[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 234 (Thursday, December 4, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73789-73794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28741]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 3800
[LLWO32000.L13300000.PO0000.24-1A]
RIN 1004-AE00
Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is issuing this interim
final rule to amend the BLM's regulations for Mining Claims under the
General Mining Laws. The rule responds to a Federal district court
decision that required the BLM to evaluate whether the regulations
[[Page 73790]]
comply with Congress's policy goal for the United States to receive
fair market value for the use of the public lands and their resources.
The interim final rule makes it clear that, other than processing fees,
location fees, and maintenance fees provided for in 43 CFR parts 3800
and 3830, the BLM does not require any other fees for surface use of
the public lands for mining purposes.
DATES: Effective date: The interim final rule is effective December 4,
2008.
Comment deadline: You should submit your comments on the interim
final rule on or before February 2, 2009. The BLM may not necessarily
consider or include in the administrative record for the interim final
rule comments that the BLM receives after the close of the comment
period or comments delivered to an address other than those listed
below (see ADDRESSES).
ADDRESSES: Mail: Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Mail Stop 401 LS, 1849 C St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20240, Attention: 1004-AD69.
Personal or messenger delivery: 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, DC
20036.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions at this Web site.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Haight at (406) 538-1930 for
information relating to the surface management program or the substance
of the notice, or Ted Hudson at (202) 452-5042 for information relating
to the rulemaking process generally. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, to contact the above individuals.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Comment Procedures
II. Background
III. Why We Are Publishing This Rule?
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Procedural Matters
I. Public Comment Procedures
A. How do I comment on the notice?
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of
several methods:
You may mail comments to Director (630), Bureau of Land
Management, Administrative Record, Room 401 LS, Director (630), Mail
Stop 401 LS, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, Attn: 1004-AD69.
You may deliver comments to Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20036.
You may access and comment on the notice at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal by following the instructions at that site (see
ADDRESSES).
Written comments on the interim final rule should be specific,
should be confined to issues pertinent to the interim final rule, and
should explain the reason for any recommended change. Where possible,
comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the
proposal which the comment is addressing.
The BLM may not necessarily consider or include in the
Administrative Record for the notice 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).
B. May I review comments submitted by others?
You may examine documents pertinent to this interim final rule as
follows. 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 hours
(7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. They
will also be available at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at this Web site.
C. Can my name and address be kept confidential?
Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail 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 in your
comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying
information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Mail
your comment to: U.S. Department of the Interior, Director (630),
Bureau of Land Management, Mail Stop 40l LS, 1849 C Street, NW.,
Attention: 1004-AD69, Washington, DC 20240.
You may deliver comments to: Room 401, 1620 L St., NW., Washington,
DC 20036.
II. Background
In 2003, a Federal district court substantially upheld the BLM's
surface management regulations in 43 CFR subpart 3809, but remanded
them in part to the Department ``for evaluation, in light of Congress's
expressed policy goal for the United States to `receive fair market
value of the use of the public lands and their resources.' '' The
district court concluded that ``[o]perations neither conducted pursuant
to valid mining claims nor otherwise explicitly protected by [the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)] or the Mining
Law (i.e., exploration activities, ingress and egress, and limited
utilization of mill sites) must be evaluated in light of Congress's
expressed policy goal for the United States to `receive fair market
value of the use of the public lands and their resources.' '' Mineral
Policy Center v. Norton, 292 F. Supp. 2d 30, 51 (D.D.C. 2003). The
court remanded the regulations to the Department to evaluate the
competing priorities set forth in FLPMA as applied to invalidly claimed
or unclaimed lands ``in light of Congress's expressed policy goal for
the United States to `receive fair market value of the use of public
lands and their resources.' '' Id.
On February 23, 2007, the BLM published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to assist the BLM in the evaluation ordered
by the court (71 FR 8139). The ANPR requested public comments regarding
whether any miners or mining companies in fact use unclaimed lands for
such mining operations. The BLM asked for detailed examples of any such
use so that it could determine whether it needed to conduct further
evaluation of FLPMA's competing priorities with regard to any mining
operations that go beyond exploration activities on unclaimed lands.
