FR 2024-28948

The Federal Register document published by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes the renewal of an information collection process concerning mineral surveys and related activities under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The renewal addresses the collection of data from unpatented mining claim holders. The agency invites comments from the public and other federal entities until January 9, 2025, focusing particularly on aspects such as the necessity and utility of the information collected, the burden this places on respondents, and potential improvements to the process.

General Summary

The document outlines a plan to continue collecting data related to claims on mineral surveys and patent applications. This process is currently limited by a moratorium on new applications, though existing ones filed before a specific cut-off may still be processed. By requesting feedback, the BLM seeks to ensure the information they gather serves a useful purpose and minimizes any unnecessary burden on those required to respond.

Significant Issues or Concerns

1. High Non-hour Burden Cost: The document reports a substantial annual cost of $259,035 for non-hour burdens despite expecting only 10 responses. This may prompt concerns about inefficiencies and potential wasteful spending without clear justification for such high costs.

2. Vague Estimated Completion Time: There is ambiguity in the document's statement that the estimated time for responding varies widely between 1 to 100 hours. More detailed clarity would help stakeholders understand the expected efforts and task distribution.

3. Privacy Concerns: The document states that comments are public records and personal information could be disclosed. However, it lacks detailed information on how privacy will be managed, which may worry those submitting personal data.

4. Context on Legislation: Although it mentions the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, it does not provide comprehensive insight into how this affects mineral patent applications or the potential lifting of the moratorium. More contextual background would aid understanding.

5. Lack of Form Descriptions: The specific forms associated with this collection (3860-2 and 3860-5) are mentioned without explanation of their purpose, which could be confusing for stakeholders unfamiliar with these documents.

Potential Impact on the Public

Broadly, the BLM's collection and review process could impact public interaction with federal land policies, particularly those in mining or mineral extraction. Understanding the public's views on information collection helps tailor processes to reduce unnecessary burdens. However, transparency regarding cost and effort distribution appears limited, raising concern about efficient use of public resources.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For owners of unpatented mining claims, clarity over the collection process and the moratorium's status is critical, given the implications for their rights and potential financial commitments. Improved efficiency and privacy assurances could foster greater cooperation and trust between stakeholders and the BLM. Conversely, any inefficiencies or unclear procedures could cause frustration and hesitation in engagements.

Ultimately, the document represents a procedural yet crucial effort to maintain functional oversight of mineral claims, albeit with certain areas in need of greater transparency and clarity to maximize public benefit and stakeholder engagement.

In the Federal Register document, the sole financial reference highlighted is the Total Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: $259,035. This figure represents the anticipated non-hourly expenses associated with the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) proposed information collection. However, the document does not provide detailed information on what specifically constitutes these costs, which may prompt questions regarding the sufficiency and transparency of the fiscal explanation provided.

The document outlines that there would be an estimated total of 10 responses annually. In conjunction with the substantial $259,035 estimated cost, this leads to an average cost of approximately $25,903.50 per response. Such a figure may appear disproportionately high relative to the number of responses, pointing to a potential inefficiency or misallocation of funds. This warrants additional justification or breakdown to explain why the costs are scalable to this level, especially given the low volume of responses.

With respect to the document issues, there is an emphasis on the lack of specificity in stating the completion time per response, ranging broadly from 1 to 100 hours. Such a wide range in anticipated time commitment could significantly contribute to the difficulty in accurately forecasting financial expenditures. For instance, activities taking closer to the 100-hour mark could naturally incur higher costs due to resource allocation, data processing, or administrative oversight, none of which are currently clarified. Therefore, a more definitive explanation of the various activities and their corresponding timelines could assist in understanding whether the high cost estimates are reasonably aligned with actual needs.

Additionally, while the document references the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, it does not offer insights into how these legislative stipulations may influence financial obligations relating to mineral patent applications. If the moratorium on processing such applications were to be lifted, the financial implications might change, affecting these non-hour burden costs further.

In summary, the expenditure figure of $259,035 lacks contextual details that would enhance understanding and transparency for stakeholders. To foster trust and accountability, it would benefit from further elucidation, breaking down expenditures related to each response, and providing clarity on the scope of work involved with the information collection activities.