[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2618-2623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-1339]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Parts 3430 and 3470

[WO-320-1430-PB-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AD43


Coal Management: Noncompetitive Leases; Coal Management 
Provisions and Limitations

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The purposes of this proposed rule are to correct a technical 
error relating to coal lease modifications made in a final rule 
published on September 28, 1999 (64 FR 52239)(the 1999 rule), and to 
amend the regulations to reflect the statutory increase in the maximum 
acreage of Federal leases for coal that may be held by an individual or 
entity in any one state as well as nationally.
    This rule would revise the regulations of the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) to reflect correction of a technical error regarding 
the requirement of a public hearing and publication (in the Federal 
Register and a general circulation newspaper) of a notice of 
availability of environmental analysis documents for coal lease 
modifications. This error was made in conjunction with the BLM's 
September 1999 regulatory revisions incorporating public participation 
procedures into the competitive coal leasing regulations.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received or postmarked by 
February 19, 2002, to be assured consideration in developing a final 
rule.

ADDRESSES: Mail: Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, 
Administrative Record, Room 401 LS, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20240. Personal or messenger delivery: Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20036.
    For information about the requirements for filing comments and how 
to file comments electronically, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section under ``Public Comment Procedures and Information.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Linda Ponticelli at (202) 452-
0350.

[[Page 2619]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Comment Procedures and Information
II. Background
III. Discussion of the Rule
IV. Procedural Matters

I. Public Comment Procedures and Information

A. How Do I Comment on the Proposed Rule?

    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, 1849 C Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20240.
     You may deliver comments to Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20036.
    Please make your written comments on the proposed rule as specific 
as possible, confine them to issues pertinent to the proposed rule, and 
explain the reason for any changes you recommend. Where possible, your 
comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the 
proposal that you are addressing.
    BLM may not necessarily consider or include in the Administrative 
Record for the final rule comments that you send 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 business hours (7:45 
a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
    Individual respondents may request confidentiality, which we will 
honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish to withhold your name 
or address, except for the city or town, you must state this 
prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all 
submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals 
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations 
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

II. Background

    On September 28, 1999, in conjunction with a settlement agreement 
in the lawsuit, Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Jamison, 
et al., Civil No. 82-2763 (D. D.C.), the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) issued a final rule (64 FR 52239) to establish regulatory 
procedures by which the public may participate in the Bureau of Land 
Management's regional coal leasing process. We issued the final rule, 
which became effective on October 28, 1999, to satisfy terms of a July 
1997 settlement agreement (Civil No. 82-2763 (D.C. Circuit No. 93-5029) 
in which the Department agreed to identify in BLM's regulations the 
points where the public may participate in regional coal leasing 
decisions. In addition, the final rule amended the regulations in part 
3400 to conform to statutory changes under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995, exempting several types of meetings from Federal Advisory 
Committee Act requirements.

