[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