The absence of comments providing such examples suggests that the BLM's
belief is correct that no mining operations amounting to more than
initial exploration activities occur on unclaimed Federal lands under
the Mining Law. (The comments we received are discussed fully below.)
Consequently, the BLM has determined that there is no use of the
surface of invalidly claimed or unclaimed lands for mining purposes,
amounting to more than initial exploration activities, for which BLM
must consider charging fair market value.
The BLM received 958 comments in response to the ANPR. The comments
expressed opinions on whether the BLM had the authority to implement
regulations to obtain fair market value for the use of unclaimed lands
for mining purposes.
The great majority of the comments appeared in identical form e-
mails, and read as follows:
``In 2003, a court ordered the Bureau of Land Management to
require fair market value for operations conducted on lands not
subject to valid claims or unclaimed lands. This would require
mining companies to
[[Page 73791]]
comply with the current mining law and demonstrate the validity of
their mining claims.
``In the advance notice of proposed rulemaking issued February
23, the BLM argued that it is not `practical' to undertake claim
validity examinations to determine whether or not a mining company
has staked valid claims under the 1872 Mining Law. It appears the
BLM plans to just ignore the fact that there may be mining companies
that are violating the law by operating on unclaimed or invalidly
claimed lands.
``Please do not permit the BLM to allow mining companies to
violate the 1872 Mining Law--an antiquated law that has already
caused tremendous harm to western lands and water resources--instead
of compelling mining companies to comply with the law and
demonstrate the validity of their mining claims.
``Instead of allowing mining companies to thwart the law, the
BLM should do everything it can to make sure that all mining occurs
on valid claims.''
Most of the other comments presented variations on these positions,
or general statements favoring or opposing the Mining Law. (The latter
issue is beyond the scope of this rule.) Others opposed any imposition
of fair market value charges on mining operations.
As we stated in the ANPR, ``[t]he court's decision in Mineral
Policy Center did not address the use of lands on which mining claims
of unknown validity exist.'' Nevertheless, we discussed in the ANPR and
discuss in the next section of this preamble the budgetary and other
practical reasons why the BLM does not routinely undertake validity
examinations of all mining claims.
Public lands are generally open to the operation of the Mining Law,
unless they are statutorily or administratively withdrawn from such
use. A mining claim on lands that are open to the operation of the
Mining Law and that is determined invalid by the BLM remains open for
relocation by the original claimant or another claimant.
On the other hand, withdrawn lands are usually withdrawn subject to
valid existing rights. Under the BLM's regulations, a mining claim that
was located before a withdrawal is automatically subject to a validity
examination when the claimant files a plan of operations under 43 CFR
3809.11 or a notice under 43 CFR 3809.21. See 43 CFR 3809.100. A
validity examination is also triggered when a mining claimant files a
patent application under 43 CFR part 3860. See 43 CFR 3862.1-1. Also,
when anyone attempts to use a mining claim for purposes not
contemplated by the Mining Law, the BLM treats that use as a trespass
and will conduct a validity examination of the mining claim. In these
ways, the BLM prevents abuse of the Mining Law.
The ANPR specifically requested that comments provide examples of
uses of unclaimed lands for mining operations that go beyond
exploration activities on the public lands. None of the comments
provided any past or current examples of miners or mining companies
using unclaimed lands for such mining operations under the Mining Law.
One comment purported to describe such an example, but upon further
investigation the mining operation described did not occur on unclaimed
lands. Other comments described activities in support of mining, such
as access and storage. However, when these ancillary uses are conducted
in relation to mining claims or mill sites, they need not be evaluated
in light of FLPMA's fair market policy. As noted in the ANPR, Judge
Kennedy of the Federal district court concluded that the Mining Law
authorizes operations, including possession, occupancy, and mineral
extraction activities, without payment of fair market value for that
use (292 F. Supp. 2d at pages 47 and 51). The court also concluded that
the Mining Law authorizes exploration activities, mill site use, and
ingress and egress to mining claims (id.). None of the comments
presented factual scenarios in which such ancillary uses took place in
association with operations on unclaimed lands that amount to more than
initial exploration activities.
