[Federal Register: June 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 122)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35609-35614]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24jn08-21]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 3500
[WO-320-1330-02-24-1A]
RIN 1004AD91
Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to amend its
regulations in 43 CFR part 3500 for leasing of solid minerals other
than coal and oil shale to distinguish fringe acreage lease
requirements from lease modification requirements, and to describe
acceptable justifications for a lease modification. The proposed rule
would also identify changes in the associated procedural requirements
and update the filing fees. The proposed changes are based on statutory
authorities, which authorize the BLM to issue regulations for leasing
of minerals and to charge for administrative processing costs, and on
policy guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the
Department of the Interior (DOI) requiring the BLM to charge these
fees.
DATES: Send your comments on this proposed rule to the BLM on or before
August 25, 2008. The BLM will not necessarily consider any comments
received after the above date in making its decision on the final rule.
ADDRESSES: You may mail written comments to the Bureau of Land
Management, Administrative Record, Room 401LS, 1849 C Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20240, ATTN: 1004-AD91; or hand-deliver written comments
to the Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620
L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. Comments will be available for
public review at the L Street address from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Brown, Geologist, Solid
Minerals Division (WO-320), Bureau of Land Management, Mail Stop-501LS,
1849 ``C'' Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240; or by telephone at (202)
452-7765. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service
[[Page 35610]]
(FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a
message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply
during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Comment Procedures
II. Background
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
IV. Procedural Matters
I. Public Comment Procedures
Please submit e-mail comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include
``Attn: 1004-AD91'' and your name and return address in your e-mail
message.
You may examine documents pertinent to this proposed rulemaking at
the L Street address.
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, U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, Attn: 1004-AD91.
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).
Please make your comments as specific as possible by confining them
to issues for which comments are sought in this notice, and explain the
bases for your comments.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and
likely to influence agency decisions are:
1. Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and
2. Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable
laws and regulations.
The BLM 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?
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.
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.
II. Background
At the time of leasing, the BLM proposes lease boundaries that
conform as nearly as possible to the orientation of known mineral
deposits. Due to lack of detailed information about the deposit when a
lease is issued, a lease boundary may need refinement. Following
leasing, for example, additional exploration by the lessee may identify
extensions of the deposit onto adjoining land. In addition, new
engineering information may determine that lease boundaries are not
situated for optimal development and recovery of the mineral deposit
within the lease. In some cases, this has required placing overburden
onto lands containing mineral deposits, precluding maximum recovery of
the minerals and shortening the operating life of some mines. The BLM
uses lease modifications to adjust lease boundaries and make
corrections to accommodate new information. These changes are
infrequent and typically involve relatively small areas. Current
regulations treat fringe acreage leases and lease modifications in the
same way, in that in both cases there must be a mineral deposit under
the proposed additional acreage to be added to the primary leasehold.
It is appropriate that a fringe acreage lease, as a new lease, should
be required to show the presence of a mineral deposit within the
proposed lease boundaries. By contrast, since a modification is an
adjustment to an existing lease that already contains a known mineral
deposit, the requirement in the existing regulations for the presence
of a mineral deposit in the modification area should not be applicable
to adjustment of the existing lease boundary. Therefore, the proposed
rule would amend this provision with regard to lease modifications.
The proposed rule also incorporates an update to the filing fee for
lease modification and fringe acreage lease applications based on cost
recovery rules published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2005 (70
FR 58857).
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The BLM is proposing to amend the regulation that requires that the
acreage proposed to be added to an existing lease in a lease
modification application contain an extension of the mineral deposit.
The amendment acknowledges that an existing lease already contains a
known deposit, and provides for modification where the configuration of
the lease boundary has been found to be inadequate for recovery of the
previously leased mineral deposit. Under circumstances where there is
no known deposit of the same mineral on the additional acreage, the
proposed rule would require that the acreage to be added is necessary
to achieve recovery of the mineral deposit on the pre-existing Federal
lease and, had the acreage been included in the Federal lease at the
time of the Federal lease's issuance, such inclusion would have
produced a reasonably compact lease. This is in accordance with the
Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended, which requires
such compactness. In substance, the proposed rule recognizes that,
since the additional acreage could have been included at the time of
lease issuance even though it did not contain a known mineral deposit,
it may now be included as a modification to the pre-existing lease.
This change provides for making adjustments to reconfigure lease
boundaries for better accommodation of development based on new
information on the location and orientation of deposits and extraction
areas. This approach provides potential cost savings to lessees and
increased returns to the United States from maximum recovery of leased
mineral deposits. This is a minor change in the regulations that would
apply in limited circumstances. The BLM consulted with the Forest
Service in the development of the proposed rule.
