[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 24, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35609-35614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-14214]


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

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://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