[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23827]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 27, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 944

 

Utah Regulatory Program and Abandoned Mine Plan

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 
Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: OSM is approving, with certain exceptions and additional 
requirements, a proposed amendment to the Utah regulatory program and 
abandoned mine plan (hereinafter, the ``Utah program'' and Utah plan'') 
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). 
Utah proposed revisions to the Utah Coal Mining and Reclamation Act 
pertaining to hearings and appeals, civil and criminal penalties, 
recovery of costs for reclaimed abandoned mine land, liens against 
reclaimed abandoned mine lands, and certification of completion of 
abandoned coal mine reclamation. The amendment is intended to 
incorporate the additional flexibility afforded by SMCRA, clarify 
ambiguities, and improve operational efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 27, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas E. Ehmett, telephone: (505) 766-1486.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Utah Program

    On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally 
approved the Utah program, and on June 3, 1983, the Secretary approved 
the Utah plan. General background information on the Utah program and 
Utah plan, including the Secretary's findings, disposition of comments, 
conditions of approval of the Utah program, and approval of the Utah 
plan can be found in the January 21, 1981, and June 3, 1983, Federal 
Register's (46 FR 5899 and 48 FR 24876). Subsequent actions concerning 
Utah's program, Utah's plan, and program and plan amendments can be 
found at 30 CFR 944.15, 944.16, 944.20, 944.25, and 944.30.

II. Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated March 7, 1994, Utah submitted a proposed amendment 
to its program and plan pursuant to SMCRA (administrative record No. 
UT-900). Utah submitted the proposed amendment at its own initiative. 
The program provisions of the Utah Coal Mining and Reclamation Act that 
Utah proposed to revise were Utah Code Annotated (UCA) 40-10-14, 
appeals to district court of decisions by the Board of Oil, Gas and 
Mining (Board) and further review, and UCA 40-10-20, civil and criminal 
penalties. The plan provisions of the Utah Coal Mining and Reclamation 
Act that Utah proposed to revise were UCA 40-10-28, recovery of 
reclamation costs and liens against reclaimed land, and UCA 40-10-28.1, 
certification of completion of coal reclamation.
    In the March 29, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 14591), OSM 
announced receipt of the proposed amendment, provided an opportunity 
for a public hearing or meeting on its substantive adequacy, and 
invited public comment on its adequacy (administrative record No. UT-
911). Because no one requested a public hearing or meeting, none was 
held. The public comment period ended on April 28, 1994.
    During its review of the amendment, OSM identified concerns 
relating to the provsions of the Utah Coal Mining and Reclamation Act 
at UCA 40-10-14 (3) and (6), procedural guidance for formal hearings 
and appeals of decisions by the Board and district court decisions; UCA 
40-10-20(3), waiver of rights to contest the violation or amount of a 
civil penalty if the operator fails to forward the amount of the 
penalty within the time allowed; UCA 40-10-20(8), review proceedings of 
a civil penalty assessed for failure to correct a violation; and UCA 
40-10-28 (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a), sale price of reclaimed abandoned mine 
land and waiver of liens when certain criteria are met. OSM notified 
Utah of the concerns by letter dated June 10, 1994 (administrative 
record No. UT-935).
    For each of the issues identified by OSM, Utah responded in a 
letter dated July 5, 1994, by submitting additional explanatory 
information (administrative record No. UT-949).
    Based upon the additional explanatory information for the proposed 
program and plan amendment submitted by Utah, OSM reopened the public 
comment period in the July 29, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 38579, 
administrative record No. UT-955). The public comment period ended on 
August 15, 1994.

III. Director's Findings

    As discussed below, the Director, in accordance with SMCRA and 30 
CFR 732.15, 732.17, 884.15(a), and 884.14 finds, with certain 
exceptions and additional requirements, that the proposed program and 
plan amendment submitted by Utah on March 7, 1994, and supplemented 
with additional explanatory information on July 5, 1994, is no less 
stringent than SMCRA. Accordingly, the Director approves the proposed 
amendment.

1. Nonsubstantive Revisions to Utah's Statutes

    Utah proposed revisions to the following previously-approved 
provisions of the Utah Coal Mining and Reclamation Act that are 
nonsubstantive in nature and consist of minor editorial, punctuation, 
grammatical, and recodification changes (the corresponding SMCRA 
provisions are listed in parentheses):

UCA 40-10-20(1) (b) and (c) (section 518(a) of SMCRA), civil penalty 
for violation of Chapter 10, Title 40,
UCA 40-10-20(3) (b), (c), and (d) (section 518(b) of SMCRA), public 
hearings,
UCA 40-10-20 (5) and (6) (sections 518 (e) and (f) of SMCRA), 
criminal penalties, and
UCA 40-10-28 (1), (1)(a)(i), (1)(b)(ii), and (iii) (sections 407 and 
408 of SMCRA), recovery of reclamation costs and liens against 
reclaimed land.

