[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 16, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12896-12900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6352]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 934

[ND-035-FOR, Amendment No. XXV]


North Dakota Regulatory Program

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

ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) 
is approving a proposed amendment to the North Dakota regulatory 
program (hereinafter, the ``North Dakota program'') under the Surface 
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). North Dakota 
proposed revisions to rules pertaining to a proposal to eliminate the 
requirement for companies to submit a copy of the Federal Coal 
Production and Reclamation Fee Report, changes to revegetation success 
standards, and a new rule on inspection frequency for inactive mines. 
The amendment revised the State program to improve operational 
efficiency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy Padgett, Telephone: 307/261-6550, 
Internet address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the North Dakota Program

    On December 15, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally 
approved the North Dakota program. General background information on 
the North Dakota program, including the Secretary's findings, the 
disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the North 
Dakota program can be found in the December 15, 1980, Federal Register 
(45 FR 82214). Subsequent actions concerning North Dakota's program and 
program amendments can be found at 30 CFR 934.15 and 934.16.

II. Proposed Amendment

    By letter dated August 29, 1997, North Dakota submitted a proposed 
amendment to its program (Amendment No. XXV, administrative record No. 
ND-Z-01) pursuant to SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). North Dakota 
submitted the proposed amendment at its own initiative. The provisions 
of the North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) that North Dakota 
proposed to revise were: NDAC 69-05.2-13-01, concerning its coal 
production and reclamation fee report; NDAC 69-05.2-22-07, concerning 
revegetation success standards; and the addition of NDAC 69-05.2-28-18, 
concerning inspections of inactive surface coal mining operations.
    OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the September 
17, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR 48807), provided an opportunity for a 
public hearing or meeting on its substantive adequacy, and invited 
public comment on its adequacy (administrative record No. ND-Z-13). The 
public comment period ended at 4 p.m., m.d.t. on October 17, 1997.
    During its review of the amendment, OSM identified concerns with 
NDAC 69-05.2-22-07.4.1, pertaining to the time frame for demonstrating 
revegetation success. OSM notified North Dakota of the concerns in a 
telephone conversation on March 11,

[[Page 12897]]

1998 (administrative record No. ND-Z-09).
    North Dakota responded in a letter dated April 23, 1998, by 
submitting additional explanatory information pertaining to NDAC 69-
05.2-22-07.4.1 (administrative record No. ND-Z-10).
    Based upon the additional explanatory information for the proposed 
program amendment submitted by North Dakota, OSM reopened the public 
comment period in the June 17, 1998 Federal Register (63 FR 33022; 
administrative record No. ND-Z-12). The public comment period ended on 
July 2, 1998.

III. Director's Findings

    As discussed below, the Director, in accordance with SMCRA and 30 
CFR 732.15 and 732.17, finds that the proposed program amendment 
submitted by North Dakota on August 29, 1997, and as supplemented with 
additional explanatory information on April 23, 1998, is no less 
effective than the corresponding Federal regulations. Accordingly, the 
Director approves the proposed amendment.

1. NDAC 69-05.2-13-01, Deletion of North Dakota's Requirement for Coal 
Production and Reclamation Fee Report

    North Dakota proposed to delete at NDAC 69-05.2-13-01 the 
requirement that a copy of the Coal Production and Reclamation Fee 
Report (that is prepared by mining companies and submitted to OSM) also 
be furnished to the North Dakota Public Service Commission.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 870.15(c) requires, in part, that

    All operators who receive a Coal Sales and Reclamation Fee 
Report (Form OSM-1), including those with zero sales, uses or 
transfers, must submit a completed Form OSM-1, as well as any fee 
payment due [to OSM].

    North Dakota stated that it proposed to delete NDAC 69-05.2-13-01 
because there is no Federal regulation requiring it and the information 
contained in the report is readily available from OSM.
    Because the Federal regulations do not require a State to mandate 
that an operator provide the State, as well as OSM, with a Form OSM-1, 
the Director finds that the proposed deletion of NDAC 69-05.2-13-01 is 
not inconsistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 870.15(c). The 
Director approves this proposed revision.