The response to the ANPR with regard to the use of unclaimed lands
for mining operations was consistent with the BLM's expectations. The
BLM is not aware of any miner or mining company that would be willing
to invest money or resources in the development of a mine without some
tenure in the land in the form of a mining claim or mill site. If a
mining company were to file a plan of operations to extract minerals
from unclaimed lands, a third party could easily locate mining claims
over the area and assert adverse rights to the lands. Consequently, the
fact that none of the handful of comments addressing the issues raised
in the ANPR presented an example of an operator engaging in more than
initial exploration on the public lands without a mining claim or mill
site was not surprising.
This is an interim final rule. Although the rule is effective upon
publication, there is a 60-day comment period that starts on the date
of publication. After the comment period, we will review the comments
and may issue a further final rule with any necessary changes.
Because this rule makes no substantive change in any rule or
requirement, the BLM for good cause finds that notice and public
comment are unnecessary and the rule may take effect upon publication
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3).
III. Why We Are Publishing This Rule
As previously noted, the court concluded that the Mining Law
authorizes operations, including possession, occupancy, and mineral
extraction activities, on valid mining claims without payment of fair
market value for that use (Mineral Policy Center, 292 F. Supp. 2d at
page 51). The court instructed the BLM to evaluate whether the fair
market value policy in FLPMA should be applied to ``invalidly claimed
or unclaimed lands.''
The BLM is not aware of any mining operations taking place on
``invalidly claimed'' public lands (i.e., public lands where BLM has
determined that the claims or sites are invalid) or unclaimed public
lands (i.e., lands where there are no mining claims or mill sites).
Because there are no mining operations occurring on unclaimed lands or
lands determined to be invalidly claimed, the BLM concludes that there
is nothing to evaluate in light of the fair market value policy.
For mining operations occurring on claimed lands, the BLM is
publishing this rule to make it clear that mine operators are not
required to pay any fee to use the surface of public lands for mining
operations conducted under the Mining Law, other than the fees that
mining claimants already pay in the form of the maintenance fee, the
claim location fee, and services charges for other transactions
associated with mining claims (see 43 CFR 3830.21).
As discussed above and in the ANPR, the BLM does not routinely
undertake validity examinations for all mining claims located under the
Mining Law. Even though the validity of most mining claims is unknown,
the BLM treats all properly maintained mining claims as active claims.
The BLM requires all mining claimants to comply with the statutory
recording and maintenance requirements, as well as the prohibition
against causing unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands.
The requirements to maintain a claim's active status include timely
payment of location fees and annual maintenance fees. By law, claimants
must pay the fees without regard to whether the BLM has determined the
underlying validity of the claims.
Because Congress authorizes mining claimants to locate mining
claims under the Mining Law and maintain them by making annual payments
to the BLM while the validity of the claims is unknown or undetermined,
the BLM
[[Page 73792]]
has concluded that it may not apply FLPMA's fair market value policy to
approved mining operations that occur on mining claims of unknown
validity. Likewise, the BLM has concluded that it may not apply FLPMA's
fair market value policy to approved mining operations that occur on
mining claims of known validity.
The BLM believes that its conclusions comport with the fair market
value policy of FLPMA, which establishes a goal of receiving fair
market value of the use of the public lands ``unless otherwise provided
by statute.'' The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Mining Law
allows ``citizens to go onto unappropriated, unreserved public land to
prospect for and develop certain minerals.'' United States v. Locke,
471 U.S. 84, 86 (1985). In particular, the Supreme Court has explained
that the Mining Law ``extends an express invitation to all qualified
persons to explore the lands of the United States for valuable mineral
deposits, and * * * [t]hose who, being qualified, proceed in good faith
to make such explorations and enter peaceably upon vacant lands of the
United States for that purpose are not treated as mere trespassers, but
as licensees or tenants at will.'' Union Oil Co. v. Smith, 249 U.S.
337, 346 (1919). The Ninth Circuit also has stated, ``Under the wise
and beneficent policy of the government of the United States, all its
public lands were thrown open to its citizens, and those who had
declared their intention to become such, for exploration for the
precious minerals and development thereof.'' Cosmos Exploration Co. v.
Gray Eagle Oil Co., 112 F. 4, 13 (9th Cir. 1901). The Mining Law has
authorized public land use for mineral exploration and development
without any requirement to pay fair market value for that use.