A. Lease Modifications

    Section 3432.3, which addresses the terms and conditions of a coal 
lease modification, currently requires compliance with the provisions 
of 43 CFR 3425.3. At the time we wrote the regulations in subpart 3432 
governing lease modifications, former Sec. 3425.3(a), addressing lease 
modification terms and conditions, similarly provided that BLM could 
not modify a lease until you met the requirements of Sec. 3425.3. 
Former Sec. 3425.3 required BLM to prepare an environmental assessment 
or impact statement before approving a lease modification.
    To incorporate public participation procedures addressed in BLM's 
Competitive Coal Leasing Handbook, the 1999 regulatory revision to 43 
CFR 3425.3 included the additional requirements of--
    (1) A public hearing, and
    (2) publication of notices of availability of the environmental 
analysis document for coal leasing.
    By means of the cross-reference in Sec. 3432.3(c), these new 
requirements imposed on new lease sales in Sec. 3425.3 by the 1999 rule 
automatically applied to lease modifications under Sec. 3432.3. We did 
not intend this to be the effect of the 1999 rule.
    In revising the competitive coal leasing regulations (43 CFR part 
3420) to incorporate public participation procedures for competitive 
leasing, we intended to impose the requirements of a public hearing and 
publication of notices of availability of draft environmental analysis 
documents only on new coal lease sales, not on non-competitive coal 
lease modifications issued under subpart 3432. Therefore, our failure 
to remove the cross reference in Sec. 3432.3(c) to the requirements of 
Sec.  3425.3 when we revised the latter in 1999 was a technical error, 
which we propose to correct in this rule.
    Lease modifications often ensure the recovery and receipt of fair 
market value of small areas of unleased Federal coal that may be 
discovered during the mining of an adjacent Federal coal lease. In many 
cases, BLM must process a modification expeditiously to avoid the 
bypass of unleased Federal coal. Unlike competitive coal leasing, where 
the lease acreage may be up to 5,120 acres, the maximum allowable 
acreage for lease modifications is a total of 160 acres per lease, 
regardless of the number of times BLM modifies the lease. Due to 
variability in exploration data and the coal geology, these small areas 
of unleased Federal coal are not easily identified with the limited 
data available when we originally configure a lease. Such areas 
typically cannot be developed as an independent lease because of their 
size and configuration. Therefore, incorporation of these areas into an 
existing coal lease through a coal lease modification facilitates 
achieving fair market value and maximum economic recovery of Federal 
coal resources.
    Section 3432.3(c) provides that BLM cannot approve a lease 
modification until the lessee or operator complies with the provisions 
of Sec. 3425.3. Although Sec. 3425.3 currently contains specific 
procedures relating to the preparation of environmental analysis 
documents, its focus is competitive lease sales. Since the 1999 revised 
version of Sec. 3425.3 applies exclusively to competitive coal leasing, 
it is not intended to apply to a lease modification. The change in this 
proposed rule would eliminate the recently imposed requirement of 
publication of notices of availability and a public hearing for 
environmental analysis documents relating to coal lease modifications. 
This is in keeping with the intent of the Natural Resources Defense 
Council lawsuit settlement agreement, which did not extend to non-
competitive coal lease modifications. It is also consistent with the 
preamble to the existing rule (64 FR 12142, March 11, 1999), which 
stated: ``This proposed rule does not substantially change the leasing-
on-application process.''

B. Acreage Limitation

    On October 23, 2000, the United States Senate passed S. 2300, which 
became Public Law 106-463 on November 7, 2000. This law, known as the 
Coal Competition Act of 2000, amended Section 27(a) of the Mineral 
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 184(a)) to increase the amount of acreage of

[[Page 2620]]

Federal coal leases, or permits that an individual or entity may hold 
in a single state from 46,080 acres to 75,000 acres and raised the 
national acreage limit from 100,000 acres to 150,000 acres.
    As noted in Public Law 106-463, the Federal lands containing some 
of the nation's large commercial deposits of coal are located in Utah, 
Montana, and Wyoming. The acreage limitations are causing difficulty 
for coal producers in Wyoming and Utah. The sub-bituminous coal from 
these mines is low in sulfur, making it the cleanest burning coal for 
energy production. The present acreage limitation of 46,080 acres per 
state for Federal coal leases has been in place since 1964, and was not 
changed with the passage of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 
1976. Congress recently raised the acreage limits for other minerals. 
For example, currently, the single-state lease acreage limit of 46,080 
acres for coal is less than the single-state Federal lease limit for 
potassium (96,000 acres) and for oil and gas (246,080 acres).
    Congress determined that the per-state increase in acreage to 
75,000 acres and the national acreage increase to 150,000 acres is 
warranted by modern mine technology, changes in industry economics, 
greater global competition, and need to conserve the Federal resource. 
Increased acreage limits will help existing coal lessees avoid 
premature closure, make better long-term business decisions about 
infrastructure investments based on the certainty of more available 
acreage, and otherwise maintain the vitality of the domestic coal 
industry. Furthermore, the increase in acreage limits will ensure 
continuation of valuable revenues to Federal and state governments and 
energy to the American public from coal production on Federal lands.
    The amount of acreage that any lessee or operator controls will 
have no effect on the MLA requirement to produce commercial quantities 
of coal within 10 years of lease issuance. The statutory penalty for 
not having met this requirement is cancellation of the lease (30 U.S.C. 
184(h)(1)).