The principal reason for this amendment is to facilitate the
process of allowing a modification to add acreage to a lease. Under the
proposed rule, the BLM would allow a lease modification:
(1) To recognize new information about the extent of the deposit to
avoid bypassing reserves that could not be independently developed;
(2) To provide space for placement of overburden and other waste
rock materials to facilitate maximum recovery of the mineral deposit;
and/or
(3) To provide space for other facilities needed to recover the
deposit, including ore stockpiles, topsoil stockpiles, haul and/or
access roads,
[[Page 35611]]
and support facilities such as warehouse and storage areas, shops, fuel
and lubricant storage, equipment staging areas, electrical substations,
repair shops, and restrooms.
All leases necessarily include some nonmineral acreage. Lease
boundaries are based on the location of deposits that may not be fully
identified at the time of lease issuance. Items (2) and (3) already
take place on existing leases but can be constrained because the lease
orientation and lease boundaries may not be optimally oriented to the
deposits to provide space for these activities. For example, due to the
space limitations caused by orientation of the deposit relative to the
lease boundary, it may be necessary to temporarily stockpile ore on an
unmined portion of a deposit. This interferes with mining efficiency
and increases costs. It blocks access to the deposit, reduces recovery,
and requires handling and hauling the stockpile multiple times as the
deposit is mined. Readjustment of the lease boundary to better conform
to the deposit orientation could provide for better utilization of the
lease acreage for the overall mine operation.
Subpart 3516 provides for use permits for ancillary operations for
phosphate leases (up to 80 acres) and sodium leases (up to 40 acres).
Use permits are not appropriate for several reasons. Lease boundary
readjustment provides for more efficient utilization of leased acreage
and more space in the area of the greatest need immediately adjacent to
the operations. Readjustment can provide more space for operations in a
compact configuration than a use permit by making more effective use of
the acres that are leased and minimizing the additional acres needed.
Use permits may not provide enough acreage for all lease operations.
Also, BLM use permit provisions are limited to public lands and do not
apply to national forest lands.
IV. Procedural Matters
1. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)
This document is not a significant rule and the Office of
Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under Executive Order
(E.O.) 12866. We have made the assessments required by E.O. 12866 and
the results appear below.
The rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or 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. Mining companies rarely seek lease
modifications. From FY2001 through FY2006, there were only 9 lease
modifications out of 522 active leases. This regulation change is not
expected to result in a substantial increase in the number of
modifications. Although the BLM expects few modifications, the likely
economic impacts from an individual lease modification can be
illustrated in the following example. In one recent lease modification,
one company employed about 210 workers with annual wages of about $18.7
million. The modification extended the mine's life by 2 to 3 years,
thereby extending the wage earnings for those 210 workers, and
producing an additional $4 to 6 million in royalties for the Federal
Government.
The rule will not create a serious inconsistency with an
action taken or planned by another agency. It will be consistent with
the current practices of the BLM and the Forest Service for operations
on leases, which provide for consultation between the agencies before
the BLM authorizes a lease modification, and will extend those
practices to the additional lands in modified leases. It will not
change the relationships of the BLM to other agencies and their
actions. The proposed rule will allow a lease modification to increase
the size or shape of the lease, providing more acreage for lease
operations. Procedures for review and approval of all lease operations,
including mining and reclamation plans, development of mitigation
measures, and the associated reviews under the National Environmental
Policy Act, will remain the same. Potential activities on the leases
will remain the same. The effect of this rule is merely to provide more
acreage to perform those operations on existing leases.
The rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants,
loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. The
rule does not address any of these programs.
The rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that 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.) Although a substantial number of
lessees meet the criteria for small entities, as defined by the Small
Business Administration (SBA), the proposed rule would only affect a
small number of entities and the annual effect on the economy of the
regulatory changes will be less than $100 million. When it is applied,
the proposed rule will have a beneficial impact because it allows the
lessee to develop the lease more fully, and do so with greater
efficiency and potentially at lower cost. A threshold analysis was
performed, which determined that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
not required. The threshold analysis is available at the address
specified under ADDRESSES. A Small Entity Compliance Guide is not
required.
For the purposes of this section a ``small entity'' is an
individual, limited partnership, or small company, at ``arm's length''
from the control of any parent companies, with fewer than 500
employees. This definition accords with Small Business Administration
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201.
3. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or 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. As explained above, lease modifications
constitute a small part of solid non-energy mineral leasing activity
and most of those are accomplished under existing regulations. The
proposed rule is only expected to involve boundary adjustments at a few
leases, and the associated economic effects:
Will be less than $100 million annually;
Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; and
Will 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.
The rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants,
loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. The
rule does not address any of these programs.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per
year. The rule will not have a significant or unique effect on state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The changes
proposed in this rule would not
[[Page 35612]]
require anything of any non-federal governmental entity. The rule is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
5. Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights (Takings) (E.O. 12630)
Under the criteria in E.O.12630, this rule does not have takings
implications. This rule does not substantially change BLM policy.
Nothing in this rule has any effect on private property interests, and
therefore nothing in the rule constitutes a taking. A takings
implication assessment is not required.
6. Federalism (E.O. 13132)
Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this rule does not
have significant Federalism effects to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism assessment. This rule does not change the role of or
responsibilities among Federal, state, and local governmental entities,
nor does it relate to the structure and role of states or have direct,
substantive, or significant effects on states.
7. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(1) Does not unduly burden the judicial system, and
(2) Meets the criteria of sections 3(a) requiring that all
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be
written to minimize litigation; and
(3) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
8. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)
Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, we have evaluated this rule and
determined that it has no potential effects on federally recognized
Indian tribes. Because this rule does not make significant substantive
changes in the regulations and does not specifically involve Indian
reservation lands, we believe that relations with Indians, Indian
tribes, and tribal governments will be unaffected and no consultation
is needed for this rule. Consultation would take place for any lease
modifications that may be proposed. Lands within Indian Reservations,
except the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, Hillcreek Extension,
State of Utah, are closed to the operation of the Mineral Leasing Act.
Under Public Law 440 (Hill Creek Extension), the boundaries of the
Uintah-Ouray Reservation were extended to include the surface of some
public domain lands, but those lands do not contain any known mineral
resources or leasing operations that are subject to these regulations
and are unaffected by this change.
9. Paperwork Reduction Act
The BLM has determined that this proposed rule does not contain any
new information collection requirements that the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The OMB has approved the information
collection requirements in the regulations under OMB control number
1004-0073, which expires March 31, 2010.
10. National Environmental Policy Act
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement
under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), is not required.
The BLM has determined that any environmental effects that this
proposed rule may have are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to
lend themselves to meaningful analysis and any actions authorized by
the rule would be subject to the NEPA process on a case-by-case basis.
See 516 DM2, Appendix I, Item 1.10. In limited circumstances, this
regulation will provide a limited amount of acreage within the lease
boundary for operations to take place. The factual situation at each
lease area is different. Specific proposals for modifications will be
reviewed under NEPA and evaluated to identify the potential impacts
associated with the proposed modifications and any appropriate
mitigation, and the decisions about what operations will be allowed
will be made on the basis of those analyses.
Therefore, the proposed rule is categorically excluded from
environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 2.3A
and 516 DM 2, Appendix I, Item 1.10, and does not meet any of the 10
criteria for exceptions to categorical exclusion listed in 516 DM 2,
Appendix 2. Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations
(40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental policies and procedures of the
Department of the Interior, the term ``categorical exclusion'' means a
category of actions that 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 adopted by a Federal agency and for
which neither an environmental assessment (EA) nor an environmental
impact statement (EIS) is required.
Because the proposed promulgation of this rule would not itself
approve any lease modification, it would have no significant impacts on
the environment and would not have a significant impact on any of the
following critical elements of the human environment as defined in
Appendix 5 of the BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (H-
1790-1): air quality, areas of critical environmental concern, cultural
resources, Native American religious concerns, threatened or endangered
species, hazardous or solid waste, water quality, prime and unique
farmlands, wetlands, riparian zones, wild and scenic rivers,
environmental justice, and wilderness. The lease modifications that are
authorized would be analyzed in EAs or EISs, and, if approved, they
would incorporate site specific mitigation measures in both the
modification approval and the mining/reclamation plan. This proposed
rule does not change this, but makes it clear that, in certain
circumstances, proponents of lease modifications do not bear the burden
of showing that the land contains deposits of the minerals subject to
the lease.
11. Data Quality Act
In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study,
experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act
(section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554).
12. Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition
in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required. It will
not have an adverse effect on energy supplies. The proposed rule would
reduce energy requirements somewhat by facilitating efforts by lessees
to keep operations compact. Thus, transportation required for materials
within the mining operation may be reduced, given that operations would
be conducted on adjacently located properties. Accordingly, we
anticipate that this may reduce fuel consumption from haulage during
operations. By facilitating maximum recovery of mineral deposits from
leases, the proposed rule would extend mine life, allowing the existing
infrastructure to be used for a longer
[[Page 35613]]
time. Postponing development of the new infrastructure required for new
mines would also reduce overall energy requirements.
13. Clarity of the Regulations
We are required by E.O. 12866 and E.O. 12988, and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you believe that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods specified in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us amend the regulations, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of
the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections
or sentences are too long, the sections where you believe lists or
tables would be useful, etc.
14. Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation (E.O. 13352)
In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined
that this proposed rule:
Would not impede facilitating cooperative conservation;
Would take appropriate account of and consider the
interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized
interests in land or other natural resources;
Would properly accommodate local participation in the
Federal decision-making process; and
Would provide that the programs, projects, and activities
are consistent with protecting public health and safety.
Author
The principal author of this rule is George Brown, Geologist,
Division of Solid Minerals, assisted by Ted Hudson, Acting Chief,
Division of Regulatory Affairs, Washington Office, BLM.
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3500
Government contracts, Intergovernmental relations, Mineral
royalties, Mines, Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Dated: March 25, 2008.
C. Stephen Allred,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble and under the
authorities stated below, the BLM proposes to amend 43 CFR part 3500 as
set forth below.
PART 3500--LEASING OF SOLID MINERALS OTHER THAN COAL AND OIL SHALE
1. The authority citation for part 3500 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 30 U.S.C. 189 and 192c; 43 U.S.C. 1733
and 1740; and sec. 402, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 U.S.C.
Appendix).
Subpart 3501--Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil
Shale--General
2. Amend Sec. 3501.10 by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 3501.10 What types of mineral use authorizations can I get under
these rules?
* * * * *
(f) ``Lease modifications'' add adjacent acreage to a Federal
lease. The acreage to be added:
(1) Contains known deposits of the same mineral that can be mined
only as part of the mining operation on the original Federal lease; or
(2) Has the following characteristics-
(i) Does not contain known deposits of the same mineral; and
(ii) Will be used for surface activities that are necessary in
furtherance of recovery of the mineral deposit on the original Federal
lease; and
(iii) Had the acreage been included in the original Federal lease
at the time of the Federal lease's issuance, the original Federal lease
would have been reasonably compact.
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 3510.12 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c), and by
adding paragraph (d), to read as follows:
Sec. 3510.12 What must I do to obtain a lease modification or fringe
acreage lease?
* * * * *
(b) Include a non-refundable filing fee as provided in Sec.
3000.12, Table 1, of this chapter (the fee may be found under ``Leasing
of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale (Part 3500)''). You
must also make an advance rental payment in accordance with the rental
rate for the mineral commodity you are seeking. If you want to modify
an existing lease, the BLM will base the rental payment on the rate in
effect for the lease being modified in accordance with Sec. 3504.15.
(c) Your fringe acreage lease application must:
(1) Show the serial number of the lease if the lands specified in
your application adjoin an existing Federal lease;
(2) Contain a complete and accurate description of the lands
desired;
(3) Show that the mineral deposit specified in your application
extends from your adjoining lease or from adjoining private lands you
own or control; and
(4) Include proof that you own or control the mineral deposit in
the adjoining lands if they are not under a Federal lease.
(d) Your lease modification application must:
(1) Show the serial number of your Federal lease that you seek to
modify;
(2) Contain a complete and accurate description of the lands
desired that adjoin the Federal lease you seek to modify; and
(3) Show that--
(i) The adjoining acreage to be added contains known deposits of
the same mineral deposit that can be mined only as part of the mining
operations on the original Federal lease; or
(ii) As an alternative, show that--
(A) The acreage to be added does not contain known deposits of the
same mineral deposit; and
(B) The adjoining acreage will be used for surface activities that
are necessary for the recovery of the mineral deposit on the original
Federal lease, and
(C) Had the acreage been included in the original Federal lease at
the time of that lease's issuance, the original Federal lease would
have been reasonably compact.
4. Amend Sec. 3510.15 by revising paragraph (e), redesignating
paragraphs (f) and (g) as paragraphs (g) and (h), respectively, by
adding new paragraph (f), and by revising redesignated paragraph (h),
to read as follows:
Sec. 3510.15 What will the BLM do with my application?
* * * * *
(e) The lands for which you applied for a fringe acreage lease lack
sufficient reserves of the mineral resource to warrant independent
development;
(f)(1) The lands for which you applied for a lease modification
contain known deposits of the same mineral deposit that can be mined
only as part of the mining operations on the original Federal lease; or
(2)(i) The acreage to be added does not contain known deposits of
the same mineral; and
(ii) The acreage to be added will be used for surface activities
that are
[[Page 35614]]
necessary for the recovery of the mineral deposit on the original
Federal lease; and
(iii) Had the acreage added by the modification been included in
the original Federal lease at the time of that lease's issuance, the
original Federal lease would have been reasonably compact
* * * * *
(h) You meet the qualification requirements for holding a lease
described in subpart 3502 of this chapter and the new or modified lease
will not cause you to exceed the acreage limitations described in Sec.
3503.37.
[FR Doc. E8-14214 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P