    Because the proposed revisions to these previously-approved 
sections of the Utah Coal Mining and Reclamation Act are nonsubstantive 
in nature, the Director finds that these proposed statutes are no less 
stringent than SMCRA. The Director approves the proposed revisions.

2. Substantive Revisions to Utah's Statutes That Are Substantively 
Identical to Provisions of SMCRA and the Federal Regulations

    Utah proposed revisions to the following provisions of the Utah 
Coal Mining and Reclamation Act that are substantive in nature and 
contain language that is substantively identical to the provisions of 
SMCRA and the Federal regulations (listed in parentheses).

UCA 40-10-20(2) (section 518(c) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 723.19 and 
723.20), informal conferences,
UCA 40-10-20(3)(e) (section 518(b) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 723.20), 
public hearings, and
UCA 40-10-28.1(6) (section 411(f) of SMCRA and 30 CFR 875.15(d)), 
certification of completion of coal reclamation.

    Because these proposed revisions to the Utah Coal Mining and 
Reclamation Act are substantively identical to the corresponding 
provisions of SMCRA and the Federal regulations, the Director finds 
that they are no less stringent than SMCRA and no less effective than 
the Federal regulations. The Director approves the proposed revisions.

3. UCA 40-10-14(6), Appeal to District Court

    Previously-approved UCA 40-10-14(6), regarding Board decisions on 
permit applications, provided, in part, that:

    Any applicant, or any person with an interest which is or may be 
adversely affected who has participated in the proceedings as an 
objector, and who is aggrieved by the decision of the board, or if 
the board fails to act within the time limits specified in [Title 
40, Chapter 10], has the right to appeal in the district court for 
the county in which the proposed operation is located.

    In this amendment, Utah proposed to add language to UCA 40-10-14(6) 
to provide that any party to the action in district court may appeal 
from the final judgment, order, or decree of the district court. Utah 
also proposed deletion of the provision that required that review of 
the adjudication of the district court is by the Utah Supreme Court.
    By way of clarification, Utah provided additional information, 
stating, among other things, that, where an appeal of the Board's 
decision is the issue at hand, ``the record established by the Board in 
the hearing transcript becomes the trial record which is reviewed by 
the Utah Supreme Court'' (administration record No. UT-949). Utah 
further stated that where the Board fails to act, relief may be sought 
by an applicant or interested person in the State district court for 
the county where the proposed operation is located. ``Under these 
conditions, the case or controversy is heard by state District Court 
and it then becomes the court of record. Appeals are thereafter to the 
Utah Supreme Court.'' The State cited provisions of the Utah Judicial 
Code at UCA Title 78, Chapter 2, as support for its explanation of the 
appellate process.
    Section 526(e) of SMCRA provides, in part, that action taken by a 
State regulatory authority under an approved State program is subject 
to judicial review by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance 
with State law. Although the Director finds the clarifying information 
to be consistent with section 526(e) of SMCRA, the Director finds that 
the currently-approved Utah program contains some apparent internal 
inconsistencies regarding the appellate process for Board decisions on 
permit applications. That is, although UCA 78-2-2(3)(e)(iv) appears to 
specify, as Utah stated in its clarifying information, that appeals of 
Board decisions are to the Utah Supreme Court, the first sentence of 
UCA 40-10-14(6), previously approved by OSM, appears to require that 
such appeals are to the State district court in the county where the 
proposed operation is located.
    The Director finds that the proposed revision at UCA 40-10-14(6) is 
not consistent with section 526(e) of SMCRA and does not approve it. 
The Director requires Utah to amend its program to eliminate the 
discrepancy in the appellate procedures that govern Board decisions on 
permit applications in a manner no less stringent than the requirements 
of section 526(e) of SMCRA.

4. UCA 40-10-20 (1)(a) and (3)(a), Delegation of Authority for 
Assessing Civil Penalties in Certain Circumstances

    At UCA 40-10-20 (1)(a) and (3)(a), Utah proposed to change the 
responsible party from the Board to the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining 
(Division) for assessing civil penalties when a violation of permit 
condition or other provision of Chapter 10, Title 40 occurs. Section 
518(i) of SMCRA provides, in part, that States shall incorporate into 
their programs, civil and criminal penalty provisions that are no less 
stringent than section 518 of SMCRA and procedural requirements 
relating to these provisions that are the same or similar to those set 
forth in SMCRA. Utah's proposed transfer of authority for civil penalty 
assessments from the Board to the Division is not inconsistent with 
section 518(i) of SMCRA. Therefore, the Director approves the proposed 
revision to UCA 40-10-20 (1)(a) and (3)(a).