III. Discussion of the Rule

    In order to correct the previously discussed technical error 
relating to lease modifications, we plan to amend regulation 43 CFR 
3432.3 by removing the cross reference to 43 CFR 3425.3 and revising 
subsection (c). We have also added a new paragraph (d) to require 
review by the Secretary of Agriculture if the proposed coal lease 
modification affects National Forest System lands. This is not a new 
requirement. It appears in Sec. 3425.3(b) of the current regulations, 
where it applies to new leases. The previous Sec. 3432.3 applied this 
requirement to modifications as well by means of a cross-reference. 
Since this proposed rule removes the cross-reference, we need to add 
the requirement itself to Sec. 3432.3. There is no substantive change 
in the regulations, other than removing the unintended requirement for 
notice and a hearing on proposed coal lease modifications.
    This rule also amends Sec. 3472.1-3 to reflect the new coal lease 
acreage limits set by Public Law 106-463 by removing the references to 
the previous acreage limits, and substituting the new numbers 
established by Public Law 106-463.

IV. Procedural Matters

National Environmental Policy Act

    BLM has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) and has found 
that this proposed rule would not constitute a major Federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under 
section 102(2)(C) of the Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA), 
42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). As discussed above, this rule would implement a 
technical correction to the public participation rule completed on 
September 28, 1999 (64 FR 52239) and a change to the Mineral Leasing 
Act which was made by Congress. The amendment of the Mineral Leasing 
Act changed the acreage limitations for coal leases. As stated in the 
EA, the proposed rule should lead to more efficient production and 
economic recovery of the coal resource. However, it should not in and 
of itself lead to new mining. While more efficient mining may have 
environmental consequences, BLM will consider these consequences on a 
case-by-case basis in preparing environmental analyses before issuing a 
new coal lease or modifying an existing one. Therefore, a detailed 
statement under NEPA is not required. We have placed the EA and the 
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on file in our Administrative 
Record at the address specified in the ADDRESSES section. We invite the 
public to review these documents and suggest that anyone wishing to 
submit comments in response to the EA and FONSI do so in accordance 
with the Written Comments section above.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action and was 
not subject to review by Office of Management and Budget under 
Executive Order 12866. This rule will not have an annual effect of $100 
million or more on the economy. The rule affects coal leasing in only 
two ways: shortening the lease modification procedure, and increasing 
lease acreage limitations.
    Further, historically, lease modifications have not had significant 
economic effects on the economy. In Fiscal Year 2000, there were 311 
coal leases of various kinds, generating royalties of $315,166,348 on 
production of 392,943,074 tons of federal coal, with an average market 
value of $7.92 per ton, from 461,883 acres of public lands. Of these 
leases, in FY 2000, only 2 leases were subjects of lease modification. 
Since the maximum acreage that can be added by a modification is 160 
for the life of the lease, it is clear that the economic effect of 
lease modifications is tiny compared with the coal program as a whole. 
The largest number of lease modifications that BLM has processed in the 
past few years has been 6, in FY 1998, affecting a total of 733 acres. 
Analyzing this strictly from averages, and using the value from FY 
2000, the market value of coal affected by these modifications should 
have been about $4,738,000 in FY 1998, assuming, of course, that it all 
would have been immediately available for mining in that year. Total 
value for other recent years, based on the lower numbers and acreages 
of lease modifications shown in the accompanying chart, should have 
been only a fraction of this value. The following table summarizes 
lease modifications over the past few years.