Therefore, based on the express terms of FLPMA's policy statement, that
use is exempt from FLPMA's fair market value policy and this rule adds
a provision making it clear that, other than processing fees, location
fees, and maintenance fees provided for in 43 CFR parts 3800, 3830, and
3834, the BLM does not require any other fees for surface use of the
public lands for mining purposes.
Moreover, FLPMA states that its policies will become effective
``only as specific statutory authority for their implementation is
enacted by [FLPMA] or by subsequent legislation and shall then be
construed as supplemental to and not in derogation of the purposes for
which public lands are administered under other provisions of law.'' 43
U.S.C. 1701(b). FLPMA did not enact specific authority requiring fair
market value payments for mining uses of the public lands. However,
Congress has enacted subsequent legislation that requires mining
claimants to pay for the use of public lands encumbered with mining
claims and mill sites through the maintenance fee. When Congress
proposed the mining claim maintenance fee, the stated purpose was to
generate some financial return to the public for use of Federal lands
and the disposition of valuable mineral resources from those lands.
See, e.g., 139 Cong. Rec. E 64 (Jan. 5, 1993). Since 1992, the BLM has
collected over $300 million from mining claimants in maintenance fee
payments for their use of the public lands for mining purposes.
Congress has therefore addressed FLPMA's fair market value policy
through specific statutory authority requiring annual maintenance fee
payments for mining claims and mill sites.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 3800.6 Am I required to pay any fees to use the surface of
public lands for mining purposes?
This interim final rule adds section 3800.6, which states that
anyone who is using the surface of public lands for mining purposes is
not required to pay any fee for that use, other than the processing
fees, location fees, and maintenance fees currently required.
V. Procedural Matters
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
This interim final rule is not a significant regulatory action and
is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866. This interim final rule will not have an effect
of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in
a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal
governments or communities. This interim final rule does not create a
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency. This interim final rule does not alter the
budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs
or the right or obligations of their recipients; nor does it raise
novel legal or policy issues. This rule makes no substantive change in
any rule or requirement. It merely makes it clear that the BLM will not
charge fair market value or any additional fee for mining or related
use of public lands except as otherwise provided by statute or
regulation.
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are simple and easy to understand. We invite your comments on how
to make this interim final rule easier to understand, including answers
to questions such as the following:
1. Are the requirements in the interim final rule clearly stated?
2. Does the interim final rule contain technical language or jargon
that interferes with its clarity?
3. Does the format of the interim final rule (grouping and order of
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its
clarity?
4. Would the regulations be easier to understand if they were
divided into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears in
bold type and is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered
heading, for example Sec. 3800.6. Am I required to pay any fees to use
the surface of public lands for mining purposes?)
5. Is the description of the interim final rule in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble helpful in
understanding the interim final rule? How could this description be
more helpful in making the interim final rule easier to understand?
Please send any comments you have on the clarity of the regulations to
the address specified in the ADDRESSES section.
National Environmental Policy Act
The BLM has determined that this interim final rule, which makes it
clear that the BLM will not charge fair market value or any additional
fee for mining or related use of public lands except as otherwise
provided by statute or regulation, is a regulation of an
administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.
Therefore, it is categorically excluded from environmental review under
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to
516 Departmental Manual (DM), Chapter 2, Appendix 1. In addition, the
interim final rule does not meet any of the 10 criteria for exceptions
to categorical exclusions listed in 516 DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 2.
Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR
1508.4) and the environmental policies and procedures of the Department
of the Interior, the term ``categorical exclusions'' means a category
of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment and that have been found to have no
such effect in procedures
[[Page 73793]]
adopted by a Federal agency and for which neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as
amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not
unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA
requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a
significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a
substantial number of small entities. This rule makes no substantive
change in any rule or requirement. It merely makes it clear that the
BLM will not charge fair market value or any additional fee for mining
or related use of public lands except as otherwise expressly provided
by statute or regulation. We have identified no entity that has carried
out or proposes to carry out mining operations on unclaimed land. The
rule affirms that the BLM will not charge fair market value for mining
use of unclaimed land, use that does not occur because there are strong
practical disincentives. Therefore, the BLM has determined under the
RFA that this interim final rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This interim final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined at 5
U.S.C. 804(2). That is, it would not have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more; it would not result in major cost or
price increases for consumers, industries, government agencies, or
regions; and it would 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 makes no substantive change in any regulation or
requirement. It merely makes it clear that the BLM will not charge fair
market value or any additional fee for mining or related use of public
lands except as otherwise expressly provided by statute or regulation.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This interim final rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on
state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector, in the
aggregate, of $100 million or more per year; nor does this interim
final rule have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or
tribal governments. The rule imposes no requirements on any of these
entities. We have already shown, in the previous paragraphs of this
section of the preamble, that this interim final rule will not have
effects approaching $100 million per year on the private sector.