5. UCA 40-10-20(3), Contest of Violation or Amount of Penalty

    Utah proposed to delete existing UCA 40-10-20(3) in its entirety. 
Most of the requirements of existing UCA 40-10-20(3) are recodified in 
this amendment as UCA 40-10-20(2) (see finding No. 2). One requirement 
of existing UCA 40-10-20(3) that is not retained and recodified 
elsewhere in the statute pertains to a waiver of rights to contest the 
violation or the amount of the penalty when the operator fails to 
forward to the Board within 30 days of receipt of the notice of 
violation the proposed civil penalty for placement in an escrow 
account.
    Section 518(c) of SMCRA provides, in part, that failure to forward 
the amount of a proposed civil penalty to the Secretary within the 
specified time ``shall result in a waiver of all legal rights to 
contest the violation or the amount of the penalty.'' In order to be no 
less stringent than SMCRA, the Utah program must include a similar 
provision.
    Although this amendment does not include the waiver requirement, 
OSM notes that Utah has in another amendment dated April 14, 1994, 
proposed a provision that is intended to resolve this deficiency 
(administrative record No. UT-917). In order to consider the additional 
proposal prior to making a final determination, the Director has 
decided to defer decision on the deletion of the part of existing UCA 
40-10-20(3) that provided that an operator's failure to forward the 
amount of a proposed civil penalty to Utah within 30 days results in a 
waiver of all legal rights to contest the violation or the amount of 
the penalty.

6. UCA 40-10-20(8), Civil Penalty for Failure to Correct Violation

    Utah proposed editorial revisions to UCA 40-10-20(8). However, 
aside from these revisions, OSM noted in its letter dated June 10, 
1994, that, while section 518(h) of SMCRA specifically references 
section 525, regarding administrative reviews, and section 526, 
regarding judicial reviews, UCA 40-10-20(8) did not contain any 
specific cross-references to counterpart provisions of the Utah 
program. Utah responded (administrative record No. UT-949) that the 
reviews provided in SMCRA by reference are found in the State program 
at UCA 40-10-22. The Director finds that the reference provided by Utah 
meets the requirements of section 518(h) of SMCRA. Accordingly, the 
Director approves the proposed revisions to UCA 40-10-20(8).

7. UCA 40-10-28 (1)(a)(ii), Recovery of Reclamation Costs

    UCA 40-10-28 (1)(a)(ii), provides a formula for determining the 
sale price of reclaimed abandoned mine lands to be sold to a State or 
local government for public purposes, but the formula does not include 
the cost of purchase as required by section 407(e) of SMCRA. This 
apparent deficiency in the Utah plan would render Utah's plan less 
stringent than section 407(e) of SMCRA, but OSM notes that Utah has 
proposed to address this deficiency in a separate amendment dated April 
14, 1994 (administrative record No. UT-914). In order to consider the 
additional proposal prior to making a final determination, the Director 
has decided to defer decision on proposed UCA 40-10-28 (1)(a)(ii).

8. UCA 40-10-28 (1)(b)(i) and (2)(b), Delegation of Authority to Waive 
Fees and Liens Against Reclaimed Land

    Utah proposed to revise its provisions at UCA 40-10-28 (1)(b)(i) 
and (2)(b) to provide that the Division rather than the Board may waive 
special charges for use of reclaimed land or liens against reclaimed 
land in certain circumstances. Title IV of SMCRA does not prohibit a 
State regulatory authority from delegating responsibility for 
administering and enforcing the Federal provisions. Section 413(a) of 
SMCRA provides, in part, that a State with an approved State program 
shall have the power and authority to engage in any work and to do all 
things necessary or expedient in order to implement and administer the 
provisions of Title IV. Utah's proposed transfer of authority to waive 
special charges for use of or liens against reclaimed land in certain 
circumstances from the Board to the Division is not inconsistent with 
section 413(a) of SMCRA. Therefore, the Director approves the proposed 
revision to UCA 40-10-28 (1)(b)(i) and (2)(b).