[[Page 2621]]



                                                       BLM Coal Lease Modifications, FY1997-FY2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY1997            FY1998            FY1999            FY2000        FY2001 (through
                                                               ------------------------------------------------------------------------    06-30-2001)
                             State                                                                                                     -----------------
                                                                 Lease    Acres    Lease    Acres    Lease    Acres    Lease    Acres    Lease
                                                                  mods              mods              mods              mods              mods    Acres
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado......................................................        1      100        1      160  .......  .......        2      288  .......  .......
Kentucky......................................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......        1      160
Montana.......................................................  .......  .......        3      303        1       10  .......  .......  .......  .......
Utah..........................................................        1      133        2      240        2      200  .......  .......        1      122
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...................................................        2      233        6      703        3      210        2      288        2      282
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, since we do not know precisely how much coal was 
produced from the lease modifications shown, we state these dollar 
figures only to provide a sense of how small the effect of lease 
modifications is, compared with the threshold in the executive order. 
Further, the effect of the mistake that we are correcting in this rule 
was only to extend the time required and increase the cost of 
processing a lease modification. Therefore, the effects of this 
proposed rule amount to a financial benefit to the coal industry due to 
reducing the time required for lease modifications and the 
administrative cost of processing them for both industry and BLM, which 
will be something less than the value of the modification itself.
    The estimated additional costs to the lessee for processing a lease 
modification application inadvertently imposed by the 1999 rule were 
based on a delay of 2 to 3 months for allowing public input. The 
reduced costs to BLM and the lease modification applicant from avoiding 
these delays are difficult to segregate and quantify. As a minimum, we 
estimate the savings in processing costs (for Federal Register 
processing and document preparation) will approach $10,000 per lease 
modification application. Assuming a average number of lease 
modification applications per year of 3, the total savings may be 
nearly $30,000.
    The other element of savings created by this proposed rule is the 
reduction in opportunity costs. The unintended consequence of the 1999 
rule was that some operators may not have been able to develop the 
resources contained in the lease modifications in a timely manner, or 
at all. Those costs would have been imposed if, due to the additional 
processing time, the lease modification could not be completed in time 
to allow recovery of the resources. If the lease modification is not 
processed in time for the coal it contains to be mined with the rest of 
the coal in the lease, the public will lose revenues from bonus 
payments and royalties. We estimate that this proposed rule will enable 
the public to avoid bonus and royalty revenue losses of about $2,200 
per acre on average, and with an expected 3 modifications at a maximum 
of 160 acres each, the total revenue impact is about $1,056,000 per 
year, which, though substantial, is less than 1 percent of the total 
coal royalty revenues for FY 2000, and far less than the $100 million 
annual threshold in the Executive Order.
    The second change only matches our regulations to what the law 
already requires BLM to do. We cannot quantify the economic impact of 
increasing the acreage limitations, because it would involve what would 
amount to speculation about future coal leases or mergers of current 
coal lessees. We do, however, see this a positive for industry in that 
it will allow greater flexibility for coal operators to maintain coal 
reserves that are readily available for production and consumption. 
Currently, lessees can be required to wait as long as 10 years before 
they can relinquish a lease after production has ended to allow for 
proof of successful reclamation. The acreage in a lease that has been 
mined out but not reclaimed counts the same to the state and national 
acreage limitations as a new lease that has never been mined.
    The rule 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. Economic 
recovery of coal will be enhanced, bypasses will be minimized, and 
efficiency of mining will be improved. This rule will not create a 
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or 
planned by another agency. This 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.

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 rule easier to understand, including answers to questions 
such as the following:
    (1) Are the requirements in the regulations clearly stated?
    (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
interferes with its clarity?
    (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
    (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into 
more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold type and is 
preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading.)
    (5) Is the description of the rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this preamble helpful in understanding the rule? How could 
this description be more helpful in making the rule easier to 
understand? Please send any comments you have on the clarity of the 
regulations to the address specified in the ADDRESSES section.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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, as described above, 
merely implements a statutory change to the regulations that apply to 
leasing Federal coal resources, and the rule change itself will not 
have a significant impact on any small entities. Rather, it is the 
legislation which affects these entities. The regulations make no 
substantive change beyond what

[[Page 2622]]