2. NDAC 69-05.2-22-07.4.1, Time Frame for Demonstrating Reclamation 
Success

    North Dakota proposed to add a new rule at NDAC 69-05.2-22-07.4.1, 
which states that as an alternative to meeting revegetation success 
standards for the last two consecutive growing seasons of the 
responsibility period, an operator may demonstrate that the applicable 
standards have been achieved in any three of five consecutive years 
starting no sooner than the eighth year of the responsibility period. 
North Dakota's proposed rule explicitly states that the alternative 
does not apply to demonstration of success on prime farmlands.
    North Dakota submitted the following explanation for the proposed 
rule:

    This language will give the mining companies more flexibility in 
using vegetation data collected during a number of years near the 
end of the revegetation liability period. The new provision will 
allow mining companies to use data from any three of the last five 
years of the responsibility period, starting in year eight, to 
provide reclamation success. Occasionally hail storms, insect 
damage, very localized droughts, or other factors cause reduced 
yields in the last year or two of the liability period. Under 
current rules this can result in the bond being held for at least 
two more years. For example, assume a mining company meets cropland 
yield standards during the eighth and ninth years of the ten year 
responsibility period and, during the tenth year, a hail storm 
destroys the crop on the reclaimed land. Under the present rule, the 
company could not use any of the data from the eighth and ninth 
years and would have to meet the standards in the eleventh and 
twelfth years before final bond release could be granted. However, 
under the new proposal, a company would be eligible for final bond 
release in the eleventh year if success standards are met that year. 
In this example, data from the eighth, ninth and eleventh years 
would be used to achieve reclamation success for three out of five 
consecutive years.

    North Dakota also clearly stated that separate standards apply to 
reclaimed prime farmlands and that the new proposal would not affect 
those standards.
    In response to an OSM concern that the proposal lacked sufficient 
justification for situations in which the revegetation success standard 
is a reference area, North Dakota submitted additional information on 
daily precipitation, climatology of hail, grasshopper biology and 
management, and reference area location. Use of reference areas 
generally involves direct annual comparison of vegetative cover and 
production between the reference area and the revegetated area. 
Reference areas are used, in part, to account for the impact of 
climatic variation on both undisturbed and reestablished plant 
communities in the vicinity of the mine. North Dakota's original 
supporting information failed to explain why reference areas, which are 
located close to the revegetated areas, would not experience the same 
climatic variability or insect damage as the revegetated areas.
    North Dakota provided four reasons that the proposed amendment 
should be approved. First, the State has a semiarid climate where 
vegetative growth is highly dependent upon rainfall during the growing 
season. Precipitation records emphasize the localized nature of summer 
rainfall events and amounts. For example, on May 22, 1997, Beulah 
recorded 0.35 inch of rain, while Zap, located 7 miles away, received 
0.57 inch. On July 11, 1997, Beulah received 1.50 inches while Zap 
received 2.60 inches. As another example, on June 23, 1997, Underwood 
received 0.73 inch, while Washburn, located 12 miles away, received 
0.31 inch. On July 2, 1997, Underwood received 2.14 inches while 
Washburn received 3.07 inches. Precipitation for the entire month of 
May 1997 totaled 0.58 inch in Beulah, 0.97 inch in Zap, 1.02 inches in 
Underwood, and 0.58 in Washburn. Because rainfall is the major limiting 
factor in plant production in the Northern Great Plains, precipitation 
differences could result in significant corresponding variations in 
yield.
    Second, much of the rainfall during the summer months in North 
Dakota occurs as thunderstorms that may contain hail. The size and 
areal distribution of the hailstones, in combination with the timing of 
the hailstorms, may substantially reduce yields or completely destroy a 
crop for a particular growing season. Hail damage can vary greatly over 
short distances. In a particular year, a hailstorm could destroy the 
crop on the reclaimed area without damaging the undisturbed reference 
area located a few miles away, or vice versa.
    Hailstorms are associated with the localized convective storms that 
result in the variable precipitation amounts discussed above. In 
general, areas with the most rainfall events also have the most hail 
events. Of the hailstorms occurring in the coal mining regions of the 
state (Regions 3 and 4) between 1976 and 1986, 19-24 percent were 
severe or moderate. Both severe and moderate hailstorms are capable of 
damaging crop production. Further, the most damaging hail occurred 
during the months of July and August in Region 3 and June and July in 
Region 4, key periods for plant growth and crop ripening.