9. UCA 40-10-28(2)(a), Liens Against Reclaimed Land

    Utah proposed editorial revisions to UCA 40-10-28(2)(a), which 
requires that the Division shall place a lien against reclaimed 
abandoned mine land, the market value of which has increased as a 
result of the reclamation work, except where the surface owner neither 
consented to, participated in, nor exercised control over the mining 
operations which necessitated the reclamation work.
    Section 408(a) of SMCRA has the same provisions, but it 
additionally specifies, with respect to the surface owner, that the 
provisions apply to a person owning the surface prior to May 2, 1977.
    UCA 40-10-28(2)(a) does not include the specific date provided in 
section 408(a) of the SMCRA. The apparent deficiency in the Utah plan 
would render Utah's plan less stringent than section 408(a) of SMCRA, 
but OSM notes that Utah has proposed to address this deficiency in a 
separate amendment dated April 14, 1994 (administration record No. UT-
914). In order to address this additional proposal prior to making a 
final determination, the Director has decided to defer decision on 
proposed UCA 40-10-28(2)(a).

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

    Following are summaries of all substantive written comments on the 
proposed amendment that were received by OSM, and OSM's response to 
them.

1. Public Comments

    OSM invited public comments on the proposed Utah program and plan 
amendment, but none were received.

2. Federal Agency Comments

    Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and 884.14(a)(2), OSM solicited 
comments on the proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with 
an actual or potential interest in the Utah program and Utah plan 
(administrative records Nos. UT-903 and UT-952).
    The Bureau of Mines responded in telephone conversations on March 
27 and July 29, 1994, that it had no comments (administrative record 
No. UT-906 and UT-964).
    The Bureau of Mines responded in telephone conversations on March 
27 and July 29, 1994, that it had no comments (administrative record 
Nos. UT-906 and UT-964).
    By memorandum dated June 8, 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service stated that it had reviewed the proposed changes and has no 
comment on them (administrative record No. UT-938).
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers responded on August 10, 1994, that 
it found the changes to be satisfactory to the agency (administrative 
record No. UT-963).
    By letter dated August 15, 1994, the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration (MSHA) stated that it had reviewed the (administrative 
record No. UT-966). No revisions to the proposed amendment were 
suggested.

3. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments

    Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to solicit 
the written concurrence of EPA with respect to those provisions of the 
proposed program amendment that relate to air or water quality 
standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 
U.S.C. 12512 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
    None of the revisions that Utah proposed to make in its amendment 
pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, OSM did not 
request EPA's concurrence. Pursuant to 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited 
comments on the proposed amendment from EPA (administrative record Nos. 
UT-903 and UT-952). It responded on March 31 and July 28, 1994, that it 
had no comments and did not believe that there would be any impacts to 
water quality standards promulgated under authority of the Clean Water 
Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (administrative record Nos. 
UT-909 and UT-957).

4. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council 
on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

    Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM solicited comments on the 
proposed amendment from the SHPO and ACHP (administrative record No. 
UT-903). Neither the SHPO nor ACHP responded to OSM's request.

V. Director's Decision

    Based on the above findings, the Director approves, with certain 
exceptions and additional requirements, Utah's proposed amendment as 
submitted on March 7, 1994, and as supplemented with additional 
explanatory information on July 5, 1994.
    The Director defers decision on, as discussed in: finding No. 5, 
UCA 40-10-20(3), concerning contest of violation or amount of civil 
penalty; finding No. 7, UCA 40-10-28(1)(a)(ii), concerning recovery of 
abandoned mine land reclamation costs; and finding No. 9, UCA 40-10-
28(2)(a), concerning liens against reclaimed abandoned mine land.
    The Director approves, as discussed in: finding No. 1, UCA 40-10-
20(1) (b) and (c), concerning civil penalty for violation of chapter, 
UCA 40-10-20(3) (b), (c), and (d), concerning public hearings, UCA 40-
10-20 (5) and (6), concerning criminal penalties, and UCA 40-10-28(1), 
(1)(a)(i), (1)(b) (ii), and (iii), concerning recovery of reclamation 
costs and liens against reclaimed abandoned mine land; finding No. 2, 
UCA 40-10-20(2), concerning informal conferences, UCA 40-10-20(3)(e), 
concerning public hearings, and UCA 40-10-28.1(6), concerning 
certification of completion of coal reclamation; finding No. 4, UCA 40-
10-20(1)(a) and (3)(a), concerning delegation of authority for 
assessing civil penalties; finding No. 6, UCA 40-10-20(8), concerning 
civil penalty for failure to correct violation; and finding No. 8, UCA 
40-10-28(1)(b)(i) and (2)(b), concerning delegation of authority to 
waive fees and liens against reclaimed abandoned mine land.
    With the requirement that Utah further revise its statute, the 
Director does not approve, as discussed in: finding No. 3, UCA 40-10-
14(6), concerning appeals to district court.
    The Director is taking this opportunity to revise 30 CFR 944.20 to 
include the date Utah's plan was approved by OSM.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 944 codifying decisions 
concerning the Utah program and Utah plan, are being amended to 
implement this decision. This final rule is being made effective 
immediately to expedite the State program and plan amendment process 
and to encourage States to bring their programs and plans into 
conformity with the Federal standards without undue delay. Consistency 
of State and Federal standards is required by SMCRA.