Congress has already enacted. Further, the rule corrects a technical 
error in the final rule published on September 28, 1999 (64 FR 52239), 
which was fully analyzed for RFA compliance when published. Therefore, 
BLM has determined under the RFA that this proposed rule would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This proposed rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined at 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule merely makes a technical correction in the final rule 
published on September 28, 1999 (64 FR 52239), and implements a change 
to the state acreage limits that has been made by Congress. This rule 
is limited to making BLM's regulations consistent with the law.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on state, 
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 
million per year; nor would this proposed rule have a significant or 
unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. As discussed above, this rule would merely change BLM's coal 
leasing regulations regarding acreage limitations to comply with Public 
Law 106-463 and make a technical correction to the coal leasing 
regulations regarding lease modifications. Therefore, BLM is not 
required 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 rule would not represent a government action capable of 
interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. The rule 
would be limited to changes reflecting Congress's amendment raising the 
state and nationwide acreage limits for coal leases, and correcting a 
technical error relating to regulations governing coal lease 
modifications. Therefore, the Department of the Interior has determined 
that the rule would not cause a taking of private property or require 
further discussion of takings implications under this Executive Order.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    This rule would 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 various 
levels of government. The rule would be limited to changes to reflect 
Congress's amendment raising the acreage limits for coal leases and to 
correct a technical error pertaining to coal lease modifications. 
Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, BLM has determined 
that this rule would not have sufficient Federalism implications to 
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 
determined that this proposed rule would 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 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule would not be a significant energy action. It will not 
have an adverse effect on energy supplies. The rule should have a 
favorable effect on energy production. It should improve efficiency in 
production by increasing acreage limitations and by removing procedural 
requirements inadvertently and erroneously applied to lease 
modifications in an earlier rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule would not contain information collection requirements 
that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 
13175)

    In accordance with E.O. 13175, we have found that this proposed 
rule would not include policies that have tribal implications. Since 
this rule would not propose significant changes to BLM policy and would 
not specifically involve Indian reservation lands, we have determined 
that the government-to-government relationships should remain 
unaffected.

Principal Author

    The principal author of this rule is Mary Linda Ponticelli of the 
Solid Minerals Group, assisted by Ted Hudson of the Regulatory Affairs 
Group, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.

List of Subjects

43 CFR Part 3430

    Administrative practice and procedure; Coal; Government contracts; 
Intergovernmental relations; Mines; Public lands--mineral resources; 
Public lands--rights-of-way; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

43 CFR Part 3470

    Coal; Government contracts; Mineral royalties; Mines; Public 
lands--mineral resources; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; 
Surety bonds.

    Dated: January 2, 2002.
J. Steven Griles,
Deputy Secretary of the Interior.

    Under the authorities cited below, and for the reasons stated in 
the Supplementary Information, BLM proposes to amend Subchapter C, 
Chapter II, Subtitle B of Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as follows:

PART 3430--NONCOMPETITIVE LEASES

    1. The authority citation for part 3430 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 351-359; 30 U.S.C. 
521-531; 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.; and 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.

Subpart 3432--Lease Modifications

    2. Amend Sec. 3432.3 by revising paragraph (c) and adding a new 
paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 3432.3  Terms and conditions.

* * * * *
    (c) Before modifying a lease, BLM will prepare an environmental 
assessment or environmental impact statement covering the proposed 
lease area in accordance with 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508.
    (d) For coal lease modification applications involving lands in the 
National Forest System, BLM will submit the lease modification 
application to the Secretary of Agriculture for consent, for completion 
or consideration of an environmental assessment, for the attachment of 
appropriate lease stipulations, and for making any other findings 
prerequisite to lease issuance.

PART 3470--COAL MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS

    3. The authority citation for part 3470 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 189 and 359 and 43 U.S.C. 1733 and 1740.

Subpart 3472--Lease Qualification Requirements

    4. Amend Sec. 3472.1-3 by--
    a. removing from paragraph (a)(1) the terms ``46,080 acres'' and 
``100,000 acres'', and adding in their place the terms ``75,000 acres'' 
and ``150,000 acres'', respectively; and

[[Page 2623]]

    b. removing from the second sentence of paragraph (a)(2) the term 
``100,000 acres'' and adding in its place the term ``150,000 acres.''

[FR Doc. 02-1339 Filed 1-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P