[[Page 12898]]

    Third, pests, such as grasshoppers, may have differential impacts 
on lands only a few miles apart. Grasshopper survey information for 
North Dakota demonstrates that grasshopper infestations are highly 
erratic in distribution. In addition, North Dakota submitted a 
publication, Grasshopper Biology and Management (Phillip A. Glogoza and 
Michael J. Weiss, North Dakota State University Extension Service, 
1997), stating that damage to small grains is generally concentrated 
near field margins where grasses tend to be seeded. This damage pattern 
may disproportionately impact reclaimed areas because only a part of 
the field must be cultivated to prove productivity, the areas cropped 
may be relatively narrow, and test plots are often surrounded by native 
or tame pastureland or hayland seeded with a grass-legume mixture. 
Conversely, the undisturbed reference area is frequently surrounded by 
other cropland and thus may experience relatively little grasshopper 
damage in comparison to the corresponding test plots in a reclaimed 
area.
    Fourth, some mining companies in the State have difficulty locating 
suitable reference (or control) areas close to reclaimed lands. To find 
undisturbed areas with similar soils and topography, the mining 
companies may have to locate reference areas several miles away from 
the reclaimed areas. In addition, mining companies must use equivalent 
management practices on both reclaimed and reference areas. For this 
reason, the companies prefer to have the same person managing both the 
reclaimed and undisturbed areas, which can also affect the location of 
reference areas. The greater the distance between the reclaimed and 
reference areas, the greater the likelihood of differences in 
precipitation or pest damage, which may result in widely varying yields 
between the two areas in a given year. The State encourages companies 
to locate reference areas as close to reclaimed areas as possible. 
However, some of the North Dakota mines will disturb many thousands of 
acres in large blocks, which means that establishing a suitable 
undisturbed reference area nearby is not always possible. The distance 
between reclaimed areas and their corresponding reference areas 
sometimes exceeds 10 miles. OSM accepts North Dakota's rationale 
justifying its proposed alternative to the current method for 
determining revegetation success.
    The Federal rules at 30 CFR 816.116(c)(3) require that revegetation 
success standards be met during the last two consecutive years of the 
10-year revegetation responsibility period in areas in which the 
average annual precipitation is equal to or less than 26 inches. On 
September 7, 1988, OSM revised 30 CFR 816.116(c)(2) to provide that in 
areas with more than 26 inches of average annual precipitation the 
vegetation parameters identified in 30 CFR 816.116(b) for grazing land, 
pasture land, or cropland must equal to exceed the approved success 
standards during the growing seasons of any two years of the 5-year 
responsibility period, excluding the first year. This change eliminated 
the requirement to measure revegetation success during the last two 
years of the responsibility period in areas with more than 26 inches of 
average annual precipitation.
    North Dakota's proposal, which provides an option to demonstrate 
revegetation success using measurements from any three of five 
consecutive years, starting with the eighth years of the revegetation 
responsibility period, affords greater flexibility than 30 CFR 
816.116(c)(3) but less flexibility than 30 CFR 816.116(c)(2). The 
amendment provides an additional safeguard by requiring that 
revegetation success standards be met during at least three years of 
the applicable portion of the revegetation responsibility period, 
rather than just two as in 30 CFR 816.116(c)(2) and (c)(3). 
Furthermore, it prohibits the inclusion of measurements taken during 
the first seven years of the responsibility period. Hence, like 30 CFR 
816.116(c)(3), the North Dakota proposal requires that revegetation 
success standards be met during at least two years after the eighth 
year of the revegetation responsibility period. This restriction 
minimizes any potential impacts that augmentative practices, such as 
fertilization or irrigation, might have on the productivity and 
permanence of the reestablished plant communities.
    For these reasons, the Director finds that the proposed North 
Dakota rule allowing the use of data from any three of the last five 
years of the responsibility period, starting in year eight, to 
demonstrate achievement of revegetation success is no less effective 
than the corresponding Federal regulation at 30 CFR 816.116(c)(3) in 
achieving the revegetation requirements of sections 515(b)(19) and 
(b)(20) of SMCRA.