VI. Effect of Director's Decision

    Section 503 of SMCRA provides that a State may not exercise 
jurisdiction under SMCRA unless the State program is approved by the 
Secretary. Similarly, 30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any alteration of 
an approved State program be submitted to OSM for review as a program 
amendment. Thus, any changes to the State program are not enforceable 
until approved by OSM. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) 
prohibit any unilateral changes to approved State programs. In the 
oversight of the Utah program, the Director will recognize only the 
statutes, regulations and other materials approved by OSM, together 
with any consistent implementing policies, directives and other 
materials, and will require the enforcement by Utah of only such 
provisions.

VII. Procedural Determinations

1. Executive Order 12866

    This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 
Review).

2. Executive Order 12778

    The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required 
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has 
determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections 
(a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not 
applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs, 
abandoned mine land reclamation (AMLR) plans, program amendments, and 
plan revisions since each such program or plan is drafted and 
promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 
of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 12550) and the Federal regulations at 30 
CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State 
regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must 
be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is 
consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and 
whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have 
been met. Decisions on proposed State AMLR plans and revisions thereof 
submitted by a State are based on a determination of whether the 
submittal meets the requirements of Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231-
1243) and the applicable Federal regulations at 30 CFR Parts 884 and 
888.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

    No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since 
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency 
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not 
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
4332(2)(C)) while State AMLR plans and revisions thereof are 
categorically excluded from compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of the Department of the 
Interior (516 DM 6, appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)).

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
3507 et seq.).

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
The State submittal that is the subject of this rule is based upon 
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was 
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a 
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements 
established by SMCRA or previously promulgated by OSM will be 
implemented by the State. In making the determination as to whether 
this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department 
relied upon the data and assumptions in the analyses for the 
corresponding Federal regulations.

VIII. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 944

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: September 16, 1994.
Russell F. Price,
Acting Assistant Director, Western Support Center.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII, 
Subchapter T of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth 
below:

PART 944--UTAH

    1. The authority citation for Part 944, continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

    2. Section 944.15 is amended by adding paragraph (bb) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 944.15  Approval of amendments to State regulatory program.

* * * * *
    (bb) With the exceptions of UCA 40-10-14(6), concerning appeals to 
district court and deletion of UCA 40-10-20(3), concerning contest of 
the violation or amount of the penalty, the revisions to the following 
sections of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, Title 40, as submitted to OSM 
on March 7, 1994, and as supplemented with explanatory information on 
July 5, 1994, are approved effective September 27, 1994:

40-10-14(3), Hearings.
40-10-20(1), Civil Penalty for Violation of Chapter.
40-10-20(2), Informal Conferences.
40-10-20(3), Public Hearings.
40-10-20 (5) and (6), Criminal Penalties.
40-10-20(8), Civil Penalty for Failure to Correct Violation.

    3. Section 944.16 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 944.16  Required program amendments.

* * * * *
    (b) By March 26, 1995, Utah shall submit a proposed amendment for 
UCA 40-10-14(6) to eliminate the discrepancy in appellate procedures 
that govern Board of Oil, Gas and Mining decisions on permit 
applications in a manner no less stringent than section 526(e) of 
SMCRA.

    4. Section 944.20(a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 944.20  Approval of Utah abandoned mine plan.

    (a) The Utah Abandoned Mine Plan, as submitted on February 9, 1983, 
and as subsequently revised, is approved effective June 3, 1983.
* * * * *
    5. Section 944.25 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 944.25  Approval of amendments to State abandoned mine plan.

* * * * *
    (b) With the exceptions of UCA 40-10-28(1)(a)(ii), concerning 
recovery of reclamation costs and UCA 40-10-28(2)(a), concerning liens 
against reclaimed land, the revisions to the following sections of the 
Utah Code Annotated 1953, Title 40, as submitted to OSM on March 7, 
1994, are approved effective September 27, 1994:

40-10-28 (1), (1)(a)(i), and (1)(b), Recovery of Reclamation Costs.
40-10-28(2)(b), Liens Against Reclaimed Land.
40-10-28.1(6), Certification of Completion of Coal Reclamation.

[FR Doc. 94-23827 Filed 9-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M