Therefore, the BLM does not need to prepare a statement containing the
information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.).
Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings)
This interim final rule is not a government action capable of
interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. This rule
makes no substantive change in any regulatory provision or requirement.
It merely makes it clear that the BLM will not charge fair market value
or any additional fee for mining or related use of public lands except
as otherwise expressly provided by statute or regulation. Therefore,
the Department of the Interior has determined that the rule will not
cause a taking of private property and does not require further
discussion of takings implications under this Executive Order.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The interim final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on
the states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
levels of government. It does not apply to states or local governments
or state or local governmental entities. Therefore, in accordance with
Executive Order 13132, the BLM has determined that this interim final
rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
Under Executive Order 12988, we have determined that this interim
final rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets
the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have found that this
interim final rule does not include policies that have tribal
implications. This rule makes no substantive change in any regulatory
provision or requirement. It merely makes it clear that the BLM will
not charge fair market value or any additional fee for mining or
related use of public lands except as otherwise expressly provided by
statute or regulation.
Information Quality Act
In developing this interim final/final rule, we did not conduct or
use a study, experiment or survey requiring peer review under the
Information Quality Act (section 515 of Public Law 106-554).
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
In accordance with Executive Order 13211, the BLM has determined
that the interim final rule will not have substantial direct effects on
the energy supply, distribution or use, including a shortfall in supply
or price increase. This rule makes no substantive change in any
regulatory provision or requirement. It merely makes it clear that the
BLM will not charge fair market value or any additional fee for mining
or related use of public lands except as otherwise expressly provided
by statute or regulation.
Executive Order 13352--Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation
In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined
that this interim final rule does not impede facilitating cooperative
conservation; takes appropriate account of and considers the interests
of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land
or other natural resources; properly accommodates local participation
in the Federal decision-making process; and provides that the programs,
projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health
and safety. This rule makes no substantive change in any regulatory
provision or requirement. It merely makes it clear that the BLM will
not charge fair market value or any additional fee for mining or
related use of public lands except as otherwise expressly provided by
statute or regulation.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These regulations do not contain information collection
requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Author
The principal author of this notice is Scott Haight of the
Lewistown Field Office, Montana, assisted by Ted Hudson of the Division
of Regulatory
[[Page 73794]]
Affairs, Washington Office, Bureau of Land Management, and the Office
of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior.
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3800
Administrative practice and procedure; Environmental protection;
Intergovernmental relations; Mines; Public lands--mineral resources;
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Surety bonds; Wilderness
areas.
Dated: November 14, 2008.
C. Stephen Allred,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and Minerals Management.
0
For the reasons stated in the Preamble, and under the authorities
stated below, the BLM amends 43 CFR part 3800 as follows:
PART 3800--MINING CLAIMS UNDER THE GENERAL MINING LAWS
0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 3800 to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 22-42, 181 et seq.,
301-306, 351-359, and 601 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 40 U.S.C. 471 et
seq.; 42 U.S.C. 6508; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; and Pub. L. No. 97-35,
95 Stat. 357.
Subpart 3800--General
0
2. Add Sec. 3800.6 to read as follows:
Sec. 3800.6 Am I required to pay any fees to use the surface of
public lands for mining purposes?
You must pay all processing fees, location fees, and maintenance
fees specified in 43 CFR parts 3800 and 3830. Other than the
processing, location and maintenance fees, you are not required to pay
any other fees to the BLM to use the surface of public lands for mining
purposes.
[FR Doc. E8-28741 Filed 12-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P