3. NDAC 69-05.2-28-19, Inspection and Enforcement--Inspection of 
Inactive Surface Coal Mining Operations

    a. NDAC 69-05.2-28-19, Inspection Frequency. North Dakota proposed 
at NDAC 69-05.2-28-19 one complete inspection per quarter and partial 
inspections as necessary. This proposed rule is substantially identical 
to the counterpart provisions in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
840.11(a) and (b). Therefore the Director finds that NDAC 69-05.2-28-19 
is no less effective than 30 CFR 840.11(a) and (b), and approves it.
    b. NDAC 69-05.2-28-19.1, Definition of Inactive Coal Mining 
Operations. North Dakota proposed at NDAC 69-05.2-28-19.1 the first of 
two alternative definitions of inactive coal mining operations. 
Proposed NDAC 69-05.2-28-19.1 requires that surface coal mining 
operations have permanently ceased, and all disturbed areas have been 
reclaimed, and vegetation has been established in accordance with the 
approved reclamation plan, and the lands are not contributing suspended 
solids to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area in excess of the 
requirements set by section 69-05.2-16-04. The Federal regulations at 
30 CFR 840.11(f) state that an inactive surface coal mining and 
reclamation operation is one for which: (1) the State regulatory 
authority has secured from the permittee the written notice under 
816.116(b) or 817.131(b) of this chapter for temporary cessation or (2) 
Reclamation Phase II or defined at 800.40 has been completed and 
liability of the permittee has been reduced by the State regulatory 
authority. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(2) require, 
prior to Phase II bond release (North Dakota's Third Stage bond 
release), vegetation establishment and no contributions of suspended 
solids to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area in excess of the 
requirements set by Section 515(b)(10) of SMCRA and by subchapter K.
    With the exception that NDAC 69-05.2-28-19 does not (1) require 
that the liability of the permittee has been reduced by the regulatory 
authority (RA) or (2) provide a definition of inactive surface coal 
mining which requires a written notice from the permittee provided for 
under 30 CFR 816.131(b) or 817.131(b), the proposed rule is identical 
to the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 842.11(c)(2).
    In a January 30, 1997 telephone conversation (administrative record 
No. ND-Z-15) between OSM and North Dakota, North Dakota provided the 
following four reasons for North Dakota's lack of a requirement that 
the liability of the permittee has been reduced by the RA for 
determining when a coal mining operation is inactive and therefore 
subject to fewer inspections:

[[Page 12899]]

    1. OSM's approval of a similar Ohio program amendment that OSM 
approved on October 29, 1996 (Vol. 61, No. 210 FR 55748, 55749);
    2. Monthly inspections of North Dakota's reclaimed mines where 
mining has ceased and vegetation has been established is a waste of 
time and resources, especially during North Dakota winters where 
reclaimed mine sites are covered with snow;
    3. OSM allows a lesser frequency for inspections at mines that have 
temporarily ceased operations; and
    4. North Dakota would verify via an inspection prior to the 
declaration of ``inactive'' that Phase III Reclamation (the same as 
Phase II under SMCRA) had been completed.
    As North Dakota stated, OSM approved an amendment that allowed Ohio 
to deem a coal mining operation inactive when Phase II reclamation 
standards had been achieved that also deleted the requirement for the 
release of phase II bond liability.
    In its rationale for approving Ohio's state program amendment, OSM 
cities the preamble to the final Federal regulation at 30 CFR 842.11 
published on August 16, 1982 (47 FR 35620). The rationale was contained 
in OSM's response to four commenters on the proposed rule 30 CFR 
842.11(c)(2)(iii)(B) (published on December 1, 1981 (46 FR 58464); OSM 
stated

the same policy considerations of efficiency in Federal programs 
[should] apply to State programs (47 FR 35620, 35621; August 16, 
1982).

    The Federal regulation at 30 CFR 842.11(c)(2)(iii)(B) requires that 
an inactive surface coal mining and reclamation operation is one in 
which reclamation Phase II as defined at 30 CFR 800.40 has been 
completed. In the final rule OSM affirmed its agreement with the 
commenters and stated that:

    The final rule allows States to distinguish between active and 
inactive mines in the same manner as was proposed and is being 
adopted for OSM when acting as the regulatory authority.
    OSM, in its discussion of 30 CFR 842.11 responded to commenters 
that wanted the requirement for Phase II bond release deleted 
because it could cause ``OSM to continue monthly inspections long 
after Phase II reclamation is completed.'' 47 FR at 35627 (August 
16, 1982), as follows:
    OSM agrees. In view of the broad discretion granted to OSM in 
releasing a portion of the performance bond following completion of 
Reclamation Phases I and II, the determination of a mine's status as 
active or inactive should be based solely on the completion of 
Reclamation Phase II.

