by co-

workers, employees in other sectors,

and the public generally. They indicated

that the responsible leads and

supporting staffs necessary to develop

and implement a security training

program that meets TSA’s requirements

are the same individuals who are

currently focusing their efforts on

assuring worker and public health and

safety while sustaining operations

throughout the continuing national

public health emergency caused by

COVID–19.’’

7

The letter also argued that

some of the activities in response to

other issues and contingencies have a

security benefit. For example, their

actions to address safety and security

during ongoing demonstrations have

resulted in a positive security benefit.

III. Amending Compliance Date

TSA recognizes the impact of COVID–

19 on our surface stakeholders and the

need to provide some relief at a time

when many owner/operators are

simultaneously leveraging a range of

resources to address multiple

challenging circumstances, and

struggling financially and limiting

operations due to the effects of the

COVID–19 public health crisis. After

considering the current operational

environment and the purpose of this

regulation, TSA has decided to maintain

the current effective date for the rule but

to further extend the compliance

deadline in § 1570.109(b) for security

program submission to March 22, 2021.

This extension would provide the

industry with a total of 180 days of

relief for submission of security training

programs as compared to the original

deadline of September 20, 2020, and

extend the deadline for initial training

of all employees in security-sensitive

positions into the late spring and early

summer of 2022.

8

TSA believes this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Oct 23, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM 26OCR1