    The aforementioned position OSM took on August 16, 1982 has not 
been rescinded; OSM has not changed its regulations at 30 CFR 800.40 
which applies when a state is the regulatory authority.
    The Director finds that proposed NDAC 69-05.2-28-19.1 is consistent 
with and no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
842.11(1)(c) and 800.40(c)(2) and approves it.
    c. NDAC 69-05.2-28-19.2, definition of inactive surface coal mining 
operations. North Dakota proposed at NDAC 69-05.2-28-19.2 the second of 
the two alternative definitions of inactive surface coal mining 
operations, which requires that the regulatory authority has granted 
partial bond release for the disturbed areas. It has the same 
requirements as Federal regulations at 30 CFR 840.11(f)(2) in that the 
NDAC reference describes its Third Stage bond release which is the same 
as OSM's Reclamation Phase II bond release at 30 CFR 
800.40(c)(establishment of vegetation on the regraded mined lands).
    Since this proposed rule is substantively identical to the 
counterpart provision of the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 
840.11(f)(2), the Director finds that proposed NDAC 69-05.2-28-18.2 is 
no less effective than 30 CFR 840.11(f)(2) and approves it.

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 responses to 
them.

1. Public Comments

    OSM invited public comments on the proposed amendment, but none 
were received.

2. Federal Agency Comments

    Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited comments on the 
proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or 
potential interest in the North Dakota program.
    USDA Rural Development responded on September 25, 1997 that ``the 
proposed changes are consistent with USDA Rural Development 
construction policies (administrative record No. ND-Z-04).
    USDA Agriculture Research Service responded on October 2, 1997 and 
stated that they believed the changes proposed in the amendment ``are 
necessary and an improvement.'' The Agriculture Research Service also 
suggested revising the wording of the proposed rule to read, ``three 
out of five consecutive years,'' instead of the way it currently reads, 
``three out of consecutive five years'' (administrative record No. ND-
Z-05). In a November 12, 1998 telephone conversation (administrative 
record No. 14), Director of the Reclamation Division, North Dakota 
Public Service Commission, Jim Deutsch, stated that he would revise the 
final rule to be, ``three out of five consecutive years.''
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers responded on October 16, 1997 that 
``our review of the proposed changes found them to be satisfactory to 
our agency'' (administrative record No. ND-Z-06).
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responded on December 17, 1997 and 
stated that the ``proposed changes are logical and reasonable.'' The 
letter also stated: ``I do not anticipate any significant impacts on 
Fish and Wildlife Resources as a result of the proposed rules'' 
(administrative record No. ND-Z-08).

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 amendment that relate to air or water quality standards 
promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
    Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited comments on the 
proposed amendment from EPA (administrative record No. ND-Z-03). It 
responded to OSM's request on September 30, 1997, and stated that it 
concurred with the proposed modifications (administrative record No. 
ND-Z-07).

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. 
ND-Z-03). Neither SHPO nor ACHP responded to OSM's request.

V. Director's Decision

    Based on the above findings, the Director approves North Dakota's 
proposed amendment as submitted on August 29, 1997, and as supplemented 
with additional explanatory information on April 23, 1998.
    The Director approves, as discussed in:
    Finding No. 1, NDAC 69-05.2-13-01, concerning the deletion of North

[[Page 12900]]

Dakota's requirement for mining companies to send the Coal Production 
and Reclamation Fee Report to the North Dakota Public Service 
Commission;
    Finding No. 2, NDAC 69-05.2-22-07.4.1, concerning the time frame 
for demonstrating reclamation success; and
    Finding No. 3, NDAC 69-05.2-28-19, concerning the inspection 
frequency of inactive surface coal mining operations.
    The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 934, codifying decisions 
concerning the North Dakota program, are being amended to implement 
this decision. This final rule is being made effective immediately to 
expedite the State program amendment process and to encourage States to 
bring their programs into conformity with the Federal standards without 
undue delay. Consistency of State and Federal standards is required by 
SMCRA.

VI. 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 12988

    The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required 
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (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 and 
program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated 
by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA 
(30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) 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.

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)).

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 
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 for the counterpart Federal regulations.

6. Unfunded Mandates

    This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any 
given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 934

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: February 25, 1999.
Brent Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating 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 934--NORTH DAKOTA

    1. The authority citation for part 934 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 934.15 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in 
chronological order by ``Date of Final Publication'' to read as 
follows:


Sec. 934.15  Approval of North Dakota regulatory program amendments.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Original amendment submission date       Date of final publication              Citation/description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 *                *                  *                  *                *                  *                  *
August 29, 1997.......................  March 16, 1999................  Rules: NDAC 69-05.2-13-01; NDAC 69-05.2-
                                                                         22-07.4.1; NDAC 69-05.2-28-19.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 99-6352 Filed 3-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M